18 comments

  1. kapresovsk kapresovsk

    nice, enthusiastic. as to why humans don't form networks in a shape of perfect grid: it's because the gird is a perfect creation of a designer who supervises everything and builds a grid while humans and all living creatures are down there, they see only their closest environment and just do what they can to create at least some vital bonds. our 'software' has to operate on individual level without supervision of a scientist or an engineer. the fact, that it works so well seems miraculous and righteously invokes an idea of an architect to many people … second reason is that bonds forming 'software' in humans is intended to create hierarchy, not egalitarian uniform network. why? because hierarchy is more effective in a small group. good hierarchy means that a group joyfully executes a will of their leader. democracy is only very recent invention and requires individual responsibility … which is still very scarce …

    first
  2. T Clark T Clark

    So they teach this stuff at the 'elite' institutions, along with courses like Sandel's Justice at Harvard, Haidts courses at Columbia, etc…and what comes out the other side is a bunch of twisted little fucksticks who not only cant/dont/wont comprehend these insights, but actually are so maligned as to get someone like Kristakis fired. It might be the end of W Civ we are witnessing: the media (propaganda tool), academic institutions, and political machines are all complicit. What do we do?

    second
  3. Leighton Julye Leighton Julye

    As you go through life never loose the good fiends you meetAfter the death of a friend, healing in a human social network

    third
  4. Peter Jones Peter Jones

    I just saw the Yale video and was completely blown away by the mob of angry snowflakes.
    But I'm far more fascinated that he anticipated and described the phenomena of generation snowflake long before it ever appeared on campuses.
    I also wonder if any of those students will ever reflect back on their behavior and appreciate that their outrage was learned via their social networks.

    4th
  5. nyyankees4296 nyyankees4296

    i love how that black chick was calling him disgusting in that protest video he's actually done great things

    5th
  6. vicarious014 vicarious014

    But he failed to make a safe space! I thought he was supposed to be a "disgusting" man? LOL

    6th
  7. Kuba Kuba

    Even though obvious, his enthusiasm sparks me. I also have a new LinkedIn header 15:03

    7th
  8. erozpl01 erozpl01

    Poor guy got the full force of the grown children cry bullies

    8th
  9. WisMicYal11 WisMicYal11

    I love his enthusiasm.

    9th
  10. naomianj15 naomianj15

    Great talk 👍 but he reminds me of Mr. Bean.

    10th
  11. Lauren Peacock Lauren Peacock

    Learning about social networks in these (Social and emotional) contexts changed the way I see myself in this world 🙂 Nice way of perspective taking.

    11th
  12. Kit Kit

    Still up to date!!

    12th
  13. Kimberlyn Bailey Kimberlyn Bailey

    A credit to the force for Yale. They should work hard to make sure he doesn't resign.

    13th
  14. 零

    Safe-space & trigger warning freaks/fascists/crybullies
    here 's your nemesis

    the great Nicholas Christakis.

    14th
  15. vaibhav kumar vaibhav kumar

    awesome sir

    15th
  16. Anna B Anna B

    so much yelling 🙁

    16th
  17. Judith Obatusa Judith Obatusa

    Another link from Coursera that has nourished my knowledge base.

    17th
  18. Viktor Maximilian Distaturus Freiherr Viktor Maximilian Distaturus Freiherr

    13:28
    Nicholas Christakis  PLEASE clarify this: this could mean so much that it starts to mean nothing again.

    To make this clear: this is everything else than clear:
    13:28      'explained by our genes'

    1.)genes don't explain we explain by genes.
    2.) 3 INTERPRETATIONS of the sentence at

    A) The behaviour of how I & people whith my set of genes network (transitivity, number, centrality) has a variation. [3 variables which vary in the populatoin of my gene set]

    B) I & people whith my set of genes network ((transitivity, number, centrality)
    over the course of their live with a variation in these behaiours.
    [3 variables which vary over the lifetime]

    C) with around 50% accuracy of all variation cases it is possible to link networking behaviour to the set of genes.

    3.) a) PREMISE & b) FINDINGS are very hard to understand.

    a) the variation has a finite set: this is the 100%
    [A) normal distribution:some gene sets vary in +/-4friends, some in +/-10-25friends]
    [B) normal distribution:gene sets lifetime behaviour varies in +/-4 friends]
    [C) too lazy……

    b) around 50% of this variation is determined by my genes.
    [A) my gene set explains, half the number of my firends if i have a +/- 4 friends variation over my lifetime, so looking at my genes says: +/-2 friends is certain??]
    [B) tooo lazy…. please clarify this….

    This means:
    A) 1) You should be able to observe an 'around 50% difference' in variation of these 3 numbers in every population which has a certain set of genes.
    [some have 4 some 6 friends some 2]
    2) You should be able to observe a clearly solid core of this variable numbers………

    PLEASE clarify this: this could mean so much that it starts zo mean nothing again.

    18th

Leave a Reply