A recent article in The Wall Street Journal titled “How to Hunt for Jobs as Time Out of Work Drags On and On” touches on the importance of expanding social networks to find new jobs. According to the author, one way to expand your social network is to participate in volunteer work. This idea is relevant to our coursework, particularly in its relationship to sociologist Mark Granovetter’s research on how people use social networks to find jobs.

Most striking about Granovetter’s findings is that people find jobs more frequently through “acquaintances” than “friends”. This is because your friends are likely to be in the same social circle as you and thus are likely to have access to the same information. An acquaintance (someone whom you are connected to via a local bridge), on the other hand, is part of a different network and might have information about job openings that neither you nor your friends do.

Following this logic, volunteer work makes sense as a medium for meeting acquaintances, for it attracts participants with diverse backgrounds. Additionally, community service puts you in non-threatening environments where you can show how compassionate, helpful, and self-motivated you are. These are the very characteristics that interviewers look for, but are often difficult to express during an interview. Your new acquaintances, however, will have a first-hand account of your capabilities, and this gives them the ability to vouch for your performance in a social (but not explicitly socially-motivated) setting. So, although you may not become best friends with someone you volunteer with, the weekly or monthly contact you have can suffice to create a local bridge necessary to find a new job. By helping others, you can in fact help yourself.

A recent New York Times article focuses on the development of companies who use the Web as a channel for strangers to collaborate and create business strategies. One company, Kluster, strongly believes in making the consumer the decider on what the next products are. Their motto, “Let’s decide on what’s next, instead of buying what’s new,” neatly encompasses the main goal of this new breed of companies. Kluster, a free service to anyone with internet, allows users to create profiles, post business ideas for what they call “projects,” comment on and help develop others’ projects, and endorse others’ ideas they believe in. Members of Kluster are given 1,000 credits called “watts” which they can use to bet on the ideas they support, and can accumulate more watts by giving Kluster more information about themselves (i.e. what company they belong to). Based on how much members collaborate and how successful the ideas they bet on are, members can earn actual cash: if the idea a member supports gets picked up by a company, they can get a cut of the cash bounty offered by the company that endorses the idea. Members also earn more watts this way to bet on future projects.

This is related to the general advantages of social networks. In this example, websites like Kluster enable strangers who otherwise would have no other way of contacting each other to collaborate on potentially lucrative projects. These websites act as bridges across structural holes, connecting individuals and other smaller networks of innovators. As individuals within smaller networks often have more similar ideas, connecting to other smaller networks or individuals outside networks offers more opportunities for original perspectives and ideas - something that is essential for innovators in the business world and elsewhere.

The SimExchange is a website which uses play money, and markets like those we have discussed in class to forecast video game sales. Predictive markets are a powerful use of concepts from class which one could imagine applying to a huge range of topics, including ones far more important than video games. In fact, there are predictive markets about other topics such as the notable Iowa Electronic Markets which uses real money markets to predict events such as political outcomes. See this article for a nice overview of the SimExchange’s concept, and history.

Users buy and sell stock based on their attitude toward a gaming system or piece of software. This allows gamers to collectively give their opinions of games, and it is reasonable to think they often know things the experts do not. The mechanics of this are very similar to the those of a real stock market. You can look at the bid and ask prices, and submit your own bids. Users also are rewarded for producing relevant news articles (such as work on a new game being announced) and submitting other content.

So, how effective are predictive markets? According to the site’s main page:

The simExchange applies prediction market technology to the video game industry to generate better quantitative and qualitative indicators to what’s coming in the video game world.

What is prediction market technology?

Prediction markets are basically stock markets that trade for the purpose of forecasting and are one of the most effective ways to forecast the future.

Where’s the proof?

The Iowa Electronic Market applies prediction market technology to predicting the US Presidency. Compared with 596 polls, the prediction market was more accurate 75% of the time.

HP applied prediction market technology to predict its printer sales. Over 3 years, the prediction market outperformed the company’s own expert analysts 75% of the time.

Many Fortune 500 companies operate prediction markets to forecast product potential and make business decisions.

The site produces a lot of interesting data, presented in their research reports.

For example the December 2007 Review Report claims:

Software sales came in at $2.37 billion, a 36% increase year-over-year and in line with the prediction market’s expectation for $2.38 billion in December software sales, a mere -0.28% difference.

