Do you believe in the six degrees of separation?

The theory is that 2 people are only 6 steps or less away from each other via a friend-of-a-friend chain.

To prove that Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus or David Beckham are just 6 friend away from you, you just have to find a friend who knows someone who knows someone, 6 times or less, until they reach one of these celebrities. Using the same way, you can also prove a personal connection to anyone from a Papua New Guinea tribesman to Queen Elizabeth.

What I am interested in is whether anyone can think of a case to disprove this theory of six degrees. Anyone?

Why six but not five or seven?

Where is the studies for this theory?

Actually some say 5. The theory originated by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929. In 1961 another guy called Michael Gurevich did a detailed study of it in his phD paper.

You can google it up for more info.

ok now understand what is it. After reading : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

But I think this is just a statistic gimmick. Cause with each contact, the span of the connection becomes bigger. By the time it gets to six, the probability of getting you connected with another person is much much higher. Therefore, this theory becomes more "probable".

It's like saying you throw a dice for six times. You call out a number you want. By the time it's six times, your chances of getting the number becomes higher.

first you need to prove the six degree of seperation is true.

some remote aborigines with limited access to "outside world" also can be connected to some celebrities in 6 steps too?

Why not?

1. The aborigine has a friend in a nearby village.
2. That friend has a relative who works in town.
3. The relative has a boss whose cousin studies in Australia.
4. The cousin has a facebook fren in America.
5. The facebook fren has a sister who works as a talent agent in entertainment line.
6. The sister knows Justin Bieber in person.

it's all based on probability

1) the aborigine has a friend who has only one friend (that aborigine)
2) end of story

You missed out one line. That one friend has no other friends, acquaintances or family member that knows any other people.

---

Added on May 7, 2010, 2:01 pmBut if its already proven true, it removes any reason to prove it false right? A proven constant cannot carry two values.

Anyway I tested the theory on myself. Not the most scientific I know but it seems to hold water, mostly within 5 degrees. I'm just trying to think of a scenario that can poke a hole in that theory.


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 7 2010, 02:01 PM

no,it has to be falsifiable if it falls under science,even if a statement is proven to be true,you still have to formulate a condition in which the proven statement can be shown false...

Hmmm... can u give an example?

I can't wrap my mind around a scenario where I have 5 fingers (proven true) and a condition in which that statement can be shown false.

When you use celebrity as an end of the line, then your line will close in real fast, for celebrity works through relationship power, and the level of their fame will be determined by how efficient their network would work.

Try choose both end of the line from some nobody, for example, one that comes from a hermit country with minimal international trade and very limited internet connection such as North Korea, to some nobody from a remote area whereby his country has no historical trade relationship with North Korea. I have no idea but lets say Liberia.

With facebook and internet connection out of the reach, the connection will be seriously hampered.

If it takes 6 degree to connect a nobody to a celebrity, would you say it takes 12 degree to connect a nobody to a nobody?

This post has been edited by Vagrant: May 7 2010, 02:54 PM

e.g all swans are white,this is a falsifiable statement,its validity will be immediately rendered ineffective once a swan of different color is discovered...
if you cannot show under which circumstance a statement can be disproved,then it's not science,try looking at all of the scientific laws and theories,they all share the same property,i.e they are falsifiable,you can prove them wrong if counter evidence are found,though they're accepted as facts by scientists...
and note that science does not deal with absolute certainty,it changes with the discovery of new evidence...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 7 2010, 03:38 PM

True, but the all swans are white proposition would immediately attract the hasty generalization fallacy wouldn't it, just on the point that its a generalization. How it applies to the proposition there are 5 fingers on my hand I don't know, as its not a generalization but a specific physical manifestation. I wouldn't know how to disprove that I have 5 fingers.

We're in agreement then. I am trying to disprove the six degrees theory by trying to find one scenario that proves it false. Since the number 6 was an outcome of some guy's statistical analysis (I think), one can refute with an alternative analysis, maybe by checking if the sample size, sample choice or margin of error had led to a faulty conclusion. But we don't have the data so its much easier to just ask if anyone had seen a real black swan and prove the proposition false.

By starting a topic to ask for a disprovement experience/fact here would be a bit of a oxymoronic.

Those who participated in LYN webforum, most probably are well-connected via the internet social networking. Hence they are "unsuited" to be the 1st degree. But there might be chance they KNOW someone who are ultra-isolated, making that particular individual as 1st degree, and them as 2nd degree. Maybe there's a tiny chance you'll get what you wanted there

Without a real study, you guess is as good as mine.

Anyway it was probably a question like yours that led the original theory to come up with the number 6. If I was doing that study, I would definitely have taken the nobodies into account.

