Groups vs. Networks
Ken Anderson is puzzled by some of Stephen Downes’ ideas on different kinds of social collective. I missed the Feb 18 Elluminate session in cck11 that Ken refers to but I do recall earlier postings from Stephen on what he calls Groups vs Networks and also some comments he made in one of the PLENK2010 sessions regarding the virtues of a “flat” network (with all nodes having a similar scale of connectivity) over the power law pattern of a scale-free network in which small fractions of the nodes are relatively highly connected. And I recall being puzzled at the time by Stephen’s preference for “stability” of the flatter network over the kind of rapid propagation of change (“cascade” phenomena) that is facilitated by the power law distribution of connectivity. I don’t recall if I spoke up at the time but I was tempted to ask why cascades of new ideas are not to be encouraged and where the line should be drawn between “stability” and “stagnation”. Any comments here to help with these issues would be welcome.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:29 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Frances Bell, ISOS Salford and Ken Anderson, Alan Cooper. Alan Cooper said: Groups vs. Networks in #cck11 http://bit.ly/ear9jH […]
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:02 am
I posted this in a CCK11 discussion forum at:
http://cck11.mooc.ca/post/55025
>a mesh structure is preferred, because it is more stable.
>and makes the network more stable
What exactly do you mean by “more stable”? Do you mean resistant to change, a sort of annealing or hardening process, as you used the term in your elluminate prez of Feb 18th?
February 24th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
A mesh provides stability against damage by providing redundancy so that communication through the network is not interrupted by destruction or loss of a small part of it (this is why the internet was invented in the first place).
February 25th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
I can see how redundancy is good for an electric grid and similar networks. What would it have to do with a social network? Or a learning network?
February 26th, 2011 at 12:26 am
Stephen also (in the PLENK session I referred to in the post above) spoke of being concerned that the “unstable” power-law network may be susceptible to “cascade” phenomena of sudden change. Perhaps a more “stable” network would be less susceptible to the rapid propagation via highly connected “leaders” of new fads like … well whatever you can think of. But if you are thinking of what I suspect you are, then your wish to escape to a more isolated zone of sober second thought is, ironically, evidence in support of the idea that Stephen is right.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Not sure I agree with your conclusion. The objection Stephen Downes makes to cascade phenomena is the argument that the states of the connected nodes will become equal rapidly due to the presence of the leaders etc. I suggested that a ‘thinking node’ might not succumb to this state-change so automatically, but might enjoy the rapid access to the information transmitted by the leader, in effect resisting a rapid state change while enjoying the connection.