^Not all social networks select the best ideas. Instead, the makeup of a social network and which components of that network have influence can affect which ideas come out on top in that network.
^This might seem surprising. Many people seem to have two intuitions that work against the idea that different social networks can propel different ideas to the top: that quality always wins out in the end and that people will choose the best option regardless of other people’s opinions.
It turns out, however, that both of these intuitions are wrong.
^Results of a study done by sociologist Duncan Watts and his collaborators,
Matthew Salganik and Peter Dodds, in the mid-2000s suggest that, at the very least, structures of social networks make a difference as to the quality of the information that you draw from those networks. In particular, they demonstrate that popularity on a network matters: Small differences in the popularity of an idea can make a big difference with respect to the spread of that idea, and that difference can’t be explained through appeal to the intrinsic quality of the idea itself.
^This suggests that the structure of a social network is not irrelevant when analyzing the ideas that become popular on that social network.
Furthermore, we can also use different measures for distinguishing between
Theories of Knowledge LECTURE 19 Testimony through social networks
good and bad ideas. Given our interest in knowledge, one obvious measure that we could use to distinguish between ideas would be in terms of how true or accurate they are.
^Taken altogether, this means that popularity on a social network is not a guarantee of how true or accurate that idea is. Different social network structures, in particular, can differ with respect to how well they do in making the true ideas popular and ensuring that the popular ideas in the social network are also true and accurate. In other words, if you’re lucky enough to be in a social network in which the successful ideas are also true, then you’ll end up endorsing many true ideas, but if you’re unlucky and find yourself in a social network in which the successful ideas aren’t all that reliably accurate, then you’ll end up with a lot of misinformation.
^From the components of Dunbar’s number, weak ties, and network effects, two big conclusions can be drawn about how we actually gain information from testimony.
] The social groups in which we’re embedded are often too large and complex for us to keep track of the individual reliability of each of the members of those social groups. The “too large” part of this claim is derived from the discussion of Dunbar’s number.
Even if you focus on the most
too large for you to keep track, in a very systematic or reliable way, of how accurate each of those 150 people is with respect to all of the information he or she passes along. The “too complex”
part of the claim comes from the importance of weak ties. It’s hard enough to keep track of your casual acquaintances. But it’s not possible for you to keep track of the casual acquaintances of your casual acquaintances’
casual acquaintances—though it’s these acquaintances that explain your weak ties. And given the importance of weak ties, these are the acquaintances that make a difference with respect to the sort of information that your social network gives you.
] The structure of our social networks can contribute to our acquiring reliably accurate information just because of our embeddedness in those networks. The first reason is due, again, to Christakis and Fowler’s discussion of weak social ties. According to them, a large amount of your information will be from people with whom you have no direct connection, not even casually. If you’re lucky enough, however, to have a network such that even those with whom you’re only connected through weak ties are reliably accurate informants, then you’ll gain a lot of reliably accurate information, just by
Theories of Knowledge LECTURE 19 Testimony through social networks
network. The second reason is due to the power of social networks to influence the ideas that we accept—
which we do so in large measure because they are popular rather than because they are “good”
or true.
^Suppose there was a social network in which the popular ideas were true, and vice versa. If you were lucky enough to be embedded in such a
network, you would end up believing a lot of reliably accurate information.
It might be the case that you’re believing the information because it’s popular in your network, and not because it’s true, or because you know it’s true. But for our purposes right now, that’s fine. The point would still remain: The structure of your social network would contribute to your reliably acquiring accurate information.
O ur new theory is a form of externalism. It doesn’t require that we consciously screen out unreliable sources from reliable ones, but it’s a social externalism in that the screening process is completely off-loaded from the individual to the social network or networks in which he or she is embedded.
If the components of Dunbar’s number, weak ties, and network effects are taken together, they suggest that a social network can serve to ensure that the information you receive from your network is reliably accurate. That’s the foundation of social externalism.
]Carter, Clark, Kallestrup, Palermos, and Pritchard, eds., Socially Extended Epistemology.
Huebner, Macrocognition.
]
reAdings
yTheories of Knowledge LECTURE 19 Testimony through social networks
QUIZ
1 TrUe or fAlse
Dunbar’s numbers were predicted by computing the ratio of the volume of the neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for tracking complex information, to the total volume of the brain.
2 TrUe or fAlse
In a study of word-of-mouth referrals of piano teachers reported in Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler’s Connected, more than a third of referrals came from friends of friends of friends of the teachers’
clients.
3 The spread of information across society depends on which of the following?
a Many people having a lot of friends
b A few people who are extremely social c Weak ties—connections
with people who are a few degrees removed
4 TrUe or fAlse
According to the work of Duncan Watts and his colleagues, social influence is irrelevant to the success of, for example, a song; only the quality of the song ultimately matters.
Theories of Knowledge LECTURE 19 QUIZ