Sunday, January 29, 2006

Six Degrees of Terrorism

Long known, the "Six Degrees of Separation" hypothesis states that any human knows any other by a 'direct link' chain of no more than five relatives or acquaintances. The theory, attributed to Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy from a short story Chains published in 1929, was followed by more serious study of the hypothesis in 1967.1 While the original work was done as an experiment in social psychology,2 some current work is actually dealing with maximizing the speed and connectivity of large communication networks -- including the internet.3

Stated simply, I have five internet correspondents I contact. Each of them has five to assist in finding the sixth person in the link ... and the total levels are six ... me 1 2 3 4 5 target person.

That doesn't seem like much on the surface, but in actuality it shows why Bush and the NSA are thinking they can get away with domestic spying by only "following links from known or suspected terrorists overseas via connections between them and US citizens."

The math might work out this way:

I contact 5 to find #6                                      6    1 degree of separation
Each of the 6 contacts 5 to find #6 30 2 degrees of separation
Each of the 30 contact 5 to find #6 150 3 degrees of separation
Each of the 150 contact 5 to find #6 750 4 degrees of separation
Each of the 750 contact 5 to find #6 3750 5 degrees of separation
Each of the 3750 contact 5 to find #6 18750 6 degrees of separation
That is a big number ... 23,436
BUT it doesn't add up. If you think about it, you realize that this type of chain is actually applicable to each link in the chain, so the number grows quite a bit bigger, quite a lot faster; it grows "expodentially" 6 to the 6thpower, or 46,656

However, I am not limited to 5 or 6 people; I belong to three mailing lists and can thus contact at least 75 people with a single properly routed e-mail. If that number grew expodentially to the sixth power, we're looking at 177,978,515,625 people linked back to me ... that's a "national debt sized" number -- almost 178 Billion.

How many is $178 Billion? Well, here's some data on world population:
The Earth Debate4 ...
World population in 1950: 2.5 billion.
World population in 2000: over 6 billion.
Projected population 2050, with substantially slowed growth: 9.3 billion.

"OK," you say, "we all know that more than half the people would drop the ball, somewhere along the way." I agree, but even with a more realistic 35 people in each link of the chain, the result would still be huge: 1,838,265,625 ... almost two billion! That is one-third of the world's population, which would primarily represent a good portion of the world's adults.

Those figures appear to involve solely the internet, but I'm not working on that presumption. Whereas I might use e-mail to start a chain, many of the links along the way will be via telephone. Admittedly I'm somewhat of a recluse, and not that many numbers are called via my home phone or the three cells in the family plan I subscribe to, but the number would have to be at least ten different contacts per month. And most of those contacts have far more contacts than I or my family. In other words, even based upon our family's limited phone useage, we could be linked to One million
people in any month, even if everyone in the chain knew only ten new people to contact.

When you look at it in that manner, it seems rather obvious that "following links to known terrorists to find others in the possible chain of treachery and treason" could involve a tremendous number of plain, ordinary, even patriotic, American citizens. And all without warrants.

Anyone thinking that the government was somehow totally unaware of the "six degrees" concept should be disabused of the notion. Simply read "Knock, Knock, Knocking on Newton's Door" available at http://www.dau.mil/pubs/dam/03_04_2005/war-ma05.pdf (Note: This is an official US Military website.)

There is another aspect of the studies and experiments performed by Dr. Stanley Milgram with which I am certain the President's staff, the CIA, and the military are also familiar. A world-wide controversy began to follow Dr. Milgram when he published, including motion pictures, his findings on a series of experiments on obedience to authority (conducted at Yale University in 1961-1962). The shocking (no pun intended) results were that 65% of his subjects, regular plain everyday people who lived in New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks -- up to 450 volts-- to a begging, crying, protesting victim, simply because an authority figure commanded them to, and despite the fact that the victim had done nothing to deserve such extreme punishment. (The "victim" was an actor who was not actually shocked; this fact was told the subject only at the end of the experiment.) During the experiment itself, the experience was real, powerful, and totally involving for most of the subjects. I've seen the films myself, and while some subjects protested mildly about the pain apparently being doled out, questioning the
authority figure (a scientist in lab coat), the shocks were given over and over, higher and higher voltages.

