Facebook Claims Only 3.46 Degrees Of Separation

According to Facebook, that whole "six degrees of separation" thing is really only 3.46 degrees of separation in the United States.

How connected is the world? Playwrights [1], poets [2], and scientists [3] have proposed that everyone on the planet is connected to everyone else by six other people. In honor of Friends Day, we've crunched the Facebook friend graph and determined that the number is actually 3.57. Each person in the world (at least among the 1.59 billion people active on Facebook) is connected to every other person by an average of three and a half other people. The average distance we observe is 4.57, corresponding to 3.57 intermediaries or "degrees of separation." Within the US, people are connected to each other by an average of 3.46 degrees.

Facebook "friends" (hate that term) are not a degree of separation any more than picking random customers out of my database at work are.

Advil said:

Facebook "friends" (hate that term) are not a degree of separation any more than picking random customers out of my database at work are.

Click to expand...

More or less this.

So many people who are "friends" on FB are just random people, fake, popular accounts etc etc, they really have no personal relationship with each other whatsoever.

+1 I have 60 friends... and dropping (that's a good thing) If I don't know you or give a damn about you, you aren't going to be on my friends list. The concept of "look how important I am, I have 1200 friends" is bullshit and the mark of someone completely shallow and feeble minded.

Just because a good percentage of the world falls for the facebook game doesn't mean they all know each other.

So I'm even closer to Kevin Bacon than I thought?

Facebook "friends" (hate that term) are not a degree of separation any more than picking random customers out of my database at work are.

Click to expand...

More or less this.

So many people who are "friends" on FB are just random people, fake, popular accounts etc etc, they really have no personal relationship with each other whatsoever.

Click to expand...

+1 I have 60 friends... and dropping (that's a good thing) If I don't know you or give a damn about you, you aren't going to be on my friends list. The concept of "look how important I am, I have 1200 friends" is bullshit and the mark of someone completely shallow and feeble minded.

Just because a good percentage of the world falls for the facebook game doesn't mean they all know each other.

Click to expand...

Degrees of separation doesn't require that I know the other people, just that there is some form of connection between us (no matter how remote). Facebook friends definitely meet that requirement as much as the other methods identified in "6 Degrees of Separation"

<cue golf clap>

I don't have any Facebook friends and I like it!

kbrickley said:

Degrees of separation doesn't require that I know the other people, just that there is some form of connection between us (no matter how remote). Facebook friends definitely meet that requirement as much as the other methods identified in "6 Degrees of Separation"

Click to expand...

No.

The 6 degrees, the first, where you have to start, are friends, the tests done with this required them to be friends you were on a first name basis with. Someone that I click "send friend request" to does not count, nor does the robot/spammer/celebrity with 1million "friends" count, if you are going to include bots and the like, then there would be zero degree of separation between most people.

"In 1967, American sociologist Stanley Milgram devised a new way to test the theory, which he called "the small-world problem." He randomly selected people in the mid-West to send packages to a stranger located in Massachusetts. The senders knew the recipient's name, occupation, and general location. They were instructed to send the package to a person they knew on a first-name basis who they thought was most likely, out of all their friends, to know the target personally. That person would do the same, and so on, until the package was personally delivered to its target recipient.

Although the participants expected the chain to include at least a hundred intermediaries, it only took (on average) between five and seven intermediaries to get each package delivered. Milgram's findings were published in Psychology Today and inspired the phrase "six degrees of separation.""

Typical Facebook Fail.

All these people already have something in common: Facebook.
Our study of shallow and feeble minded people shows that they are shallow and feeble minded.

Anyone not on Facebook wasn't included in the study, and are much more likely to be the opposite of this studies findings.

BlueFireIce said:

No.

The 6 degrees, the first, where you have to start, are friends, the tests done with this required them to be friends you were on a first name basis with. Someone that I click "send friend request" to does not count, nor does the robot/spammer/celebrity with 1million "friends" count, if you are going to include bots and the like, then there would be zero degree of separation between most people.

"In 1967, American sociologist Stanley Milgram devised a new way to test the theory, which he called "the small-world problem." He randomly selected people in the mid-West to send packages to a stranger located in Massachusetts. The senders knew the recipient's name, occupation, and general location. They were instructed to send the package to a person they knew on a first-name basis who they thought was most likely, out of all their friends, to know the target personally. That person would do the same, and so on, until the package was personally delivered to its target recipient.

Although the participants expected the chain to include at least a hundred intermediaries, it only took (on average) between five and seven intermediaries to get each package delivered. Milgram's findings were published in Psychology Today and inspired the phrase "six degrees of separation.""

Click to expand...

And I am a member of some big groups where I could ask someone in these groups/sites (some with millions of members) to do this so I still don't see how Facebook doesn't meet this requirement. I also have direct connections to people on several continents who have direct connections to others so although it might be a tough slog to get to central Africa or Antarctica I could get to Asia in 1 hop and Europe in 1 hop, Central or South America in 2 hops

BlueFireIce said:

No.

