Networks threaten hierarchies – Sam Vaknin (Selected parts of the lecture)

 

Because they are based on obedience, in hierarchies most people are not competent for their positions.

That hierarchies

disempower.

In hierarchies,

the main role of

hierarchy is to take

away your power.

Networks empower.

Networks give you power.

Hierarchies take your power.

Networks give you power.

So we say that

hierarchies are,

constructed on

impotence.

And networks

are constructed

on equipotence.

Equipotence means

everyone has,

theoretically,

the same power.

So wait a minute.

If everyone has

the same power, why

doesn’t everyone make

the same money?

Time. Time.

And as we will

see later, number

of connections.

We’ll talk about it later.

But time, essentially

because the number

of connections is

dependent on time.

If you join a network

and you do nothing,

of course nothing will happen.

If you join

a hierarchy and you

do nothing, most of

the time, nothing will happen.

But in hierarchy,

tenure, the amount

of time that passes

automatically promotes you.

By the way, the result

is that in hierarchy,

most people,

most people are

incompetent for their position.

That is not me.

So what I’m saying.

This was discovered by

a guy called Peters.

And it’s called

the Peters principle.

In hierarchy, most

people – listen well –

are not competent for their positions.

 

 

Networks are isomorphic, hierarchies are heteromorphic

 

In networks, dependent

only on your work,

you can be equipotent.

You can reach the same

level of power as

anyone else, depending

on work and number

of connections.

We’ll come to that

when we talk

about information

flow, and so on and so forth.

So, networks,

networks are symmetrical.

Hierarchies are asymmetrical.

In networks there is

symmetry,

in hierarchy – asymmetry.

In networks there is isomorphism.

Isomorphism means every

part of the network

looks like every other

part of the network.

If you hold a network,

let’s say,

and I separate this

quadrangle and that

quadrangle,

you look the same.

As far as function,

as far as structure,

you are identical.

Identical.

Not the same people,

but the same structure

and the same function.

Do you know what this is called?

Did you hear the concept fractal?

Networks are fractals.

Every part of

the network

is identical to the total network.

If you cut the network, take

a network, and you cut it in half.

Each half will be

identical to each other quarter.

Each quarter.

16.

16.

2 million.

If you cut it to 2

million, each part

will be identical

to the totality of the network.

That is called fractal or isomorphism.

So networks are fractals.

Hierarchies are heterosexual.

Sorry.

Heteromorphic.

I wanted to wake you up.

Some of you are already

falling asleep.

We will discuss sex.

You have my word.

So, sex in networks.

Sex in hierarchies.

Don’t go there.

Don’t go there, don’t go there.

Sex in networks is what

we know as group sex.

Now, thank you.

We’ll go into details

in the second part of the lecture.

It’s my way of keeping you here.

So practical.

I’m a Jew. I’m a Jew.

We are practical.

So, hierarchies are heteromorphic.

Networks are ISO.

ISO means in Greek,

Sorry, apologies.

ISO means in Greek ‘same’.

Isomorphic.

Same shape, same form.

So networks are same form.

Whatever you cut

them, each cut each

piece will be like the whole network.

Hierarchies are heteromorphic.

 

 

Networks manage aggression better than hierarchies

 

His name was Dan Dollard and in 1939

he came up with a hypothesis in psychology

called frustration – aggression hypothesis.

It means that if you

are frustrated,

if you are envious, you

will try to externalize it as

aggression against

the source of

frustration and envy.

So all organizations

where there are

humans, there are bad

emotions like this.

But networks and hierarchies,

again are completely

different in how they regulate

these emotions.

In hierarchy,

such emotions are prohibited,

Prohibited and punished.

If you go to your boss and say:

‘Listen, I envy you

and you make me very frustrated’,

well, next conversation will

be with a different boss.

But you can go to

someone in a network

and openly say,

you know, I’m frustrated,

I’m trying, I’m not succeeding.

Can you teach me?

Can you help me?

I mean networks

encourage and allow open aggression.

Actually networks are

very aggressive structures.

That’s why we see in

Facebook, the comments,

or YouTube,

the comments are very aggressive.

And that’s why there is no censorship.

No censorship in networks,

social networks and so on.

Because it’s a free place to express

who you truly are without fear.

Without fear.

You’re aggressive, you’re aggressive.

And the networks

self-regulate the aggression.

They provide feedback

that modulates

and that’s called,

this process is called modulation.

So networks modulate aggression.

Hierarchies not.