Almost like torturing prisoners, with authority overriding sanity and personal ethics? As scary as the experiments at a California university which showed plain ol' normal every day students, who were given total control over student "prisoners," became violent, vicious, and almost out of control in less than two weeks? Well, see if you can discover where much of the funding for such experiments has come from over the last five or six decades.

If you'd like to learn more of the background of "Six Degrees of Separation," and what is currently being done to extend studies of this concept, a good starting point is this article
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000D52E0-D89D-1D35-90FB809EC5880000

I found on the Scientific American Website.

For more on Dr. Stanley Milgram go to http://www.stanleymilgram.com

----------------------------------------

1: In 1967, social psychologist Stanley Milgram set up an experiment of test what he called "the small world phenomenon," the idea that every person in the United States is connected by a chain of six people at most.

2: Psychologists Milgram and Travers set up an experiment where individuals in Boston and Omaha were asked to deliver a letter to a target person in Boston, but via an unconventional route. Messages were to be passed solely through a chain of acquaintances. The people starting the chain were were asked to forward the letter to someone they knew on a first-name basis -- and each was asked to do the same -- in an effort to deliver it through as few intermediaries as possible; the 'starters' were told the target's name, age, and occupation. The chains, on those letters which actually reached the target, had a median number of only six people.

3: More recent work on the "six degrees of separation" theory is being applied to network linking, can be found here: http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/20618.php You might find it interesting reading.

4: NOW with Bill Moyers. Science & Health.
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/unpopulation.html

Announcement of Coming Distractions ...

Six Degrees of Separation --
An exploration of the distance/difference between Controlling Evil Terrorism and Domestic Espionage Against Americans (complete with footnotes)

Growing Aged --
Realizations acquired, youthful questions answered, as to "how can" and "why on earth wouldn't" persons who are no-longer-middle-aged behave in a manner totally puzzling to the younger generation

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Unemployment Drops .. ??

Oh boy!  DW World News reports US Stock Market is up with the announcement that unemployment in the USA has dropped to 4.9% ...

Great?  Not exactly.  How do you think the Feds get those figures?  Well, they get them from the states.  And how do the states get those figures?  They get them from whatever they call their unemployment office.

And how does the unemployment office determine a drop in unemployment?

The only way they can count is by counting the number of persons collecting unemployment payments, plus the number of people not collecting but still using their "job placement assistance."  Sound like pretty accurate figures used to measure unemployment, right?

Not exactly.
 -- Many people who are unemployed cannot qualify to collect benefits.
 -- Those who do collect benefits can do so for only a limited period of time; at some point their benefits end, regardless of whether or not they have found work.
 -- Job hunting assistance at most state unemployment offices are a pure joke, not suitable for 75-80% of the unemployed.
 -- Those who sign up for job hunting help often give up on what 's available, even though they still need work.

Numbers don't lie ... but the people who put the numbers together can lie, and do lie, if solely by omission.

There is another reason why "unemployment" figures don't reflect the true economy:  They do not reflect the under-employed, nor those who fall outside the box by daring to be homeless.  [Please read the latter statement with cynical tone of voice.]

Perhaps the best way to judge the economic health of the peoples of this nation would be to use different bench marks.  How about the number of families that have to go to a free food bank to have two meals a day?  Maybe the people who go to free clothing store, or get their clothes from the trash of others?  Does anyone bother to count the people living in parks, under bridge abutments, beneath freeway interchanges?  And another figure that is totally disregarded are those who are disabled and struggling to survive on a meager disability payment from one source or another?  Should not all of them be counted?

Finally, when someone says that over one hundred thousand new jobs were created last month, why don't they bother to say that most of the jobs are seasonal and the workers hired will soon return to the ranks of the uncounted unemployed?

A survey I took recently asked me whether all the news programs out there were too much, or if I liked having the data available.  I answered I wanted information.  They didn't have a box to tick which said I realized that I still had to look behind the news for the facts.