Network Centrality: Pros and Cons of Male Enhancement

Just in time for my last installment on network centrality, I have learned that Google now ranks Connectedness the #1 site on the Web for "pros and cons of male enhancement." It's tempting to take credit and say that this honor was the result of long, hard work on my part; but it was endowed upon me more by the fates of centrality than by anything I did. (Those who doubt my boast and are not afraid to look, click here: http://www.google.com/search?q=pros+and+cons+of+male+enhancement.)

Without taking anything away from the experts who have filled my blog with their thoughts on the topic, I now want to make perfectly clear my position on male enhancement: The field of collective leadership needs it bad, especially the non-profit/social-change sector.

I love working with collective leadership programs, and I am fortunate to do so regularly. The recipe for this work adapts to the participants, but it almost always involves something like the picture at right. See W.K. Kellogg Foundation's Collective Leadership Framework and the D.C. Leadership Learning Community's Nature of Collective Leadership for more.

In other sectors, collective leadership draws less with crayons and uses other more dangerous sticks. Speaking of collective leadership in the field of science, John Ziman says that each individual's contribution is "merely a tiny tentative step forward, through the jungles of ignorance." I don't think his savage choice of setting --- where only the fittest survive, thanks to teeth, claws, and other weapons --- was any accident.

My Introduction to Web Programming class has filled up again for this fall. It's my personal collective leadership learning lab. How can I equip 75 computer-illiterate college kids with the wherewithal to make their own websites (like these)? I can't. But together, they can. I facilitate my students' learning by dropping them into the Internet jungle and encouraging them to trust their own most primitive hacking instincts.

In the spirit of crayons and group hugs, my first gift to my students each term is an online discussion forum where they are encouraged to share anything relevant to the class. Speaking to a ballroom-full of faculty about his experience, Will Mundel noted first and foremost that "Thanks to the online forum we used in CS-103, students stop being individuals in a class. Rather, they are all in it together."

I am honored by Will's comment, but that's not the whole story of how my students learn to build their own websites. Underlying the experience of the class is a curriculum I have modeled on the traditional male rite of passage: (1) Throw a boy out of society into the wilderness; (2) Let him suffer and learn; and (3) Welcome the transformed man back into society. (That's my paraphrasing. Here's what the American Psychological Association says about this method of transformational learning.) If you look closely at this gallery of student projects, you'll see a quote from another student that speaks directly to her painful but ultimately victorious journey alone through the wilderness.

After subjecting my students to this webified passage of suffering, I top it off with a month-long tournament of hand-to-hand combat. Within the cage of this special-built wiki, the students compete for Google-rank supremacy. This part of the class evolved from my desire to translate the inner workings of the Google centrality algorithm into the real-life experience of the kids.

Inviting students into this kind of centrality-based competition is not easy. My first attempt provoked class revolt because students perceived the rankings as an unfair system of grading their work. (The fact that the competition had no impact on actual grades was irrelevant to this revolt.) My second attempt went smoothly: I was careful to provide a fair system for peer reviews in parallel with the same centrality-based competition. With fair peer reviews in hand, the students no longer were bothered by the arbitrariness of centrality rankings.

Last spring was my third and by far most successful use of the centrality competition. Not only was there no resentment at the arbitrariness of centrality rankings, but there was a positive embracing of the system. Students discovered how to form alliances and deliberately manipulate the Google algorithm into boosting their own rankings. A flurry of new links and surprise defections preceded the day of our awards ceremony. Three alliances shared top honors. When I refused to award a prize to one of the alliances because their team leader had skipped class that day, his teammates/co-conspirators texted him and made him show up, 20 minutes late, so that they could receive their prize: a one-half of one percent boost in final course grade.

Technical postscript: For those wondering how it's possible to share top honors in a Google centrality competition, the answer is quite technical. From this more-or-less readable description of the Google algorithm, you can discover a "damping factor" that Google does not allow users to see or edit. I provide my students with a Google centrality calculator that allows them to edit this damping factor to whatever they want. Changing the damping factor can sometimes change the winner of the rankings; I award first prize to anyone who can find a damping factor value that puts them atop the rankings. In the following network, every single node with a label can win the Google centrality contest with the right damping factor:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2008 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.