Hierarchies bottle up aggression,

don’t allow you to express it.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

The optimal method of disseminating innovation in a network is through communication between structurally equivalent nodes.

 

So if you want to teach in a network,

the opinion leader

teaching the members is the best way.

Not members teaching members.

Not example,

but opinion leaders

standing here teaching the members.

But for innovation,

the worst option

is opinion leader teaching the members.

Amazingly, what is best

is opinion leader

teaching opinion leaders

and members observing.

So we discovered

that innovation flows

through structurally equivalent positions.

Innovation, innovation

in networks is most successful,

flows freely and successfully,

When structurally equivalent nodes

communicate.

[It] could be member to member.

Not only opinion

leader to opinion

leader.

Member to member.

Innovation is best

spread among

structurally equivalent nodes.

Information is best

spread among

from opinion leaders to members.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Weak ties function as bridges between clusters in a network.

 

Where we discovered

something called weak ties.

And this is where

the real revolution in networks started.

You remember what is a tie?

Tie is this,

these are ties, the connections.

And you remember that

the connection should

reflect how many

people you are connected to,

how well you are

connected to them,

how long you are connected to them,

and so on.

So this is the tie, a weak tie.

Here is the definition.

What is a weak tie?

A weak tie is someone

who doesn’t meet people very often,

does not meet people very often.

It’s called contact frequency or

contact infrequency.

A weak tie is someone

who does not meet people very often.

When he meets them,

he meets them for very short period of time.

When he meets them rarely,

for very short period of time,

he doesn’t invest effort.

He’s usually silent,

listening or something.

When he meets them

and doesn’t invest effort,

the meeting

ends with no benefit to both parties.

We call it no reciprocal utility,

no benefit to the partners.

So it’s a charming person.

He meets rarely.

When he meets, he’s silent.

He makes the meetings very short.

And he doesn’t help you, he’s just there.

And he avoids intimacy,

so he refuses to talk

about himself.

Okay, you all know people like that.

You all know people like that.

So this is the profile of a weak tie.

The amazing thing

which we discovered

was that bridges among nodes,

cluster nodes,

are not opinion leaders,

but weak ties.

The people who connect,

the glue that is holding

the network together

is not opinion leaders, but weak ties.

These people.

That was a shock.

For the academics also it was a shock.

We discovered that

networks that had many weak ties,

many such people,

survived much longer,

grew much faster,

disseminated information

much more efficiently,

and innovated

much more frequently.

Because the weak tie

was the bridge between clusters.

Each part of the network

known as cluster

had its own opinion leader.

But the bridge

between the clusters were weak ties.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Because they are information-oriented, weak ties facilitate information exchange in a network.

 

People who hate company, hate people

don’t like to talk, don’t like to meet,

hate intimacy.

Loners, lone wolves, introverts.

They were the glues of networks.

And that was mind boggling.

We didn’t know how to explain it.

We didn’t know how to explain it.

So there was a series of studies

and so on, and so forth.

And we think

we may have some explanation.

We think we may have some explanation.

It seems like this.

Those of you with dirty minds.

It’s not what you think.

Okay, eyeglasses.

This is schematic.

Schematic of a network.

A typical network

where there is cluster one

and cluster two.

Of course, the bigger

the network,

you can have billions of clusters.

But that’s a typical cluster.

By the way,

on Facebook, what is the cluster?

Your friends.

Each one of you is a cluster.

You are, you are

the opinion leader,

and you have friends.

We call it cloud.

You have a cluster cloud.

So each one of you is a cluster.

Okay?

This is the bridge to remind you.

Until 1973 we thought

that the opinion leader is bridging.

Now we discovered that

these introverts,

these people who hate people,

are bridging.

Why?

We think – it’s a speculation at this

stage, hypothesis being tested –

We think that what

happens is

this guy has access to

information from

here and from here

he has access to

information from both clusters.

We call this

non-redundant information.

He has access to

information from both clusters

and he helps to switch it,

he helps to exchange it.

So he’s like

an information exchange.

Why would he have,

why would he have access

to information?

He’s underestimated.

He is, no, he is

excluding other types of communication.

If you want to talk

to him about his marriage,

he’s not interested.

If you want to talk to him,

if you want to be his friend,

he doesn’t want to.

If you want to have lunch with him,

he will tell you no.

The only thing you

can do with such a person

is exchange information.

That’s the only thing.

Weak tie is information oriented.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

In a network, the communication between weak ties is more important than the activity of the opinion leaders.

 

They tested all the known parameters

of networks.

If any of these,

Cohesion, mohesion.

