Daily Archives: February 27, 2009

The Piggy Banker: a modest proposal

Posted on by

You have to hand it to ‘Sir’ Fred Goodwin over his refusal to contemplate giving some of his £16million pension pot back to the taxpayer. This is a guy who doesn’t care about winning friends and influencing people. It’s bad PR and might even be dangerous for him in the long term: a lot of people are very pissed off about rich bankers walking away unscathed from the wreckage that they engineered of other people’s lives and pensions. The chances of Mr Goodwin being able to walk around unscathed are, I’d say, pretty poor, even in a law-abiding country like Britain. At the very least he could use the services of Max Clifford.

Gordon Brown & Co are beginning to look not just foolish but pathetic. The Prime Minister is reduced to asking Goodwin to do the decent thing and muttering vague threats of retribution if he refuses. But if Goodwin remains adamant and there turns out to be no legal way of forcing him to disgorge some of his ill-gotten gains, Brown will be left looking silly, and his threats will be unmasked as empty rhetoric.

So here’s a modest proposal. For starters, why not strip Goodwin of his knighthood? (He got it for “services to banking”, if you please.) After all, it’s a privilege, not a contractual right.

UPDATE: Just watching Newsnight on BBC2 and knighthood-stripping is now under discussion. But I suggested it on Twitter this morning.

On this day…

Posted on by

… in 1991, President George Bush Snr. declared that “Kuwait is liberated, Iraq’s army is defeated,” and announced that the allies would suspend combat operations at midnight.

Primates on Facebook

Posted on by

Nice piece in this week’s Economist about groupings on social networks.

Primatologists call at least some of the things that happen on social networks “grooming”. In the wild, grooming is time-consuming and here computerisation certainly helps. But keeping track of who to groom—and why—demands quite a bit of mental computation. You need to remember who is allied with, hostile to, or lusts after whom, and act accordingly. Several years ago, therefore, Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist who now works at Oxford University, concluded that the cognitive power of the brain limits the size of the social network that an individual of any given species can develop. Extrapolating from the brain sizes and social networks of apes, Dr Dunbar suggested that the size of the human brain allows stable networks of about 148. Rounded to 150, this has become famous as “the Dunbar number”.

And guess what?

The Economist asked Cameron Marlow, the “in-house sociologist” at Facebook, to crunch some numbers. Dr Marlow found that the average number of “friends” in a Facebook network is 120, consistent with Dr Dunbar’s hypothesis, and that women tend to have somewhat more than men. But the range is large, and some people have networks numbering more than 500, so the hypothesis cannot yet be regarded as proven.

What also struck Dr Marlow, however, was that the number of people on an individual’s friend list with whom he (or she) frequently interacts is remarkably small and stable. The more “active” or intimate the interaction, the smaller and more stable the group.

Thus an average man—one with 120 friends—generally responds to the postings of only seven of those friends by leaving comments on the posting individual’s photos, status messages or “wall”. An average woman is slightly more sociable, responding to ten. When it comes to two-way communication such as e-mails or chats, the average man interacts with only four people and the average woman with six. Among those Facebook users with 500 friends, these numbers are somewhat higher, but not hugely so. Men leave comments for 17 friends, women for 26. Men communicate with ten, women with 16.

What mainly goes up, therefore, is not the core network but the number of casual contacts that people track more passively. This corroborates Dr Marsden’s ideas about core networks, since even those Facebook users with the most friends communicate only with a relatively small number of them.