There's no need to formulate a scenario that can be used to disprove your finger assertion as it can be directly inferred from observation alone...
my point is whenever you make an assertion pertaining to science,you have to show in advance under what condition that the assertion will not hold and what will it take to make you disavow the assertion,that's what the meaning of falsifiability and how it is applied in science...

exactly...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 7 2010, 07:27 PM

Imagine it this way. Someone wrote a PhD thesis that claim all swans are white and becoz u have some doubt about it, you go to a forum like LYN and ask does anyone here know anyone who has ever seen a black swan? Not sure which part of that is oxymoronic.

Definitely no one in LYN is isolated, I agree. I wasn't asking for a real live case anyway. I was asking if you can imagine one scenario where this can be logically disproved. A thought experiment if you will.

Agree.

So lets take this to another level.

From abubin's wiki link:

"A Facebook platform application named “[Six Degrees]”[dead link] was developed by Karl Bunyan, which calculates the degrees of separation between different people.[citation needed] It has over 5.8 million users (as of December 20, 2009), as seen from the group's page. The average separation for all users of the application is 5.73 degrees, whereas the maximum degree of separation is 12."

Facebook serves one of the purpose of social networking in which it connects people. With Facebook/Internet, connections were reduced, for etc, some simply befriend with people that they would otherwise would not have known from the other side of the world. Yet with the help of technology, separation could go up to 12. Even then, less than 5% of the world population have facebook account.

Another problem is that it is best if you could take kids out of the equation, for you would need to consume at least 2 nodes to connect two kids between the end of the world, which means you must establish connection between a North Korean father and a Fijian father within 3 person or less to make your argument of 6 degree separation valid for those two kids.


So for a start, here are the case:

1. A 12 year old kid, home schooled, from North Korea. no access to internet.
2. The father of the 12 year old kid, Lighthouse keeper, hereby called as A
3. The employer of A
4.-------
5. The employer of B
6. The father of the 11 year old kid, sewage cleaner, hereby called as B
7. An 11 year old kid, home schooled, from Liberia, no money for internet.


The connection here, is on the assumption that the connection is best and least through the outside world by going through their father and the employer of their father. Now try connect employer A and employer B, you have to make assumption that all possible of employer A (for lighthouse keeper in north korea and their respective employer) must know employer B ( for all the employer of all sewage cleaner in Liberia)

I choose lighthouse keeper and sewage cleaner as a demonstration of the nature of their work, you could replace it with any work that requires a huge amount of time separated from the society.

This post has been edited by Vagrant: May 7 2010, 05:15 PM

As with any thought experiment, our imagination is the limit so I will try to give you a best case scenario to connect #3 to #5.

Lighthouse operators are usually connected to the shipping business. They provide coastal guideposts for ships.

Liberia is also connected with ships. It maintains a popluar maritime registry where it makes money.

There is a possible intersection point. #3 may at one time met #5 when he delivered oil to Pyongyang on a Liberian registered tanker. People connected to the same industry do cross paths. They may have met on shore break. #5 may have quit the shipping, went into self employment where he hired B.

So point #4 can happen under those circumstances.

To refresh on the previous scenario:

1. the sons of the lighthouse keeper are usually home schooled due to the nature of their work
2. the sons of the sewage cleaner are usually not able to attend school due to poverty.

Coming back to topic:

North Korea have very limited trade partners, the most notable being China and south korea. Liberia do not have relation with North Korea. No ships sails to and from in between. Liberian GDP is one of the smallest in the whole world, ranking below 180th, worst than North Korea. Most of the marine equipment are owned by foreign companies for point to point trades between the nation, even south korea does not own any.

But then again, instead of lighthouse keeper, it is more relevant to introduce a north korean farmer to be more exact considering the poor status of the nation.

Again, point #3 must know point no#5 without any ships sailing in between (wait, now its a farmer). For two nation without any trade relation, it reduces physical contact to the minimum. In addition, lack of internet connection cuts virtual connection to the minimum.

There is a reason why its been called a hermit nation.

As it would demonstrate here, poverty would create barrier for social connection.

Consider the above scenario again, and try out for several other connection between the poor north korean boy with a Nepalese boy.

---

Added on May 7, 2010, 6:42 pmIt is up to you to generate assumption on this thought experiment.




At the end of the day, you could try put yourself up and create such connection with the north korean boy

Put a thought, who in your friend circle is best to be put at point no#5, and if he is fit to be on that point, did he know any person from north korea or liberia, that could comfortably connects to the 12 year old home-schooled kid at the backyard?






This post has been edited by Vagrant: May 7 2010, 06:44 PM

I think the scenario you give might have endless permutations. Even no phone or internet won't prevent the A & B from crossing paths by other means, like on foot under the most weird coincidences. They still got refugees coming from North Korea, Liberia and other isolated countries who might meet, of all places, in New York City. Any number of them could start talking about the people in your scenario, maybe a friend or relative they left behind. Remote chance yes but not impossible.

