ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Nicholas Christakis - Physician, social scientist
Nicholas Christakis explores how the large-scale, face-to-face social networks in which we are embedded affect our lives, and what we can do to take advantage of this fact.

Why you should listen

People aren't merely social animals in the usual sense, for we don't just live in groups. We live in networks -- and we have done so ever since we emerged from the African savannah. Via intricately branching paths tracing out cascading family connections, friendship ties, and work relationships, we are interconnected to hundreds or even thousands of specific people, most of whom we do not know. We affect them and they affect us.

Nicholas Christakis' work examines the biological, psychological, sociological, and mathematical rules that govern how we form these social networks, and the rules that govern how they shape our lives. His work shows how phenomena as diverse as obesity, smoking, emotions, ideas, germs, and altruism can spread through our social ties, and how genes can partially underlie our creation of social ties to begin with. His work also sheds light on how we might take advantage of an understanding of social networks to make the world a better place.

At Yale, Christakis is a Professor of Social and Natural Science, and he directs a diverse research group in the field of biosocial science, primarily investigating social networks. His popular undergraduate course "Health of the Public" is available as a podcast. His book, Connected, co-authored with James H. Fowler, appeared in 2009, and has been translated into 20 languages. In 2009, he was named by Time magazine to its annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world, and also, in 2009 and 2010, by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of 100 top global thinkers

