The Science Of Networks

Hallo... in May 2003 I heard Dr. Albert-Laszlo Barabasi on National Public Radio and was very eager to learn more. I bought his book "Linked" about the Science of Networks, an absolutely fascinating field I have been exploring for over 2 years.

While reading the "Rich Get Richer" chapter, I grabbed a piece of paper and jotted down what you can see in the image above (sorry it is not clear) and the example below. I rushed home from the coffee shop, and being a visual person, drew it all out on a PowerPoint slide.

Later on, I finished the chapter and saw what I thought the author had missed. Information about networks evolving and such. Silly me for jumping ahead, but I decided to send my theory to him anyway. I was keen to share it. Dr. Barabasi informed me that my theory was "cool" and added some comments.

HERE IS MY THEORY...

The rich get richer, then the nouveau riche come along!

Realignment Network Theory: A Hubbing-Dehubbing Process

1. two nodes link
2. senior node becomes popular
3. senior node becomes a hub
4. new node comes along
5. other nodes attracted to new node now a new hub, senior node de-hubbed
6. senior node dies

Website Hubbing-Dehubbing as an Example:

A poetry website comes online and advertises itself. Other websites are attracted to it and create a link. Soon it becomes a hub. Several months pass and then a new poetry site comes online and advertises itself. Other sites test it out and find that it provides better graphics and richer content than the old poetry site. Websites shift their loyalty and the new poetry site becomes a hub. The old poetry site is dehubbed and eventually dies. If it is able to drastically transform, it can be a hub again. 

Do read "Linked" and check out all about the Science of Networks via:

Albert Barabasi's Website
Mark Newman's Website
Center for the Study of Complex Systems - UMich
The Center for Complex Network Research

-zensufi-

Psych Tests Vs Interviews

Where do you tip on this scale, huh? I found this image on the net, and my being a non-supporter of various psychological tests that categorize and compartmentalize people, I am sharing this with you. Depending on how you answer psych tests, you come across as for example: too aggressive or not aggressive enough, or too much of a risk taker or risk devoid. Point being, such tests provide inflexibility. The bad news - some companies still live in the dark ages and make such tests mandatory for potential employees. They will not even meet with nor speak with the candidate until the psych test has been cleared. As social beings we tend to present ourselves differently in-person, so the candidate you evaluated on paper might not be the one sitting in front of you. Dozens of barriers are instantly broken down the minute people interact face to face. I think companies should get rid of the psych tests and look at the Big Picture. Instead of predicting my potential over a multiple choice exam, predict it over cup of coffee! Give it a try...