Выбрать главу

Watts and Strogatz called this new type of network–with high clustering and great connections between the nodes–a small world. It corresponds to my days at university, where I had the benefit of tight clustering–close friends and well-organised work–and wide connections to disparate, distant groups. Network scientists have since been surprised at the sheer frequency with which these small world networks seem to occur–whether in nature or man-made, ranging from molecules in a cell to routers on the Internet–where networks appear to have been naturally or consciously organised to combine the advantage of tight clustering with ease of connection between all nodes in the network.

So, if your world is largely structured–you rely mainly on strong links in a big world–it is relatively easy to turn it into a small world by adding some random connections, some weak links to groups that are a long way from your own. You can keep all the advantages of structure, all the huge human benefits of close, intimate relationships, all the rewards of specialised groups–all the strengths of strong links–while also gaining access to the new knowledge and insight that come from random connections to other realms. Even better, you don’t need to add many weak links–provided they are clearly to social worlds that are different from your own–to transform your personal network and vastly increase the useful, practical information to which you are exposed.

It’s true the other way round as well. If your strength is an awesome array of weak links, but you lack purpose, commitment and the mutual support of close friends or a small group, then you can turn your random world into a small world. You can keep the effective bridges to many disparate groups and individuals–your random weak links–while layering on the benefits of joining a small and cosy cluster.

In other words, there is no trade-off between strong links and weak links. We can enjoy the benefits of both. The small world rejoices in both. We can be rooted and restless, organised and disorganised, disciplined and open-minded, committed and experimental. True, in terms of achieving practical results, strong links on their own may be weak, and weak links may be strong; but in terms of a rich and fulfilled life, both together are infinitely better. We just need a separate strategy for each, a different mentality for friends and acquaintances, a clear distinction in our minds between the roles the two types of link involve. We need not struggle to turn acquaintances into friends, unless we really want to; and we should not expect our friends to bring us the breadth of information and practical benefits that are a doddle for a wide range of acquaintances. Deep friendship and love are their own rewards; while everyone else in the world is there for our amusement, enlightenment, instruction and mutual help.

One final, central point from Watts and Strogatz’s research: they highlighted the asymmetry in small world systems–in all cases, a few random weak links brought about the small world. Not all links were equal. The really valuable links, those doing the heavy lifting for connecting all the nodes, were between distant groups. And their pioneering efforts formed the foundation on which others built–most notably, Barabási and Albert, who demonstrated that some nodes are vastly more connected than all the others, including connections to many far-away nodes. This conclusion which we explore later leads back to Stanley Milgram’s phenomenal insight in identifying ‘sociometric stars’, the superconnectors who make the world small. In both human and non-human small worlds, some very popular hubs bring the world closer for everyone or everything else.

As vital as these superconnectors are, there are very few of them. This explains why we are so surprised every time we experience the small world. We don’t see the whole picture, only our own part of the network, and our few strong links. We are scarcely conscious of the extent of our own hidden network, the latent weak links, and are unaware of all the connections they have that can work wonders for us. And we are similarly unaware of the superconnectors and the sterling work they do for everyone. Beyond our sight, but not beyond our reach, the superconnectors have the potential to provide innumerable shortcuts.

Weak links unite humanity. They stop the world splitting into mutually uncomprehending small tribes. They bind together society and the whole globe. They provide the information and social lubrication without which the modern world would quickly seize up and disappear. Weak links are the essential complement to strong links and tight local clusters. The diversity and different roles of weak links, strong links and hubs give coherence and power to networks and enable us–individually and collectively–to achieve our potential.

Any network is made much more valuable when the number of connections increases. Bob Metcalfe, a computer-networking expert, came up with ‘Metcalfe’s Law’, which states that the value of a network roughly equals the number of users squared. One phone is useless because you can’t call anyone. Two phones aren’t much better. According to Metcalfe, it’s only when most people have a phone–or an email address–that the network can change society.

Now, there’s an important implication here for weak links. As networks grow, the proportion of weak links to strong links increases, as unconnected or poorly connected hubs are linked to each other. And even a small number of weak links increases the density of connection dramatically. It follows that, for society and our own lives, weak links drive the exponential increase in the value of our networks.

This is both curious and wonderful, because weak links–to casual acquaintances, former friends and colleagues, and new people we meet every day–are also the easiest network elements to form and maintain. Weak links are the lightest, most ethereal, least structured form of network connection. They traverse enormous social, mental and physical distances in a single bound. They enable you to enlarge your effective network and bring into your world a huge array of potentially beneficial contacts and insights that would otherwise not be available to you. Frequently, weak links are the most neglected, underdeveloped and undervalued parts of our lives.

Typically, we are unaware of, or forget, how important weak links are to us: they could be the person who introduced us to our spouse, job or fantastic new hobby; or, more often, the person who introduced us to someone who introduced us to someone else who led us to our piece of good fortune. We are likely to forget who these links were, because they are usually in the background, pop up momentarily to be useful, then quickly fade from our minds. It is only in retrospect that we can truly appreciate how important they were. Yet, if we cultivate a mixed bunch of weak links, and are always open to their help, we will have much more ‘luck.’

How do we use weak links in practice? If we know specifically what we want from a contact, then a phone call or even an email may suffice. But the essence of weak links is that they are most useful when we least expect them to be. Such serendipity nearly always arises from personal meetings. In fact, it often flows from helping the person, without conscious intention, by something you say. Then, as if by magic, the favour is returned by something they say. How this happens is a mystery. The richness, intensity and sheer unpredictability of a personal meeting, when for a few minutes everything else goes out of our heads and we focus warmly on another human being, cannot be replicated through a video conference, still less by a phone call, and less again via email, which in our opinion should never be a medium for emotion (because it will invariably be misunderstood). Face to face, weak links can be incredibly strong and even change the direction of our lives. Virtual links might be efficient, but they almost never have this strength because they lack subtlety and texture.