6 ms·

Why do you believe this analogy will not apply to Facebook? Social media is called 'viral' for a reason: because its spread is apparently analogous to infectio

by ronaldx 13y ago

Why do you believe this analogy will not apply to Facebook? Social media is called 'viral' for a reason: because its spread is apparently analogous to infectious disease. This analogy certainly does seem to apply to other memes and social networks of the past - why would Facebook be an exception?

jarrett 13y ago
The argument isn't that it won't apply to Facebook. Rather, the assertion that the analogy will apply is unscientific. It is an assertion of the form: A and B have behaved the same so far. Thus, A and B are of the same nature, and will continue to behave the same indefinitely--an improperly drawn conclusion "Viral" is just a word. The fact that we have repurposed it to refer to electronic media does not magically impart to electronic media the properties of biological viruses.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  The conclusive headline (use of the word will) is the Guardian's editorial decision, not used by the scientists, if that's the main objection. The article has a more measured statement: "Extrapolating the best fit model into the future suggests that Facebook will undergo a rapid decline in the coming years, losing 80% of its peak user base between 2015 and 2017." Observing common network effects and using it to make predictions seems like valid scienfitic research to me. The hypothesis may or may not be correct, but it's a (very) testable and falsifiable hypothesis. The science is good. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf Edited to add - jarrett: I accept your point that the research could be more thorough; it's a shame only Myspace data appears to have been used. However, I think this is a valid thread of research and the word 'bullshit' was unwarranted.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Yes, it is a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. So is "George Washington will be elected President in 2016." Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. > Observing common network effects and using it to make predictions seems like valid scienfitic research to me. It's valid I suppose, but purely speculative at this point. It would be much more meaningful if a study demonstrated that social networks almost always behave like viruses in both their growth and decline, than to simply observe a similarity and growth and extrapolate the decline.
    - asdasf 13y ago
      >Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. Then make that argument. Because just saying "I don't like it" over and over is not making any such argument.
      - jarrett 13y ago
        Which of the above posts is "just saying 'I don't like it' over and over?" This thread is a discussion of the structure of a certain argument. To recap: swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. So, all participants have advanced specific, well-articulated arguments throughout. I don't see anything similar to "I don't like it." Humorously, this discussion has become rather meta by now. We're now arguing about the form of argumentation used in a discussion that was itself about forms of argumentation. It's like we're living out an LSAT question. I find that sort of conversation hard to resist, so I suppose I'm just rising to the bait.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        >swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments? Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument. An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Follow-up reply to ronaldx's edit: I personally would not have (and didnt't) use the word "bullshit" in this context, so I agree with you there. I still agree with swombat3's overall argument, though.
    - swombat 13y ago
      Where does this "swombat3" come from? My username is swombat, not swombat3.
      - jablan 13y ago
        I believe "3" comes from "3 hours ago", which was displayed next to your username at the time when user jarrett mentioned you. So I presume it's just a slight copy-paste typo.
