As for Olduvai Theory, we’re of course familiar with it. In fact, the work of Leslie White—the same theorist Duncan relies on—is something of a foundation for us. In the book version of the Thirty Theses, a review of White’s Law become a full thesis, along with a review of Duncan’s Olduvai Theory. So, I wouldn’t say it’s intentional, so much as somehow, it simply hasn’t come up.

Well, 1,500 is just the sample size, not the response rate. All the article says about that is that the response rate is “high.” But it doesn’t address the issue of self-selection bias, which was my point.

These are issues so basic to statistics and polls that even I know how to deal with them. Non-responses simply reduce your confidence interval, that’s all. With 1,500 in your sample size, non-response is pretty easy to bracket.

In general, it’s exceedingly rare for someone to agree to taking a survey if they have anything else to do.

That’s why any serious study offers some incentive to do so. Seriously, this is stuff I covered in my first lecture in my first semester of college: sociological research methods. This is really, really basic stuff; if you can’t deal with this, then we need to chuck most of the social sciences right now.

But besides that, it’s pretty rare for a single study to “prove” much of anything. Until the phenomenon can be replicated and studied in further detail, it’s open to methodological criticisms and multiple interpretations.

There is that. OK, “prove” is poorly chosen. This study indicates that a good many of us have no confidants, how’s that?

Why would you assume that it’s someone that the person in question doesn’t know very well?

BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT I’M MAKING IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW ANYONE VERY WELL ANYMORE!!!!

It takes time and energy to get to know someone well, and that’s time and energy we don’t have. The study indicates that we know fewer and fewer people very well. The lack of people we know well is PRECISELY what we’re talking about!

You just said it again! Now explain to me how this statement can be interpretted in any way other than you saying that a relationship that does not provide for every single social need is “shallow.”

WHAT? Jesus Christ, OK … deep vs. shallow relationships are functions of how much time and energy you’ve invested in that relationship. If you cultivate many shallow relationships (like 9,000 friends on MySpace), but you have few deep relationships (as the study indicates, most of us have fewer deep relationships), then you may have a friend you can ask to pass along your resume when you’re looking for a job, and you may have another friend you can go get a drink with, but when you face a situation where you need a deep relationship—a best man at your wedding, help moving, that kind of thing—you look around at all your friends, and you find out there’s not a one of them where the relationship is sufficiently deep, where your investments of time and energy have been sufficient, to reasonably call on them for such a task.

Now, how the hell do you get from that, that a relationship that doesn’t fulfill every possible dimension is shallow?

I’m not arguing that. But I’m fairly certain that that’s not the sole factor that goes into such a evaluation.

The criteria for “Best Places to Work” are consistently things that we should be able to expect as the minimum: respect for “work/life balance” (the very existence of that phrase is telling—in Europe, the attitude is that you work to live, rather than live to work), fair pay and benefits, managers and co-workers you’re not afraid will stab you in the back at the first opportunity, etc. In other words, “not putting their employees at each others’ throats.” Lower salaries, longer hours, and less vacation times—the defining trends of the modern American economy—are all accepted only because of the competition between workers. That is the status quo. A workplace where people work together instead of trying to one-up each other is an exceptional thing.

Note the qualifications, though–”too often or too arbitrarily.” It’s not the use of power that strains the relationship, but how that power is used.

Note the qualifications, though—”too deeply” and so on. It’s not the use of knives that kill people, but how they are used. If I just cut you a little bit, or even cut you a lot in the right places, you probably won’t die. So I don’t see how you can say that a knife is a weapon.

Love and power are antithetical. If you don’t use your power, then love can endure, because it’s just like not having any power. Even when power is used in a benevolent fashion, it is still stifling and abusive to the child’s sense of autonomy, which slowly breeds resentment. Power is the opposite of love; children love their parents in spite of their parents’ power. They’re two opposite forces that balance each other, and the balance can be net positive or net negative, but love will always be diminished commensurate with the use of power.

1,500 is a sample size most statisticians would love to get, the kind where non-respondents are really minimized.

Well, 1,500 is just the sample size, not the response rate. All the article says about that is that the response rate is “high.” But it doesn’t address the issue of self-selection bias, which was my point. And this seems to be an issue for which such a bias would be particularly pronounced. In general, it’s exceedingly rare for someone to agree to taking a survey if they have anything else to do. So the ones who are responding to this study are likely to be the ones who have nothing to do. And people who have nothing to do are more likely to feel isolated. Now when the article says that they have a high response rate, what does that mean? How high is “high?” High enough to offset this sort of bias? I don’t know.

But besides that, it’s pretty rare for a single study to “prove” much of anything. Until the phenomenon can be replicated and studied in further detail, it’s open to methodological criticisms and multiple interpretations.

Oh, they may be the nicest people in the world, but you can’t count on them because you don’t know them very well.

Why would you assume that it’s someone that the person in question doesn’t know very well?

Then, you don’t have anyone, because you don’t have any deep relationships—you just have a lot of shallow ones.

You just said it again! Now explain to me how this statement can be interpretted in any way other than you saying that a relationship that does not provide for every single social need is “shallow.”

I’m less diplomatic than they are. They come up with fancy names. I call it what it is.

And yet you continue to avoid explaining how a “Best Place to Work” award is equivalent to an award for not putting their employees at each others’ throats. It’s no doubt true that a “best place to work” doesn’t put its employees at each others’ throats. I’m not arguing that. But I’m fairly certain that that’s not the sole factor that goes into such a evaluation.