I think a broken link is only possible if the two individuals A & B are completely isolated from birth, from each other and other humans, including from its own parents.

Example, a baby that is born in the jungle with no witnesses around and is immediately abandoned at birth. When the parents die, its one and only link to the outside world is broken. Nobody knew it was born, nobody knew it exist. As long as it doesn't meet anyone after that, it is truly alone.

If there is such a person alive, then we have proof that one black swan exist.

Not quite, it would then begs the definition of separation. Do you define a connection as any chance meeting in the street without knowing that such person had glanced a split second on you, or if connection between each degree could only be established when one knows the name of the other, whereby in your first post you mentioned friend of a friend chain.

If it is defined by friend to a friend chaining, you need not have so much of a permutations. You can start connecting to the North Korean boy right now through your friends.

To resume, Malaysia does not have diplomatic or trade relation with North Korea. Refugee is out of the question. If you happened to go to South Korea and meet one, you don't know who he was, again, there is no chain being established (unless you define chaining through any chance meeting).

And do understand that for a seclude tribe that have being living in jungle or a remote island for generations would escape from the six degree clause.


Such is the nature of the question, it is a double edged sword, while you could not let go the possibility that you could establish a six degree of separation with any living North Korean, you could not dispute the possibility that one of the mother would die while giving birth in the jungle

For you to hold the clause definitely true, you have to reject permutation of any possibility. If you accept such possibility, your clause is self-contradictory. Then renders it void.

---

Added on May 7, 2010, 10:15 pm

Lets change to a more technical approach.

Since the limit is six degree, consider the largest barrier is between nations without any trade or diplomatic relation.

We begin with North Korea and Malaysia. Since the longest must be within 6 degree, we give 3 degree of connection to each nation. Which means, there must be one person able to reach every North Korean within 3 steps and come to know a Malaysian that could connect to the whole Malaysian within 3 steps. Here internet connection is minimal to insignificant, for the low level of internet penetration in North Korea.

But since this is the longest chain, every North Korean would also be able to reach everyone within 3 steps and ditto for Malaysian.

Now as for TS, what would be your chain, to the most remote Iban or Kadazan folks and their children who never walks out of the village?

Consider the max is 2 chain for you to reach their children, do you know any North Korean? If you do, you could be the head of the chain to North Korea to establish the six degree chain. If you do not, you have to rely on another chain, which makes it a total of 4 chain in Malaysia for a total, and requires the whole nation in North Korea to establish connection within 2 steps. Read, the whole nation to establish all connection to your next chain in 2 steps. This practically renders every North Korean boy to know every North Korean adults.

Now what is your chain?

This post has been edited by Vagrant: May 7 2010, 10:20 PM

I can actually give you one example close to it. I know someone, for real, who's employed by the American INS (immigration & naturalization service). A relative who works in the section that handles refugees becoz of his ability to speak Chinese. He has handled defectors from China and N Korea. They tell him sad stories of the relatives and friends they left behind.

So I know my relative by name, he knows his refugees by name, and the refugees know the isolated children in some N Korean or Chinese village by name. There's only 3 hops between me and some kid in the isolated village.

Actually using the same method, I've tested the theory by drawing some personal mapping to some people on the planet. 5 hops to Obama, 4 hops to a woman living in the German Alps, 3 hops to one family in Heilongjiang where there's no internet, and 3 hops to an Israeli engineer residing in Israel, a country where Malaysia has no diplomatic relationship.

Yes this is a friend of a friend chain. Real friend, not facebook friend or a casual stranger overheard in the street. Everyone in the chain knows the connecting friend by name.



This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 7 2010, 10:35 PM

Not quite my friend, this is likely the fallacy of the shortest chain. For the clause to be plausible, the longest chain must not be more than 6 degree. that said, you manage to establish it within 4 chain, but not quite for your niece or your nephew, which then adds another chain and makes it five.

Even sad, you managed only to chained up one group, which they talk about of their relatives, and their friends, that's two chain there, less than 100 of North Korean. So you have 1 chain left for everyone in North Korea to chain up to the village kid or the refugee. That's millions of them.

The perception that you manage to chain up one group does not hold true to chain up the whole nation, read on the previous post on the chain again.

I am chained to you, that makes me no.5 also, so my son would be no.6. You just used all six degree on my end! Which means the refugee/defectors must be the last end and no more after the chain!!

Not to forget to chain the tribesman in sarawak and their children, you can't count on me. I don't know them. And yes, you need them in 1 chain.

This post has been edited by Vagrant: May 7 2010, 10:55 PM

The theory is based on the idea that everyone is at most six steps away from any other person on Earth, meaning if its less than 6 the theory still holds. The challenge is to find one example that is more than 6, or one that has zero.