This seems like an extremely impressive prediction, displaying the power of these markets. The same report also shows that the predictions are not perfect, Call of Duty 4 sold 58% more units than expected.

Social ties might not only predict power or influence over others, but also may have an effect on cognitive health as we age. In the New York Times article Forget Something? Then Read This, Richard Friedman discusses the importance of socializing in old age. Friedman mentions that scientists have known for a long time that social ties can effect mortality, but only recently have the seen that social ties can affect mental health and well-being, thanks to a study by Laura Fratiglioni at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Dr. Fratiglioni studied 1200 people with varying social networks over 3 years and found that those with the weakest social ties were 60% more likely to be affected by diminishing mental health and dementia.

As we face an aging population from the baby boomer era, as well as increasing cases of Alzheimer’s, mental health for the middle-aged and elderly will become much more prevalent in our daily lives. As college students, the effects aging population will hit us directly in the next few years as our parents grow older. Results from this study can be used to justify increasing the amount of socialization older people receive, perhaps then reorganizing the structure of retirement communities.

In class, we have often thought of people with the most social ties being the most powerful, most influential or most important. But as seen from this study, people with the most social connections might be the most mentally healthy in old age, bringing social connectivity to a much more personal level.

The FTA, free trade agreement, between U.S. and South Korea was successfully signed by both nations in 04/02/2007. During the negotiations of the detailed parts of the agreement, both of the nations were careful in not falling into the Prisoner’s dilemma. Both U.S. and South Korea could insist on achieving the maximum profit from the FTA, but conflicts became evident in few industries. For example, U.S. insisted on opening up the Drug industry of Korea and the removal of the existing restriction, while Korea held a stronghold against opening it up. Conflicts like this could encourage the two parties to become egocentric and could lead to the worst case of withdrawal of the FTA. This is parallel to the case where both Prisoners chose to convict. Both being aware of the danger, the nations were generous on giving up certain industries. The following list shows how intense the negotiation was, and how both Korea and U.S. gave up certain industries to avoid Prisoner’s dilemma.

Oct. 2005 – Korea gives up the restriction of drug testing and evaluation.
Jan. 2006 – Withdrawal of the embargo of the American beef
Feb. 2006 Declaration of the KORUS FTA
May 2006 KORUS FTA 1st negotiation (Washington, US)
July 2006 KORUS FTA 2nd negotiation (Seoul, Korea)
Sep. 2006 KORUS FTA 3rd negotiation (Seattle, US)
Oct. 2006 KORUS FTA 4th negotiation (Je-Ju, Korea)
Dec. 2006 KORUS FTA 5th negotiation (Montana, US)
Jan. 2007 KORUS FTA 6th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)
Feb. 2007 KORUS FTA 7th negotiation (Washington, US)
March 2007 KORUS FTA 8th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)
Apr. 2007 Agreement signed by both nations
May 2007 disclosure of the FTA document
June 2007 Additional agreement of certain industries compromised

US got the withdrawal of the embargo of American beef in Korea and the open market of the Korean drug industry, while Korea got rid of most of the tax put on LCD or digital TV. The two nations were successful in achieving advantage in some industries that are profitable and sacrificed some industries that will become vulnerable to imports. However, the nations were successful in avoiding the worst case of Prisoner’s dilemma and now have advantages over other outside nations in trading products and services. It can be said that both US and Korea ‘Did Not Convict’ in the case of our class example.

Reference

KOREUS FTA website
http://fta.korea.kr/new/sub.htm

The FTA, free trade agreement, between U.S. and South Korea was successfully signed by both nations in 04/02/2007. During the negotiations of the detailed parts of the agreement, both of the nations were careful in not falling into the Prisoner’s dilemma. Both U.S. and South Korea could insist on achieving the maximum profit from the FTA, but conflicts became evident in few industries. For example, U.S. insisted on opening up the Drug industry of Korea and the removal of the existing restriction, while Korea held a stronghold against opening it up. Conflicts like this could encourage the two parties to become egocentric and could lead to the worst case of withdrawal of the FTA. This is parallel to the case where both Prisoners chose to convict. Both being aware of the danger, the nations were generous on giving up certain industries. The following list shows how intense the negotiation was, and how both Korea and U.S. gave up certain industries to avoid Prisoner’s dilemma.

