Talk:Six degrees of separation

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Improved diagram requested[edit]

I agree with Robert K S:

I don't understand this diagram. The circles appear to be miscolored if they represent degrees of separation. For example, the circles that branch off the first orange circle should be purple, and so on. Second, the diagram is not a particularly good illustration of the concept, since there is no correspondence between spatial relationship and degree of separation. This picture thus does not really serve an instructive function. It's just pretty art.
— User:Robert K S 12:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I therefore propose we remove the image File:Six degrees of separation.svg (from our article) until a better version can be proposed.

At minimum the colors need to be redone to make sense (a given color should always correspond to a given degree of separation from A). CapnZapp (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done File:Six degrees of separation.svg temporarily removed per above. CapnZapp (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: & @Robert K S: I've labelled and coloured file:arctic_food_web.svg as an alternative. Hope this works, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort, but this article isn't about just any degrees of separation, such as logical or spatial; it's specifically about social separation. The article defines its subject as "the idea that all people are six, or fewer, social connections away from each other". I searched for suitable images, and one of the few that truly illustrates the concept is this one, at hackerearth.com. Obviously we can't use it, but I hope it conveys my point. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the fish food web diagram with File:Six Degrees of Larry Stone (3820038625).jpg on that basis, which is the best one I was able to find, although it's a bit too plainly a bunch of somebody's private jokes. Perhaps a neutral diagram could be made, that just has names in connected circles and allows for a caption of "Alice is six degrees separated from Bob". --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now drawn and applied a neutral diagram, reusing the names from the previous one: File:Six degrees social network.png. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Watts experiment wrong?[edit]

Text says experiment was done in 2001, but citation is to a 1998 paper? Aviad.rubinstein (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

politics[edit]

In most countries, everyone will know a politician or someone who knows a politician, that politician will know their national party leader. This route alone will deliver most of the connections. Just a small number of national figures are enough to link most populations. 80.7.168.14 (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy[edit]

The article seems to go to great lengths to avoid empirical research that contradicts the main thesis. It also switches from "All people" to "All people on average". Heck, it doesn't even attempt to distinguish between "average" (mean) and median (the latter is often preferred central measure for social population statistics). I note that without any definition of what "social connection" means, this article is sloppy and vague. I suggest that it be restructured with an "early" section (All people) separate from the more modern "The average person" interpretation of what "six degrees" is about. Finally, consider the graph with 6 edges between Ryan and Pablo. It would be remarkable if there were no women who were degree 6 separated. Let's assume there are two women in their reproductive years with 6 degree separation. Then let them give birth as single mothers. The two neonates are 8 degrees separate from one another (unless there is a father, or the midwives/medical staff are of degree 4 from the all of the others.) This points out one example of the implausibility of the original 6 degree idea. I suspect the authors don't want to admit, up front, that the idea is just not true, but shouldn't that be demanded of a Wikipedia article? Why not be honest and say up front that it IS an modern myth?72.16.96.150 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]