True. I was just modeling my own case to test the hypothesis and not intending to generalize it to every North Korean.




This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 8 2010, 01:57 AM

(deleted)

This post has been edited by Shannon103: May 8 2010, 05:34 AM

its a plausible theory, but will be hard to proven through since probability plays a role

Consider this, you have 5 chain to Obama, that makes it six from you to obama's relative, or his daughter.
How about when you have a son, what are your son's chain?
my best chance to connect to obama is through you, as i hardly know anyone else.
The result, my chain to Sasha obama or obama's relative is 7. It does not end here, I haven't consider my relatives yet, some of whom are toddler now.

Coming back to the North Korea case, since you do not know any North Korean, the longest chain in Malaysia is therefore 4, note that this has to be the longest chain, you must not have any chain longer than 4, or any other malaysian which do not have known any north korean should not have longer than 4 in succession.

Which comes to 2 chain left for you to connect any North Korean, thus renders any toddler in North Korean to know all North Korean adults. This is easily disproves, for the limit of time and geographical constraint, all toddler in North Korea are unable to connect and know all adults in North Korea.

Also note that this does not matter if any other Malaysian that have a chain of 2 or less that could comes to connect to any North Korean would save this case, for the longest chain is the weakest chain, in this case, you.

This post has been edited by Vagrant: May 8 2010, 10:01 AM

You have a good point there. Why didn't think of that. Thanks!

of course less than six still holds. its a no brainer. Doesn't merit an in-depth discussion on its on.

There are many examples which are more than 6.

degree 1: a hermit, orphaned since birth, decides to go live in the jungle/mountains away from society
...
degree n (n>6): another hermit, orphaned since birth, decides to go live in another jungle from another side of the world.

there is NO CHALLENGE in thinking of the various examples which disprove/broke the 6-degree rule.since its a thought experiment, simply think of the MOST LOGICAL case of 2 humans on earth who are least connected to the rest of the world/humans. I bet you can provide dozens more examples. same goes for other members too.

You're overtaxing your brain. You seem like discussing for the sake of discussing. zero degree? what do you actually mean by zero degree
? Are you trying to prolong the discussion by introducing extra element which actually doesn't fit in?

between a human and another related human.. already 1 degree-chaining. What is your understanding of "zero degree" in this context? a human and his own soul ? a human vs his alter ego? a angel side of human vs his devil side?

a bit more.

ZERO degree means a human with no connection whatsoever. Possible but not alive for long.

As soon a human is born, the only way to reduce his connection would be. the mom died during childbirth, the dad died earlier. That disconnect the baby from almost everyone. For a zero-degree human, highly unprobable he'll make it to childhood, unless he's being cared by lets say another relative or friend or another human, we call X. hence X shall be that baby/human's 1st degree already.




This post has been edited by alanyuppie: May 8 2010, 12:19 PM

Please refrain from making personal attacks in this thread.

From LYN forum rules:
Do not troll or flame. Do not intentionally post inflammatory message.

It is all based on probability. I dont believe that this theory works for everyone in the world, as there are some people who live alone with no contact to the outside world.

It works for majority of the world's population though, especially in this modern age with facebook, forums and social networking

I'm going to do a very crude and unscientific calculation. It won't be valid for hermits in the mountains and such people, but maybe for standard people in a modern society it will work.

I have about 400 friends on Facebook. From what I observe, that number is about average. Besides that I have some acquaintances whom I did not add, and many relatives and older people I know who do not use Facebook. This would probably push the number of people I know to maybe 600.

I'm from Kuala Lumpur, a big city. So if we hypothesize that people from smaller places would know fewer friends, maybe we set the average at 300. So one person would be connected to 300 others.

Six degrees of separation. The first degree would be 300. Second degree would be 300 x 300, as each of your 300 friends would have 300 friends of his or her own. So the total figure as we go to the full 6 degrees would be 300 to the power of 6. This comes up to 729 x 10 to the power of 12.

729,000,000,000,000 (12 zeroes,)

Since the world population is about 6,697,254,041, according to the World Bank, this is definitely more than enough to connect the whole world.

That sounds like a reasonable idea, sparda.

Of course, the exception would be the outliers... the hermits as you say. We were looking for that proverbial black swan that would invalidate the hypothesis.

p/s you got mascara running down your nose (yr avatar) but you probably knew that already.

BTW, you didint reduce about mutual friend too, that make the number you calculated to be that much....

Still, i think this part of this theory is based on probability also... Maybe friend of your friend ( 6 times according to the theory) knows Jackie Chan , maybe the chain isnt connected too...

It may prove positive result and negative result, but i think that many of them will give a positive result except you conduct the experiment on those guy who keep themselve on gaming world everyday... ( Please dont country friend in facebook , they dont even knw you in person )

Just my 2cent, please correct me if i am wrong