Oct. 2005 – Korea gives up the restriction of drug testing and evaluation.
Jan. 2006 – Withdrawal of the embargo of the American beef
Feb. 2006 Declaration of the KORUS FTA
May 2006 KORUS FTA 1st negotiation (Washington, US)
July 2006 KORUS FTA 2nd negotiation (Seoul, Korea)
Sep. 2006 KORUS FTA 3rd negotiation (Seattle, US)
Oct. 2006 KORUS FTA 4th negotiation (Je-Ju, Korea)
Dec. 2006 KORUS FTA 5th negotiation (Montana, US)
Jan. 2007 KORUS FTA 6th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)
Feb. 2007 KORUS FTA 7th negotiation (Washington, US)
March 2007 KORUS FTA 8th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)
Apr. 2007 Agreement signed by both nations
May 2007 disclosure of the FTA document
June 2007 Additional agreement of certain industries compromised

US got the withdrawal of the embargo of American beef in Korea and the open market of the Korean drug industry, while Korea got rid of most of the tax put on LCD or digital TV. The two nations were successful in achieving advantage in some industries that are profitable and sacrificed some industries that will become vulnerable to imports. However, the nations were successful in avoiding the worst case of Prisoner’s dilemma and now have advantages over other outside nations in trading products and services. It can be said that both US and Korea ‘Did Not Convict’ in the case of our class example.

Reference

KOREUS FTA website
http://fta.korea.kr/new/sub.htm

The FTA, free trade agreement, between U.S. and South Korea was successfully signed by both nations in 04/02/2007. During the negotiations of the detailed parts of the agreement, both of the nations were careful in not falling into the Prisoner’s dilemma. Both U.S. and South Korea could insist on achieving the maximum profit from the FTA, but conflicts became evident in few industries. For example, U.S. insisted on opening up the Drug industry of Korea and the removal of the existing restriction, while Korea held a stronghold against opening it up. Conflicts like this could encourage the two parties to become egocentric and could lead to the worst case of withdrawal of the FTA. This is parallel to the case where both Prisoners chose to convict. Both being aware of the danger, the nations were generous on giving up certain industries. The following list shows how intense the negotiation was, and how both Korea and U.S. gave up certain industries to avoid Prisoner’s dilemma.

Oct. 2005 – Korea gives up the restriction of drug testing and evaluation.

Jan. 2006 – Withdrawal of the embargo of the American beef

Feb. 2006 Declaration of the KORUS FTA

May 2006 KORUS FTA 1st negotiation (Washington, US)

July 2006 KORUS FTA 2nd negotiation (Seoul, Korea)

Sep. 2006 KORUS FTA 3rd negotiation (Seattle, US)

Oct. 2006 KORUS FTA 4th negotiation (Je-Ju, Korea)

Dec. 2006 KORUS FTA 5th negotiation (Montana, US)

Jan. 2007 KORUS FTA 6th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)

Feb. 2007 KORUS FTA 7th negotiation (Washington, US)

March 2007 KORUS FTA 8th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)

Apr. 2007 Agreement signed by both nations

May 2007 disclosure of the FTA document

June 2007 Additional agreement of certain industries compromised

US got the withdrawal of the embargo of American beef in Korea and the open market of the Korean drug industry, while Korea got rid of most of the tax put on LCD or digital TV. The two nations were successful in achieving advantage in some industries that are profitable and sacrificed some industries that will become vulnerable to imports. However, the nations were successful in avoiding the worst case of Prisoner’s dilemma and now have advantages over other outside nations in trading products and services. It can be said that both US and Korea ‘Did Not Convict’ in the case of our class example.

Reference

KOREUS FTA website

http://fta.korea.kr/new/sub.htm

The FTA, free trade agreement, between U.S. and South Korea was successfully signed by both nations in 04/02/2007. During the negotiations of the detailed parts of the agreement, both of the nations were careful in not falling into the Prisoner’s dilemma. Both U.S. and South Korea could insist on achieving the maximum profit from the FTA, but conflicts became evident in few industries. For example, U.S. insisted on opening up the Drug industry of Korea and the removal of the existing restriction, while Korea held a stronghold against opening it up. Conflicts like this could encourage the two parties to become egocentric and could lead to the worst case of withdrawal of the FTA. This is parallel to the case where both Prisoners chose to convict. Both being aware of the danger, the nations were generous on giving up certain industries. The following list shows how intense the negotiation was, and how both Korea and U.S. gave up certain industries to avoid Prisoner’s dilemma.