Network Centrality: Making us Lazy Conformists, Says NSF

[Ed note: This is the last tangent before we really finally close the network centrality thread with a positive note, coming soon.]

The NSF reports today: "The Internet gives scientists and researchers instant access to an astonishing number of academic journals. So what is the impact of having such a wealth of information at their fingertips? The answer, according to new research released today in the journal Science, is surprising--scholars are actually citing fewer papers in their own work, and the papers they do cite tend to be more recent publications. This trend may be limiting the creation of new ideas and theories."

This is an argument for Google-induced stupidity that I can agree with (unlike last week's).

My only beef with the NSF blurb is the notion that anything "surprising" is happening here. There is plenty of evidence of our lemming-like ways in other contexts; we should expect a human tendency to dive over the cliff of the web's dark side. Here's a first-person demonstration. By doing a bit of Googling I can share the first decent link that pops up to support the claim that humans are lemmings: Conversation, Information, and Herd Behavior, in the American Economic Review, 1995. Using Google in this way, I can feel myself regressing into a rodent even now.

One of the first, most famous and shocking demonstrations of human lemmingness was devised by Solomon Asch in the 1950's. Most people after reading this story find it hard to believe that it could happen to them. I had the "good fortune" to be tricked by my college psychology professor into Asch's trap, exposing my irrational lemmingness for all my 200 classmates to see. I have no doubt that I am a weak-willed conformist.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2007 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.

Network Centrality: Making Us Stupid, Says Atlantic Monthly

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" asks Nicholas Carr on the cover of this month's Atlantic Monthly. In a nutshell, Carr laments the decline of "deep reading" and suspects that we are losing "deep thinking" as well. I would not argue the "deep reading" point, but the connection to "deep thinking" is debatable and surely this excellent rebuttal is not the last blog post that will take Carr to task.

Here I will argue Carr on a different point. About two-thirds into his essay, he says:

"Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the men who founded Google, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence. 'The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,' Page said in a speech a few years back. 'For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.' In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, 'Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.' ....

[Carr continues] "Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ.... Still, their easy assumption that we’d all 'be better off' if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized."

Two counterarguments immediately come to mind in response to the above:

1. For many of us, it is quite natural to believe that intelligence can be the output of a mechanical process. I suspect I am in a minority on this point, so for those who are curious to consider intelligence outside the stuff of brains, I simply recommend the book, The Mind's Eye, a collection of essays around this topic edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.
2. In the passage above, there is a belief espoused explicitly by Brin and implicitly by Carr that is even more unsettling (at least to me) than the notion of mechanized intelligence: That we'd be "better off" if we were smarter. Read Carr's entire essay and you'll see that, just like his essay title suggests, he is very pro-smart and anti-dumb. I'll grant that with more intelligence, we have a way to boast of being "better than..."; but being "better off" is another question altogether.
   

In short, Carr's passion for intelligence combined with his strict accounting of its boundaries are a recipe for fundamentalism.

...

My regular readers may be wondering what happened to the "celebration of competitiveness" that I promised last time. Or maybe, what does any of this have to do with networks? Good questions. I beg your patience, dear reader-- I just could not resist this tangent, and I promise to celebrate centrality, measurement, and competitiveness soon. Meanwhile, I close with this chapter from the Tao Te Ching, which comments on the consequences of increasing intelligence:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2008 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.

Network Centrality: More Current Events

Last week we kicked off our "Separation of Network Power" series in honor of the June 12 Supreme Court ruling on hearings for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

This week we'll continue the series, inspired by Congressional action of June 19 to let the White House and phone companies off the hook for warrantless tapping of domestic US communications since 2001.

Showing how far one branch of government can implicitly subjugate itself to another, Congressional Democrats claimed victory for including a special clause in the law that prohibits the White House from breaking it. In the words of the NY Times:

The most important [White House] concession that Democratic leaders claimed was an affirmation that the intelligence restrictions were the “exclusive” means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts “that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi said.

