Shaping Networks

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

People shape networks.

Networks shape people.

Back in 1990, my “PSC-352: Modern Political Ideologies in the Techno-Managerial Society” class had a multi-week project. We were to completely remake and reform Education in the United States. From the ground up. With no regard for sacred cows.

That was the mandate, and we had two weeks’ worth of class meetings (four 75-minute blocks) to do it. However, we had to work in self-selected teams, based on prevailing themes.

Elitists – Those who identified with the idea that some people are just better than others, and are more fit to lead… and that an educational system ought to identify those capable of higher achievement and nurture them to their potential greatness.

Humanists – Those governed by the notion that all students are capable, and should be given the opportunity to prove their worth and interests. A more egalitarian approach that incorporates values of fairness and social justice.

Dystopians – Those who felt as though hell was already upon us, and ready to stash us in the handbasket. The Dystopians preached that we were headed for the inevitable, so we might as well take the steps to minimize the impact and the duration of the coming Dark Age.

Certainly, it wasn’t a perfect way to divide, as there are ways in which people could fit into multiple categories (or even none.) But that was the assignment, and after having the philosophies clearly explained and delineated, we divided up. The Humanists met on one side of the room, the Elitists on the other, and the Dystopians gathered in the back.

The Shape of Things

Being a Curmudgeon far before my time, I was a Dystopian. And we were okay with being in the back of the room, because out of 50 people in the class, there were exactly four of us. The rest were split evenly between the Elitists and the Humanists.

We got right to business, starting with questioning the assumptions about what our education systems do versus what they really do. Then we started tackling the issues of who ought to provide education, and how much we needed to be reliant on a certification/specialization model. It was 1990, and we didn’t know much about this internet fad, other than I had a profile on IRC and could log into the mainframe with my Toshiba T-1000 laptop.

We plugged away, but after the first couple of class sessions we noticed something about the rest of the room.

The Humanists had arranged their seats in a wide circle that took up more than half the width of the room. They were so far apart from one another, they struggled to hear what anyone was saying. Additionally, there was no focus, and no place anyone could look for notes or reference.

Conversely, the Elitists took what space they could along a diagonal, and were pressed into a cluster. Those in the middle of the cluster were dominating the conversation, and those on the outer banks of Eliteville seemed rather disengaged from the exercise. But there was a lot of activity fermenting in the center. More than we knew, apparently.

After working for a full week, I walked over to my professor, Dr. Daniel Pound.

“Hey, we just noticed that the Humanists were sitting in a perfect circle, and the Elitists were involved in a power struggle in the middle of the pack.”

He answered, “The bastards do it every single time.”

Subdivisions

There are some components of human behavior that are so hard-wired into us that we have to work consciously to overcome them. The Humanists just couldn’t help being so egalitarian in their seating — and the Elitists couldn’t be faulted for fighting to be the Elites of the Elite.

There was yet another “It happens every year” moment to come. Near the beginning of the third class session, one of the Elites walked over and asked if he could join the Dystopians. We gladly accepted him, and brought him up to speed on our progress. He was astonished to see what we had accomplished, and immediately started contributing some ideas to our framework. He also told us about what had happened back in Clusterville.

Apparently, there were two different flavors of Elites. For lack of a better division, you could say that it came down to Nature versus Nurture. Those who saw the need to preserve societal structures and norms, and those who wanted a pure meritocracy.

He didn’t just join us out of the goodness of his heart, or from a dark epiphany. He was kicked off the island a full ten years before Jeff Probst started snuffing torches. His flavor of Elitism was out of favor with the ruling party, and he hitched a ride to the back of the room. Which, ultimately was okay with him, because the Elitists hadn’t really done much in the way of real work yet.

Pudding and Proof

On the day we were to unveil our recommendations, the Dystopians sat in the back with our copious outlines and notes. We already knew who would present which parts, and the gameplan was set.

The Elitists and Humanists were still furiously at work, or something that looked like work only noisier and less efficient. The desks in Clusterville were only partially clustered from the orderly rows of regular seating, and the Humanists hadn’t moved their desks, but instead stood hunched over a couple of desks as closely as they could without anyone claiming a more central position than another.

The Humanists were supposed to go first, but 30 minutes into the class period were nowhere near ready. With their backs turned outward, they were in no position to see Dr. Pound walk to the back, drop a piece of chalk in my hand, and say “Will you kindly get this class underway, Mr. Pigott?”

I had filled one full column of the blackboard before any of the Humanists noticed I was there. I had been spotted by the disengaged Elitists in the dark outer reaches of Preference’s Oort Cloud, and they were taking notes before I started speaking.

After we finished, Dr. Pound ordered the Humanists and Elitists to be ready to start their presentations first thing on Thursday – which apparently is another thing that happened in this exercise every year.

Psychology, Topology and Networks

It’s too easy to be mean to the Humanists, and say they’re unqualified to have informed opinions about education. Likewise, you can’t slam the Elites (of either flavor.) Their failure to complete the assignment had more to do with the size of their groups than the way they tried to organize, right?

Wrong.

It had everything to do with their size, because networks beyond a certain point must have an internal structure and rules. In the case of the Humanists and Elitists, the rules were never expressly stated, but were assumed by most of the members and became fact. Those involved in designing and creating networks have to be conscious of the unspoken rules and mores that people will bring with them from the outside. It’s why you can create a social network for accountants and one for gamers and get completely different vibes from each.

Lacking rules, we will make our own. People shape networks.

And the rules we wish into existence might not work with the people who must abide them. Networks shape people, up until the point where the behavioral sculpture becomes uncomfortable and members leave for a new community.

Think about that, the next time you see networks that change the rules mid-stream.

Think about that, the next time you start extrapolating “universal truths” about social structures. Were the conclusions a function of the rules, or a natural outgrowth of the early adopters?