"We assume that in social networks, when people connect to other people who are lower in the hierarchy, this causes them *social agony*."
From this WWW paper: wwwconference.org/proceedings/ww
Conversation
Despite the amusing concept of 'social agony', this is an excellent paper. Among other things, it formalises social stratification in a network analysis setting.
1
Case in point: Node 3 (top one) in Figure 2b is having a very agonising time, due to their link to a low level plebeian... I love this idea.
1
Replying to
How would "lower in the hierarchy" apply to Twitter users? Verified vs. non-verified? Number of followers?
2
Replying to
Good question. I’ll check the paper later but I believe edges are follower ties in this paper. So lower would be accounts who don’t have any high-follower accounts following them. They’re leaf nodes at bottom of the tree (well not exactly a tree as there’s some cycles but yeah)
1
What I found initially compelling was this idea that it causes agony for influentials at the top of the hierarchy to link to low hierarchy individuals. Like if followed a regular Joe, it’s like: why? And somehow this is socially agonizing for l!
1
2
That's really fascinating. My hypothesis is that the act of verification (as done by Twitter) sets up a sense of exclusiveness and causes a weird "appeal to authority" behavior by many regular users towards verified users.
The problem with verification is that it isn't open ...
3
1
I like this hypothesis! It could easily be tested with this framework. Higher strays correlated with verified status?
1
1
I definitely think it is worth looking into. Also feel free to DM me for some data source possibilities that I can't openly share here.
Thanks! That would be interesting to explore at some point
1