The Social Network of Effects
The scenario- two customers walk into a restaurant. One leaves happily. The other has lots of complaints about service, quality of food, friendliness of staff and high pricing of insufficient food.
The complainer makes loud voices. He starts complaining on social media and directly to his friends. They in turn do the same. The snowballing effect starts.
The happy customer is less active. He reports his satisfaction on
one social media platform and too few friends.
The accumulation effect starts. A considerable group of people standing by the complainer. A much smaller group caring for the happy customer. The polarizing effect starts. Following the stage of the Polarizing Effect comes the crowdedness effect in the big group. In some big groups some people feel neglected. The negligence effect initiates. The neglected individuals leave.
Here the dynamics become entangled whereby many forces operate. The big group attracts more members because people feel safer and wiser when they join bigger groups. It is what I call “The Grocery Effect” in operation. If there are two neighboring grocery shops one is crowded and the other is almost empty, which one would you buy from? Convenience would prompt you to go to the less crowded one. But then why is it almost empty? Why don’t other people go for their comfort as well? Most likely this shop is more expensive, or the customer isn’t well-received. Follow the crowd again and buy from the crowded one.
People in the large group may divert their attention to more important issues. The substitution effect starts. These people leak out of the group together with the members who feel neglected or unable to move freely in the crowded space. Other people develop different attitude to a rising issue have different perspectives now. They decide to leave the group and initiate a new group. Other people leave because of the Cliché Effect. They keep hearing the same words and feel bored. They leave and may join a new hive or group. Other members of the group may leave because of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Low-ability people tend to over-estimate their ability because of their association with able people. The association effect prompts some members to join friends for they have been together for some time. If not, the feelings of betrayal may prevail leading to strong repellence between them.
The social media has produced
a network of effects. I tried to summarize them in the background image of
this buzz. Are these emerging effects? One example our tendencies to do a favor
or action for a person who would not have the same level of tendency to return
favor. You like an author and like his/her buzz. You are more ready now to like
more of his buzzes. This is known as the Ben Franklin
You may have noticed that in exchanging discussions with others that you ended holding up the opinion of the person that you were trying to convince. This kind of “reverse results” is known as the boomerang effect.
This applies to the dynamics of hives a well. A person may initiate a new hive group. I wonder if the Founder Effect would initiate as well. A founder effect occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. This small population size means that the colony may have:
· Reduced genetic variation from the original population.
· A non-random sample of the genes in the original population
Will having very specialized hives lead to genetic variations of the groups as well?
Social networks have very complex dynamics and trying to predict the future is like trying to paint an airplane while on flight.
I dedicate this buzz to Purnima Menon who has been so kind and appreciative of my late buzzes.