The 6 degrees, the first, where you have to start, are friends, the tests done with this required them to be friends you were on a first name basis with. Someone that I click "send friend request" to does not count, nor does the robot/spammer/celebrity with 1million "friends" count, if you are going to include bots and the like, then there would be zero degree of separation between most people.

"In 1967, American sociologist Stanley Milgram devised a new way to test the theory, which he called "the small-world problem." He randomly selected people in the mid-West to send packages to a stranger located in Massachusetts. The senders knew the recipient's name, occupation, and general location. They were instructed to send the package to a person they knew on a first-name basis who they thought was most likely, out of all their friends, to know the target personally. That person would do the same, and so on, until the package was personally delivered to its target recipient.

Although the participants expected the chain to include at least a hundred intermediaries, it only took (on average) between five and seven intermediaries to get each package delivered. Milgram's findings were published in Psychology Today and inspired the phrase "six degrees of separation.""

Click to expand...

Exactly. Otherwise, it would probably be even less than 3.46 degrees. I once was in the same city as another person who was once in the same city as Kevin Bacon. That means very little.

kbrickley said:

And I am a member of some big groups where I could ask someone in these groups/sites (some with millions of members) to do this so I still don't see how Facebook doesn't meet this requirement. I also have direct connections to people on several continents who have direct connections to others so although it might be a tough slog to get to central Africa or Antarctica I could get to Asia in 1 hop and Europe in 1 hop, Central or South America in 2 hops

Click to expand...

The first degree requires close friends, these "big groups" I really doubt you know everyone in that way. This is why a few of the first "tests" were dismissed because letters/packages were sent to people in the same profession or in the same state, and made it far less random. Today, all I would have to do is send it to someone who knows how to use Google and bang! Done. But that is not the point of the test, the point is that from close friend, to that friends close friends and so on and so forth will take on average 6 passes to anyone else.

BlueFireIce said:

No.

The 6 degrees, the first, where you have to start, are friends, the tests done with this required them to be friends you were on a first name basis with. Someone that I click "send friend request" to does not count, nor does the robot/spammer/celebrity with 1million "friends" count, if you are going to include bots and the like, then there would be zero degree of separation between most people.

"In 1967, American sociologist Stanley Milgram devised a new way to test the theory, which he called "the small-world problem." He randomly selected people in the mid-West to send packages to a stranger located in Massachusetts. The senders knew the recipient's name, occupation, and general location. They were instructed to send the package to a person they knew on a first-name basis who they thought was most likely, out of all their friends, to know the target personally. That person would do the same, and so on, until the package was personally delivered to its target recipient.

Although the participants expected the chain to include at least a hundred intermediaries, it only took (on average) between five and seven intermediaries to get each package delivered. Milgram's findings were published in Psychology Today and inspired the phrase "six degrees of separation.""

Click to expand...

You are off by a few decades and ignoring the original back in 1929. Which was that due to the advanced of advanced in communications and travel that friendship networks were growing and that any two people in the world could be connected by at most 5 acquaintances. So by his definition of acquaintance and not close friends, facebook friends would in fact work.

Nytegard said:

Exactly. Otherwise, it would probably be even less than 3.46 degrees. I once was in the same city as another person who was once in the same city as Kevin Bacon. That means very little.

Click to expand...

The degrees of separation when used to describe Kevin Bacon simply stated that you could pick any actor and within 6 steps get to them based on who somebody had worked with. Some examples were

Elvis Presley was in a movie with Edward Asner and Edward was in a movie with Kevin, so there is 2 degrees separation between Kevin and Elvis.

So we take this singularly huge pool of people living in the USA, much more than 321 Million because that number doesn't count everyone here.

And through some exhaustive math we determine that everyone is connected to everyone else. Which means .... we're all living here together in the US

Exavior said:

You are off by a few decades and ignoring the original back in 1929. Which was that due to the advanced of advanced in communications and travel that friendship networks were growing and that any two people in the world could be connected by at most 5 acquaintances. So by his definition of acquaintance and not close friends, facebook friends would in fact work.

Click to expand...

The way a lot of people use Facebook "friends" I'm not even sure you could count them as acquaintances though. A lot of people's Facebook "friends" are people they have never met, never spoken to, and never even chatted/texted with. There is supposed to be some social interaction with an acquaintance, even if it's not extensive or often.

collegeboy69us said:

+1 I have 60 friends... and dropping (that's a good thing) If I don't know you or give a damn about you, you aren't going to be on my friends list. The concept of "look how important I am, I have 1200 friends" is bullshit and the mark of someone completely shallow and feeble minded.

Just because a good percentage of the world falls for the facebook game doesn't mean they all know each other.

Click to expand...

I've got a few friends. 82. About half I know personally from old friends to family to old school dudes. The others I have a strong common interest (retro video games, beer, whatever). I like to network and meet new people. That common interest helps. Eventually, like some people on [H], I'll meet in real life. I may be introverted, but I like people.