Oct. 2005 – Korea gives up the restriction of drug testing and evaluation.

Jan. 2006 – Withdrawal of the embargo of the American beef

Feb. 2006 Declaration of the KORUS FTA

May 2006 KORUS FTA 1st negotiation (Washington, US)

July 2006 KORUS FTA 2nd negotiation (Seoul, Korea)

Sep. 2006 KORUS FTA 3rd negotiation (Seattle, US)

Oct. 2006 KORUS FTA 4th negotiation (Je-Ju, Korea)

Dec. 2006 KORUS FTA 5th negotiation (Montana, US)

Jan. 2007 KORUS FTA 6th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)

Feb. 2007 KORUS FTA 7th negotiation (Washington, US)

March 2007 KORUS FTA 8th negotiation (Seoul, Korea)

Apr. 2007 Agreement signed by both nations

May 2007 disclosure of the FTA document

June 2007 Additional agreement of certain industries compromised

US got the withdrawal of the embargo of American beef in Korea and the open market of the Korean drug industry, while Korea got rid of most of the tax put on LCD or digital TV. The two nations were successful in achieving advantage in some industries that are profitable and sacrificed some industries that will become vulnerable to imports. However, the nations were successful in avoiding the worst case of Prisoner’s dilemma and now have advantages over other outside nations in trading products and services. It can be said that both US and Korea ‘Did Not Convict’ in the case of our class example.

Reference

KOREUS FTA website

http://fta.korea.kr/new/sub.htm

Engineers and planners involved in design need to establish performance reliability in the case of transportation networks. I am examining a paper by Professor Michael Bell of the University of Newcastle in the Transport Operations Group. Bell splits the idea of network reliability into two dimensions; the connectivity of the network, and performance reliability.

Reliability is a measurement of the infrastructure of the roads, bridges, tunnels, etc., as well as the behavioral responses of the user. Bell provides an example of network reliability as should a piece of the infrastructure fail, the impact of the user will be dependent on how well the network can adapt. Bell defines a network as reliable “if the expected trip costs are acceptable even when users are extremely pessimistic about the state of the network.”

To examine network reliability Bell sets up a game between a user who wants a path to minimize the expected trip cost and another player who is imposing link costs on the user. As in class, this is a two-player, non cooperative, zero-sum game. The main theory that Bell proposes in playing this game is that the Nash Equilibrium for this game will give a measure of network reliability since it will give the expected trip cost is the user is extremely pessimistic about the state of the network. Here the other imposing player represents that pessimism by adding costs to links. This game is essentially trying to see how a user will react if he/she knows that there is something in the network that could increase the expected cost such as traffic.

Professor Bell finds that at the Nash Equilibrium the user is unable to decrease the expected trip cost by changing the path and the other player cannot increase the expected trip cost by changing the link cost. This means that the network reliability is not so much a function of the reaction of the user to network pessimism but more a function of the initial setup of the network itself. This important information for a designer because it allows them to better design their networks knowing the importance of the initial setup to the expected cost of the user.

Bell, Michael G. “A Game Theory Approach to Measuring the Performance Reliability of Transport Networks.” Transportation Year Part B 34 (2000): 533-545.

*To access this journal article it is easiest to use the information from the above citation to find in the Cornell Library’s e-journal section.

http://social.cs.uiuc.edu/people/gilbert/papers/chi08-rural-gilbert.pdf

In this research paper of UIUC, it is noticed that rural communities use modern social websites (ie facebook, myspace) in different ways than urban communities.

The social network of rural communities differ from the social network of urban communities . In general, rural communities are known to have more strong ties while urban communities are known to have more weak ties. This is quite logical, as the high population of urban communities means that people have more chances of meeting one another but probably less time to devote to each person, while vice versa for the low population density rural communities.

Upon these grounds, the researchers have hypothesized that rural members would use social websites in distinctly different ways than an urban user. For example, they expected fewer (but closer) friends, higher privacy settings, and closer proximity of friends in rural users’ accounts than urban users’ accounts. These hypotheses were substantiated with extensive data collected from myspace websites.

This material is highly relevant to the topic of social networks described in class. In chapter 3 of the book, there is some discussion on the extensions and applications of networks, such as adding the dimension of time to a network. This research is an extension of the social networks which were taught in class, as a rural/urban dichotomy is explored in this paper. All in all, this paper shows how demography can influence a social network and how social websites can be used to substantiate claims in network research.