I mean, you name it.

Centrality.

They tested many,

many parameters of networks.

The study is

by Desoniga and Valenzuela.

So they tested many,

many parameters.

All the known parameters of networks,

as I mentioned before,

Centrality, degree, closeness,

betweenness, cohesiveness.

I mean, you name it, everything.

None of them, not one of them

was connected to

the crucial functions of a network.

Not one.

Except how often weak ties

talk to each other.

It was the only

parameter that

predicted success and survival,

longevity and fecundity.

How often the information is spread.

Only this.

How often?

Not opinion leaders.

Weak ties talk

to each other.

That was the only predictor.

That means that weak ties,

I could say easily,

are much, much more important

than opinion leaders.

Much more important.

They determine the glue.

They hold the network together,

and they determine the

survival, longevity

and functioning of the network.

Not only that, weak

ties communicating with other members

or communicating

with opinion leaders is meaningless.

How often they talk to

each other determines

the success and future

of the network.

They are, this is the network.

Weak ties.

Not active members, not opinion leaders.

None of these.

Why?

Because we discovered

more generally,

as you remember, I mean,

those of you who were not asleep,

remember when I said

the first part.

Outsiders are critical to the network.

Outsiders.

Well, of course, insiders.

But outsiders are

very crucial to the network.

Now, weak tie member,

weak tie member.

It’s a member who

doesn’t like other members,

doesn’t like to talk,

doesn’t like to have lunches,

doesn’t like to gossip,

doesn’t like to be intimate,

doesn’t like anything.

What do you want?

It’s the kind of

person who, when he

picks up the phone,

doesn’t say ‘Dobar dan, kako si?’,

but says ‘what do you want?’

That’s a weak tie member.

A weak tie member is an outsider.

He’s both insider and outsider.

He is the bridge,

not only between clusters,

but is the bridge from

the network outside.

I cannot overemphasize

the importance of weak ties.

:::::::::::::::

 

I am an example of a weak tie in a network – Sam Vaknin

 

I’m a weak tie.

I’m an example of a weak tie.

I’m an example of a weak tie.

I’m an unpleasant person, not sociable.

Introverted, and so on.

Which explains

why Bulgarian women like me.

But I heard of Lyconnet.

I’m in touch with an opinion leader.

It’s very common for weak ties.

Weak ties are in touch with opinion leaders.

I heard of Lyconnet.

I’m in touch with an opinion leader.

I get involved, but from a distance.

When I called him,

he said, what do you want?

What do you want?

What do you want?

You again.

I don’t have a card.

I’m not involved.

I don’t have cashback.

I don’t have.

And I will not have.

Not because it’s a bad idea.

It’s a wonderful idea, by the way.

Brilliant idea.

But I don’t,

because that’s me.

I’m standoffish, but I

analyze Lykonnet,

I participate in events,

I spread the word because I

post it on Instagram,

on Facebook,

and I bring new information to you

from the outside.

I’m fertilizing you.

I’m bringing you new.

You can reject this information,

accept it, it doesn’t matter.

I’m bringing you innovation.

What you do with it is your problem.

But I am a bridge,

helping you as a bridge.

If I were to get

involved in Lykonnet,

let’s assume some

time passes and Zoran

blackmails me finally

to get a card.

And I get a card,

I become a member.

Probably what will happen,

I will become bridge between clusters.

I will meet Zoran,

then I’ll meet

another opinion leader,

and I’ll begin, kind of.

Because that’s my nature.

It’s my character.

My character is to convey information.

I’m an information bridge.

Not only Lykonnet,

I mean, generally.

So I’m a weak tie.

If you want to see an example,

walking, talking,

at this stage, at this

stage, weak tie,

free of charge remains to be seen.

Don’t be.

Don’t be optimistic.

Don’t be optimistic.

You still have to leave the sala [hall].

Still have to leave the sala.

Someon in the audience: ‘According to you,

the weak ties doesn’t

have to be formally part of the’

Doesn’t have to be.

Although when it serves as a bridge

between clusters, of course,

of course, has to be.

In this case,

we did not study.

Pardon?

Audience: ‘Because of the politics of

the network.’

We did not study external weak ties.

We don’t have a single study like me.

There are no studies of people like me,

but there are lots of studies of weak ties,

starting in 1973,

of weak ties inside networks.

So we know a lot about

inter-cluster bridging, bridges.

But we have almost zero

knowledge about people like me who

are in and out, in effect, in and out.

 

  Bojan Viculin, Networks, Sam Vaknin, Sociology