Now, some people go way overboard (1200 people?) and most are strangers with absolutely no common interest other than friend whoring... If you have a lot of strangers, at least have a good reason for it.

travbrad said:

The way a lot of people use Facebook "friends" I'm not even sure you could count them as acquaintances though. A lot of people's Facebook "friends" are people they have never met, never spoken to, and never even chatted/texted with. There is supposed to be some social interaction with an acquaintance, even if it's not extensive or often.

Click to expand...

For people that have 1000's of friends that is probably true. I have only 119 friends but all are someone I interacted with at some time. More than half of them are from my High School, a dozen or so are relatives, and most of the rest are coworkers or former coworkers, with a few from online games. They are scattered across 3 continents and about 15 countries.

The concept of "look how important I am, I have 1200 friends" is bullshit

Click to expand...

I work in an E.R.. One night someone comes in, lost their wallet, ID, phone, so no money or contact info. Remembers her facebook info though. Logs on. and can't find any of her 2000 'friends' who would be willing to come and pick her up....at a hospital. I think this is far more typical of a facebook scenario than most realize. none of these people are actual friends. They're just someone who's name you recognize, but would probably walk right past them if they were walking the opposite direction on the street.

Facebook claims only a 3.46 degrees of separation to an IQ of an imbecil.

Exavior said:

You are off by a few decades and ignoring the original back in 1929. Which was that due to the advanced of advanced in communications and travel that friendship networks were growing and that any two people in the world could be connected by at most 5 acquaintances. So by his definition of acquaintance and not close friends, facebook friends would in fact work.

Click to expand...

What original in 1929? That was a short story called "Chains", it was not a test and had no rules laid out, it was at best, a theory, which funny enough also dismissed popular people such as celebrities. What I mentioned were actual tests performed with a given set of repeatable rules. I can play mind games, or come up with theories all day, it does not mean anything.

The FB "friend" a majority would not even fall into acquaintance, as you still have to actually know this person, just not well, as in a first degree zone. Again, clicking "send friend request" does not make you know this person. If we are going to include this sort of means, we can cut out all degrees and just contact the person our selves with just a short Google search, because I could find them on FB and click a button and BANG I know them myself.

BlueFireIce said:

What original in 1929? That was a short story called "Chains", it was not a test and had no rules laid out, it was at best, a theory, which funny enough also dismissed popular people such as celebrities. What I mentioned were actual tests performed with a given set of repeatable rules. I can play mind games, or come up with theories all day, it does not mean anything.

The FB "friend" a majority would not even fall into acquaintance, as you still have to actually know this person, just not well, as in a first degree zone. Again, clicking "send friend request" does not make you know this person. If we are going to include this sort of means, we can cut out all degrees and just contact the person our selves with just a short Google search, because I could find them on FB and click a button and BANG I know them myself.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we need a new measure then. The internet has definitely changed how people communicate. Hardly anyone sends letters anymore, most communication is done electronically now. Certainly a new idea can be proliferated around the world (even to remote parts of Africa) in hours. If you subscribe to Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point model then internet communication mediums like Facebook, Linkedin, and others have definitely changed the Law of the Few. Even though Facebook friends or Linkedin contacts might not be personally acquainted to you they can definitely operate as connectors to get news or ideas to go viral more quickly than ever before.

kbrickley said:

Perhaps we need a new measure then. The internet has definitely changed how people communicate. Hardly anyone sends letters anymore, most communication is done electronically now. Certainly a new idea can be proliferated around the world (even to remote parts of Africa) in hours. If you subscribe to Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point model then internet communication mediums like Facebook, Linkedin, and others have definitely changed the Law of the Few. Even though Facebook friends or Linkedin contacts might not be personally acquainted to you they can definitely operate as connectors to get news or ideas to go viral more quickly than ever before.

Click to expand...

This is not about getting news or making something viral. Nothing needs to change, the idea behind the degree of separation is still valid for actual connections. But this is about personal connections and not anything else, again, if we assume that just about anyone can be found online with some simple searching and you can skip everything altogether. The tests have been done in the internet age as well, a professor made a package and emailed it to 40 something thousand people, with instructions that they were to email it to someone they knew, most people on FB do not know the email address of their "friends". The email chain varied like the original tests, but averaged around 6, with some as many as 7 or 8 and some as low as 2-3.

The problem is that you want to include any kind of connection or contact, but just like the original "chains" story, they excluded some factors, such as popular people, and wanted to keep it to the "average Joe" and with people you know. If you want to debate if that should be close friends or acquaintances as well I can deal with that, but the idea of I clicked a button or searched online and found them or someone who knows them, just doesn't count, I do not consider that a personal connection. So what matters is the starting point, all the tests up to this point required some form of actual connection, not just being in the same database, while there are allot of real connections on FB, the bulk of them are not. I have around 110 friends on FB, I know them, all of them in person at some point (I use to move allot), but many of them have well over 1k "friends", and I know very well they have no idea who half of them are or why they are even on there.