Yet even in software, every software engineer knows he can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

Hey, it’s not the manager’s fault that every software engineer doesn’t know much about business.

Children love their parents in spite of their parents’ power over them, and when their parents use that power too often or too arbitrarily, that love begins to wane because of it.

Note the qualifications, though–”too often or too arbitrarily.” It’s not the use of power that strains the relationship, but how that power is used. A person may continue to have a trusting relationship with a superior who uses her power regularly, so long as she uses her power fairly. Thus, it’s not the use of power that breaks the trust, but rather the abuse of power.

Really, all power is temporary. But that’s another issue.

And in the long run, we’re all dead, as Keynes said, but there’s a big difference between being the leader for an hour, and being the leader until nobody can take it anymore and you have to be removed by a bloody coup.

Matters of how children should be brought up aside, I was merely responding to Anonymous’ point that it is impossible to trust someone who has power over you. This is clearly not the case. Children genuinely trust their parents and other adults despite the power that these older people have over them. And that’s true even in your tribal societies. A student may genuinely trust a teacher or a mentor, even in adulthood, despite the power that these people have over them.

My point is that the love comes from an entirely different source, and is in fact antithetical to the exercise of power. Children love their parents in spite of their parents’ power over them, and when their parents use that power too often or too arbitrarily, that love begins to wane because of it.

So, the affect of power on affection is still profoundly negative. Adding a positive integer and a negative integer may result in a positive sum, but that does not change the fact that the second integer is negative.

Stop posting so fast!

They do not have authority beyond that sphere, and that sphere has limited spatial and temporal dimensions. Neither the rabbit hunt nor the ritual goes on forever, and when it’s over, so is the organizer’s authority.

Really, all power is temporary. But that’s another issue.

You’re in too much of a rush to criticize Old Man Taker. You seem to have once again missed the point. Matters of how children should be brought up aside, I was merely responding to Anonymous’ point that it is impossible to trust someone who has power over you. This is clearly not the case. Children genuinely trust their parents and other adults despite the power that these older people have over them. And that’s true even in your tribal societies. A student may genuinely trust a teacher or a mentor, even in adulthood, despite the power that these people have over them.

Well, let’s be fair. It’s really debatable as to whether or not the article “showed” anything. A survey of 1,500 people who are sitting around at home taking surveys might give you some skewed results, if you get my meaning.

1,500 is a sample size most statisticians would love to get, the kind where non-respondents are really minimized. If this study isn’t reliable, then we might as well chuck all of sociology and psychology right here and now.

Who’s to say you can’t count on them, though? Just because you’re only counting on them for specific things doesn’t mean you can’t count on them.

Oh, they may be the nicest people in the world, but you can’t count on them because you don’t know them very well. It takes time and energy to develop that kind of relationship—i.e., that kind of trust—and you haven’t, because you don’t have that kind of time and energy. That’s the whole point. Somebody may be the nicest guy in the whole world, but if you’ve never taken the time to even take an interest in his hobbies, he’s not likely going to help you move out of your apartment, know what I’m saying?

The point Wellman is making is that instead of having a few people you can go to with any problem you have, you have a larger number of people among whom you have a “division of labor.” So in one situation you could go to friends #1-10, but in another sort of situation you’d go to friends #11-20, and so on.

Unless you have a problem like, “moving out,” where you need a couple really good friends. Or people in your wedding party, or what have you. Then, you don’t have anyone, because you don’t have any deep relationships—you just have a lot of shallow ones.

And in fact, doing it this way would ultimately produce a much stronger social network because you’re not putting all your eggs in one basket.

You’re talking about “weak links,” like Jeff Vail talks about. We talk about that in episode #4 of the podcast. Suffice to say, as powerful as weak links are and as important as they are to maintain, they’re no substitute for a tight-knit community.

Why would you reward someone for sabotaging company work?

It’s like the Drow in Forgotten Realms: it’s wrong if you get caught. If you get caught, you’re punished. If you don’t get caught, all they know is that you completed your tasks, and your competitor did not. You get the promotion.

And yet, nowhere on this page do I see a Not Putting Their Employees at Each Others’ Throats Award. Curious.

I’m less diplomatic than they are. They come up with fancy names. I call it what it is.

Your “replacement” doesn’t have that knowledge.

In software, that trend is even stronger than usual, with large, complex systems that need to be understood on a very basic level. Yet even in software, every software engineer knows he can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

My explanation was part of a larger discussion about middle and high school cliques, and it goes for skaters, stoners, and every other student grabbing onto a fringe fashion to claim uniqueness. The point is not for the student to be unique from every other human being on the planet: the point is for the student to identify herself as being part of a tribe that’s unique when compared to the other tribes at the school. It’s never been about being a totally unique individual, like no one else in any way. It’s about finding the tribe you feel an affinity with, and strongly identifying yourself with that tribe. In the case of Goths, they feel alienated from society, so they identify themselves with others who feel alienated in the same way and for largely the same reasons.

The clothing and makeup and music serve the same purpose that tattoos often do in real indigenous societies. When they say they’re unique and original and different, what they really mean is that their tribe is unique, original, and different because their tribe doesn’t emphasize conformity to the same extent that the other tribes (preps, jocks) do. But we live in a highly individualistic society, so most people lack the language to put that concept into words.