4.03.2010

Your friends are more popular than you, but you don't care

Scott Feld's groundbreaking work entitled "Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do" made waves in the psychological and sociological communities back in 1991, but more people need to be reminded of its applicability today, especially in the era of Internet-driven social networking.

The explanation is quite simple: we are more likely to be friends with those who have more friends than people who have few friends.  Think in extremes - if someone is friends with everyone, you have a one hundred percent chance of being friends with that individual.  The contrapositive is also true, then, that you have a zero percent chance of having a friend who has zero friends.  So you're more likely to be friends with people who "network" at least as much as you do, which means that they're likely to have at least as many friends as you.  Probably more.

It's a combination of pure math and human perception.  For example, expand this to other areas of life.  For example, the highway isn't usually crowded, but most people are most likely to be on it at the same time ("rush hour").  Neither is the beach, but more people are likely to experience it at the same time (days with particularly nice weather, we all want to go).  When you go to the gym, you're not as in good condition as everyone else because you're more likely to see people who are there more often.

Mind-numbingly simple, isn't it?

It gets worse, though. Zuckerman and Jost demonstrated that individuals generally enhance their own standing in popularity when compared to their friends than when compared to that of the "typical other." (This is at least partially based off of Tesser's 1988 research that said we're more likely to feel threatened by the success of our friends than the success of strangers.)  In their words:
Thus an exploration of the "subjective side" of the friendship paradox increases the irony: people have fewer friends than their friends have, but they believe they have more friends than their friends.
They attribute part of this to our ability to both reflect and compare ourselves to others: we want to be more popular than our friends, but we also want to benefit from our friends' popularity.  Think of it in a different context - few of us are willing to say that we're the best drivers, but it's been proven that a majority of us think we're above average. Zuckerman and Jost present as an another reason that when calculating our own popularity, we include friends of our friends.  But when calculating our friends' popularity; we only think of their friends - we don't know the friends of their friends.

So, what does this all mean?

If you needed more proof that comparing yourself to others isn't the way to make yourself happy in life, this should be it.  Our ego (in an academic sense, not colloquial) wants us to believe that we are above average, when comparing ourselves with people we know. However, the reality is that we're not as popular as we think we are, and it does hinder the ego.  For whatever reason, it's an explanation for why when we're in a sad state and our ego's down we'll feel that we don't have as many friends as others do.  But when we're in an upbeat, dominant mode, we'll feel secure in the "knowledge" that we have plenty of friends for support.

There is a silver lining, though, and not one easily forgotten.  You're not alone, because everyone else is in the same boat you are.  And when you realize that this is all a normal part of human social life, then it's really not so bad.  So remember that the next time you're feeling down.  There will always be someone more popular, richer, stronger or better-looking than you are, but you've got those same qualities over everyone else.  It's all about putting life in perspective.

No comments:

Post a Comment