      - jarrett 13y ago
        Wow, that was a really silly goof on my part. Too late to edit I'm afraid. My apologies.
        swombat 13y ago
        No worries, it just puzzled me, particularly since it was repeated across multiple comments!
- jrs99 13y ago
  Not everything needs to be scientific. Even a lot of mathematics is figured out first using intuition. The proof may come much much later. Some people do have intuition that is superior to other people. They can see patterns and connections in things and intuit the correct answer, or predict the right path. Much like Steve Jobs. It's an artistic, intuitive way of looking at things rather than a purely scientific way. Sometimes it doesn't work; sometimes it does.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Fair point. Indeed, not everything needs to be scientific. Though for empirical claims that science is capable of addressing (as opposed to, e.g., what is morally right), claims that are based on sound scientific reasoning are more worthy of attention than claims that lack such a basis. I consider Princeton's claim to be one which fits this criterion: It is empirical, and it concerns a topic which is amenable to scientific inquiry. Therefore I find it appropriate to critique the claim in scientific terms.
swombat 13y ago
Why do I believe it will? Seems like a pretty extraordinary claim. There are plenty of other tech businesses that saw meteoritic growth, and they didn't all peter out like diseases. Many forces that are at play with diseases (immunity for one) are absent with tech products, and a big one from tech products (the fact that the tech product is built by a company filled with intelligent people who want it to succeed) is absent from diseases. Infectious diseases seems like a pretty tenuous analogy for a 10-year old tech business with thousands of employees.
- md224 13y ago
  As someone partial to the concept of memetics and Universal Darwinism, I happen to like when biological/Darwinian principles are applied to higher-level concepts. That being said, there may be ways to differ with the article's analysis even within the biological analogy: it's possible that Facebook and its users have a symbiotic relationship (social features in exchange for traffic/attention/ad impressions) in which case the user base may continue to stay with the site until an even more advantageous website comes along.
crgt 13y ago
Their model is based on search query volume. Is it possible people simply don't need to Google for Facebook any more?
wildster 13y ago
An analogy can an have predictive power when there is no evidence?
wisty 13y ago
It depends on the virus. Most viruses you can only get once, then you fight off the infection (according to the model, anyway). Facebook may be a little more like herpes.
mbillie1 13y ago
Perhaps the main reason why we are so strongly inclined to talk of the head as the locality of our thoughts is this: the existence of the words "thinking" and "thought" alongside of the words denoting (bodily) activities, such as writing, speaking, etc., makes us look for an activity, different from these but analogous to them, corresponding to the word "thinking". When words in our ordinary language have prima facie analogous grammars we are inclined to try to interpret them analogously; i.e. we try to make the analogy hold throughout. -- We say, "The thought is not the same as the sentence; for an English and a French sentence, which are utterly different, can express the same thought". And now, as the sentences are somewhere, we look for a place for the thought. (It is as though we looked for the place of the king of which the rules of chess treat, as opposed to the places of the various bits of wood, the kings of the various sets.) -- We say, "surely the thought is something; it is not nothing"; and all one can answer to this is, that the word "thought" has its use, which is of a totally different kind from the use of the word "sentence". ^ that's Wittgenstein and not me writing there, but I believe that responds to your claim adequately.