In the wiretapping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House asserted that the president had the constitutional authority to act outside the courts in allowing the National Security Agency to focus on the international communications of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists and that Congress had implicitly authorized that power when it voted to use military force against Al Qaeda.

Network centrality and the executive branch make for tough competitors in the struggle not only to separate but also to balance the powers of the collective. Last time I lamented the dark side of centrality and competition. Next time I'll celebrate the good side.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2008 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.

Network Centrality: Size Does Matter

Today, the summer solstice, ranks with sunrises and full moons as one of the original inspirations to human time-telling and measurement. Here is a a classic New Yorker cartoon showing what that moment might have looked like.

We have come a long way since then. As recounted by author Dava Sobel, our ability to measure time with precision turned out to be the final critical breakthrough that enabled us to navigate across oceans, rather than simply drift and hope for a safe harbor to appear on the horizon. As the cartoon attests, however, we paid a high psychological price for this ticket to global connectedness. We measure time not just to travel over the horizon but also to worry about getting there soon enough.

So it is with network centrality. No matter what kind of network centrality catches your fancy, it can both empower you to navigate farther and more accurately across great "distances," and it can nag you with the question of how well you measure up.

One big difference between time and centrality is that unlike time, which rests on rhythms of nature (earth, moon, sun, cesium atoms, etc), centrality is a mathematical abstraction with a maddeningly circular non-grounding in reality. In other words, when it comes to centrality, "perception is reality." Martin Kilduff and David Krackhardt argue this much more rigorously in their Analysis of the Internal Market for Reputation in Organizations, which states: "We found that being perceived to have a prominent friend boosted reputation, but that actually having such a friend had no effect." The implications of this result for the practice of ONA consulting could not be more profound.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2008 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.

Network Centrality: All Your Links Are Belong to Us

Yesterday was a full moon. Tomorrow is the longest day of the year. What better day to celebrate the brightest metric known to network science: centrality.

Connectedness celebrates centrality by putting Google, the world's most popular centrality-based tool, to work. For any set of keywords you can imagine, Google points you to the center of that universe. Each link below does exactly that, using the highlighted text as the keywords. Results are real-time and may change after this post goes to press.

• Network Centrality: The center of this universe is Steve Borgatti. Yeah!
• Organizational Network: The center of this universe is Valdis Krebs. Kudos to you, Valdis. I am jealous.
• Community Network: Apparently centered in Seattle. Interesting. How did Seattle beat out Portland, OR?
• Collaboration, Innovation: Centered on Dave Pollard. This confirms my excellent impression of him from a couple months ago--which was the first I heard of him.
• Leadership, and most other words you care to look up: Wikipedia has the first answer you will find.

No celebration of centrality would be complete without asking, "What universe am I the center of?" For Connectedness, the answer is: sears refrigerator customer service repairman. To all my readers, let me say: Welcome to the inner sanctum.

While you're celebrating having "arrived," let me add that this weekend is the fourth birthday of Connectedness. All the more reason for jubilation.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2007 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.

Holy Trinity of Network Power

Last Thursday the US Supreme Court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have a right to hear and to challenge the reasons for their detention.

Eric M. Freedman, a habeas corpus expert at Hofstra University Law School, called the decision "a structural reaffirmation of what the rule of law means," and said it was as important a ruling on the separation of powers as the Supreme Court has ever issued, according to the NY Times.

Dating back at least to ancient Greeks, the separation of powers traditionally splits state power into three parts: executive, legislative, and judicial.

Over the next few posts, Connectedness will celebrate the separation of powers by comparing each of its three components to three notable pillars of the network perspective: centrality, clustering, and structural equivalence.

Stay tuned for something like this:

Politics	Networks	Easy-to-Remember Stereotype
Executive	Centrality	Tyrannical Dictator
Legislative	Clustering	Mob of Special Interests
Judicial	Structural Equivalence	Politically Unaccountable Intelligentsia

Hopefully by July 4th, we'll have celebrated all three.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and is copyrighted (c) 2008 by Connective Associates LLC except where otherwise noted.