by ronaldx 13y ago

jarrett 13y ago

The argument isn't that it won't apply to Facebook. Rather, the assertion that the analogy will apply is unscientific. It is an assertion of the form: A and B have behaved the same so far. Thus, A and B are of the same nature, and will continue to behave the same indefinitely--an improperly drawn conclusion "Viral" is just a word. The fact that we have repurposed it to refer to electronic media does not magically impart to electronic media the properties of biological viruses.

ronaldx 13y ago
The conclusive headline (use of the word will) is the Guardian's editorial decision, not used by the scientists, if that's the main objection. The article has a more measured statement: "Extrapolating the best fit model into the future suggests that Facebook will undergo a rapid decline in the coming years, losing 80% of its peak user base between 2015 and 2017." Observing common network effects and using it to make predictions seems like valid scienfitic research to me. The hypothesis may or may not be correct, but it's a (very) testable and falsifiable hypothesis. The science is good. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf Edited to add - jarrett: I accept your point that the research could be more thorough; it's a shame only Myspace data appears to have been used. However, I think this is a valid thread of research and the word 'bullshit' was unwarranted.
- jarrett 13y ago
  Yes, it is a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. So is "George Washington will be elected President in 2016." Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. > Observing common network effects and using it to make predictions seems like valid scienfitic research to me. It's valid I suppose, but purely speculative at this point. It would be much more meaningful if a study demonstrated that social networks almost always behave like viruses in both their growth and decline, than to simply observe a similarity and growth and extrapolate the decline.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    >Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. Then make that argument. Because just saying "I don't like it" over and over is not making any such argument.
    - jarrett 13y ago
      Which of the above posts is "just saying 'I don't like it' over and over?" This thread is a discussion of the structure of a certain argument. To recap: swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. So, all participants have advanced specific, well-articulated arguments throughout. I don't see anything similar to "I don't like it." Humorously, this discussion has become rather meta by now. We're now arguing about the form of argumentation used in a discussion that was itself about forms of argumentation. It's like we're living out an LSAT question. I find that sort of conversation hard to resist, so I suppose I'm just rising to the bait.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments? Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument. An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief.
- jarrett 13y ago
  Follow-up reply to ronaldx's edit: I personally would not have (and didnt't) use the word "bullshit" in this context, so I agree with you there. I still agree with swombat3's overall argument, though.
  - swombat 13y ago
    Where does this "swombat3" come from? My username is swombat, not swombat3.
    - jablan 13y ago
      I believe "3" comes from "3 hours ago", which was displayed next to your username at the time when user jarrett mentioned you. So I presume it's just a slight copy-paste typo.
    - jarrett 13y ago
      Wow, that was a really silly goof on my part. Too late to edit I'm afraid. My apologies.
      - swombat 13y ago
        No worries, it just puzzled me, particularly since it was repeated across multiple comments!
jrs99 13y ago
Not everything needs to be scientific. Even a lot of mathematics is figured out first using intuition. The proof may come much much later. Some people do have intuition that is superior to other people. They can see patterns and connections in things and intuit the correct answer, or predict the right path. Much like Steve Jobs. It's an artistic, intuitive way of looking at things rather than a purely scientific way. Sometimes it doesn't work; sometimes it does.
- jarrett 13y ago
  Fair point. Indeed, not everything needs to be scientific. Though for empirical claims that science is capable of addressing (as opposed to, e.g., what is morally right), claims that are based on sound scientific reasoning are more worthy of attention than claims that lack such a basis. I consider Princeton's claim to be one which fits this criterion: It is empirical, and it concerns a topic which is amenable to scientific inquiry. Therefore I find it appropriate to critique the claim in scientific terms.

swombat 13y ago

Why do I believe it will? Seems like a pretty extraordinary claim. There are plenty of other tech businesses that saw meteoritic growth, and they didn't all peter out like diseases. Many forces that are at play with diseases (immunity for one) are absent with tech products, and a big one from tech products (the fact that the tech product is built by a company filled with intelligent people who want it to succeed) is absent from diseases. Infectious diseases seems like a pretty tenuous analogy for a 10-year old tech business with thousands of employees.

md224 13y ago
As someone partial to the concept of memetics and Universal Darwinism, I happen to like when biological/Darwinian principles are applied to higher-level concepts. That being said, there may be ways to differ with the article's analysis even within the biological analogy: it's possible that Facebook and its users have a symbiotic relationship (social features in exchange for traffic/attention/ad impressions) in which case the user base may continue to stay with the site until an even more advantageous website comes along.

crgt 13y ago

Their model is based on search query volume. Is it possible people simply don't need to Google for Facebook any more?

wildster 13y ago

An analogy can an have predictive power when there is no evidence?

wisty 13y ago

It depends on the virus. Most viruses you can only get once, then you fight off the infection (according to the model, anyway). Facebook may be a little more like herpes.

mbillie1 13y ago

Perhaps the main reason why we are so strongly inclined to talk of the head as the locality of our thoughts is this: the existence of the words "thinking" and "thought" alongside of the words denoting (bodily) activities, such as writing, speaking, etc., makes us look for an activity, different from these but analogous to them, corresponding to the word "thinking". When words in our ordinary language have prima facie analogous grammars we are inclined to try to interpret them analogously; i.e. we try to make the analogy hold throughout. -- We say, "The thought is not the same as the sentence; for an English and a French sentence, which are utterly different, can express the same thought". And now, as the sentences are somewhere, we look for a place for the thought. (It is as though we looked for the place of the king of which the rules of chess treat, as opposed to the places of the various bits of wood, the kings of the various sets.) -- We say, "surely the thought is something; it is not nothing"; and all one can answer to this is, that the word "thought" has its use, which is of a totally different kind from the use of the word "sentence". ^ that's Wittgenstein and not me writing there, but I believe that responds to your claim adequately.