More profile about the speaker
Nicholas Christakis | Speaker | TED.com
TED2010

Nicholas Christakis: The hidden influence of social networks

Filmed:
1,674,218 views

We're all embedded in vast social networks of friends, family, co-workers and more. Nicholas Christakis tracks how a wide variety of traits -- from happiness to obesity -- can spread from person to person, showing how your location in the network might impact your life in ways you don't even know.
- Physician, social scientist
Nicholas Christakis explores how the large-scale, face-to-face social networks in which we are embedded affect our lives, and what we can do to take advantage of this fact. Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:16
For me, this story begins about 15 years ago,
0
1000
3000
00:19
when I was a hospice doctor at the University of Chicago.
1
4000
3000
00:22
And I was taking care of people who were dying and their families
2
7000
3000
00:25
in the South Side of Chicago.
3
10000
2000
00:27
And I was observing what happened to people and their families
4
12000
3000
00:30
over the course of their terminal illness.
5
15000
3000
00:33
And in my lab, I was studying the widower effect,
6
18000
2000
00:35
which is a very old idea in the social sciences,
7
20000
2000
00:37
going back 150 years,
8
22000
2000
00:39
known as "dying of a broken heart."
9
24000
2000
00:41
So, when I die, my wife's risk of death can double,
10
26000
3000
00:44
for instance, in the first year.
11
29000
2000
00:46
And I had gone to take care of one particular patient,
12
31000
3000
00:49
a woman who was dying of dementia.
13
34000
2000
00:51
And in this case, unlike this couple,
14
36000
2000
00:53
she was being cared for
15
38000
2000
00:55
by her daughter.
16
40000
2000
00:57
And the daughter was exhausted from caring for her mother.
17
42000
3000
01:00
And the daughter's husband,
18
45000
2000
01:02
he also was sick
19
47000
3000
01:05
from his wife's exhaustion.
20
50000
2000
01:07
And I was driving home one day,
21
52000
2000
01:09
and I get a phone call from the husband's friend,
22
54000
3000
01:12
calling me because he was depressed
23
57000
2000
01:14
about what was happening to his friend.
24
59000
2000
01:16
So here I get this call from this random guy
25
61000
2000
01:18
that's having an experience
26
63000
2000
01:20
that's being influenced by people
27
65000
2000
01:22
at some social distance.
28
67000
2000
01:24
And so I suddenly realized two very simple things:
29
69000
3000
01:27
First, the widowhood effect
30
72000
2000
01:29
was not restricted to husbands and wives.
31
74000
3000
01:32
And second, it was not restricted to pairs of people.
32
77000
3000
01:35
And I started to see the world
33
80000
2000
01:37
in a whole new way,
34
82000
2000
01:39
like pairs of people connected to each other.
35
84000
3000
01:42
And then I realized that these individuals
36
87000
2000
01:44
would be connected into foursomes with other pairs of people nearby.
37
89000
3000
01:47
And then, in fact, these people
38
92000
2000
01:49
were embedded in other sorts of relationships:
39
94000
2000
01:51
marriage and spousal
40
96000
2000
01:53
and friendship and other sorts of ties.
41
98000
2000
01:55
And that, in fact, these connections were vast
42
100000
3000
01:58
and that we were all embedded in this
43
103000
2000
02:00
broad set of connections with each other.
44
105000
3000
02:03
So I started to see the world in a completely new way
45
108000
3000
02:06
and I became obsessed with this.
46
111000
2000
02:08
I became obsessed with how it might be
47
113000
2000
02:10
that we're embedded in these social networks,
48
115000
2000
02:12
and how they affect our lives.
49
117000
2000
02:14
So, social networks are these intricate things of beauty,
50
119000
3000
02:17
and they're so elaborate and so complex
51
122000
2000
02:19
and so ubiquitous, in fact,
52
124000
2000
02:21
that one has to ask what purpose they serve.
53
126000
3000
02:24
Why are we embedded in social networks?
54
129000
2000
02:26
I mean, how do they form? How do they operate?
55
131000
2000
02:28
And how do they effect us?
56
133000
2000
02:30
So my first topic with respect to this,
57
135000
3000
02:33
was not death, but obesity.
58
138000
3000
02:36
It had become trendy
59
141000
2000
02:38
to speak about the "obesity epidemic."
60
143000
2000
02:40
And, along with my collaborator, James Fowler,
61
145000
3000
02:43
we began to wonder whether obesity really was epidemic
62
148000
3000
02:46
and could it spread from person to person
63
151000
2000
02:48
like the four people I discussed earlier.
64
153000
3000
02:51
So this is a slide of some of our initial results.
65
156000
3000
02:54
It's 2,200 people in the year 2000.
66
159000
3000
02:57
Every dot is a person. We make the dot size
67
162000
2000
02:59
proportional to people's body size;
68
164000
2000
03:01
so bigger dots are bigger people.
69
166000
3000
03:04
In addition, if your body size,
70
169000
2000
03:06
if your BMI, your body mass index, is above 30 --
71
171000
2000
03:08
if you're clinically obese --
72
173000
2000
03:10
we also colored the dots yellow.
73
175000
2000
03:12
So, if you look at this image, right away you might be able to see
74
177000
2000
03:14
that there are clusters of obese and
75
179000
2000
03:16
non-obese people in the image.
76
181000
2000
03:18
But the visual complexity is still very high.
77
183000
3000
03:21
It's not obvious exactly what's going on.
78
186000
3000
03:24
In addition, some questions are immediately raised:
79
189000
2000
03:26
How much clustering is there?
80
191000
2000
03:28
Is there more clustering than would be due to chance alone?
81
193000
3000
03:31
How big are the clusters? How far do they reach?
82
196000
2000
03:33
And, most importantly,
83
198000
2000
03:35
what causes the clusters?
84
200000
2000
03:37
So we did some mathematics to study the size of these clusters.
85
202000
3000
03:40
This here shows, on the Y-axis,
86
205000
2000
03:42
the increase in the probability that a person is obese
87
207000
3000
03:45
given that a social contact of theirs is obese
88
210000
2000
03:47
and, on the X-axis, the degrees of separation between the two people.
89
212000
3000
03:50
On the far left, you see the purple line.
90
215000
2000
03:52
It says that, if your friends are obese,
91
217000
2000
03:54
your risk of obesity is 45 percent higher.
92
219000
3000
03:57
And the next bar over, the [red] line,
93
222000
2000
03:59
says if your friend's friends are obese,
94
224000
2000
04:01
your risk of obesity is 25 percent higher.
95
226000
2000
04:03
And then the next line over says
96
228000
2000
04:05
if your friend's friend's friend, someone you probably don't even know, is obese,
97
230000
3000
04:08
your risk of obesity is 10 percent higher.
98
233000
3000
04:11
And it's only when you get to your friend's friend's friend's friends
99
236000
3000
04:14
that there's no longer a relationship
100
239000
2000
04:16
between that person's body size and your own body size.
101
241000
3000
04:20
Well, what might be causing this clustering?
102
245000
3000
04:23
There are at least three possibilities:
103
248000
2000
04:25
One possibility is that, as I gain weight,
104
250000
2000
04:27
it causes you to gain weight.
105
252000
2000
04:29
A kind of induction, a kind of spread from person to person.
106
254000
3000
04:32
Another possibility, very obvious, is homophily,
107
257000
2000
04:34
or, birds of a feather flock together;
108
259000
2000
04:36
here, I form my tie to you
109
261000
2000
04:38
because you and I share a similar body size.
110
263000
3000
04:41
And the last possibility is what is known as confounding,
111
266000
2000
04:43
because it confounds our ability to figure out what's going on.
112
268000
3000
04:46
And here, the idea is not that my weight gain
113
271000
2000
04:48
is causing your weight gain,
114
273000
2000
04:50
nor that I preferentially form a tie with you
115
275000
2000
04:52
because you and I share the same body size,
116
277000
2000
04:54
but rather that we share a common exposure
117
279000
2000
04:56
to something, like a health club
118
281000
3000
04:59
that makes us both lose weight at the same time.
119
284000
3000
05:02
When we studied these data, we found evidence for all of these things,
120
287000
3000
05:05
including for induction.
121
290000
2000
05:07
And we found that if your friend becomes obese,
122
292000
2000
05:09
it increases your risk of obesity by about 57 percent
123
294000
3000
05:12
in the same given time period.
124
297000
2000
05:14
There can be many mechanisms for this effect:
125
299000
3000
05:17
One possibility is that your friends say to you something like --
126
302000
2000
05:19
you know, they adopt a behavior that spreads to you --
127
304000
3000
05:22
like, they say, "Let's go have muffins and beer,"
128
307000
3000
05:25
which is a terrible combination. (Laughter)
129
310000
3000
05:28
But you adopt that combination,
130
313000
2000
05:30
and then you start gaining weight like them.
131
315000
3000
05:33
Another more subtle possibility
132
318000
2000
05:35
is that they start gaining weight, and it changes your ideas
133
320000
3000
05:38
of what an acceptable body size is.
134
323000
2000
05:40
Here, what's spreading from person to person
135
325000
2000
05:42
is not a behavior, but rather a norm:
136
327000
2000
05:44
An idea is spreading.
137
329000
2000
05:46
Now, headline writers
138
331000
2000
05:48
had a field day with our studies.
139
333000
2000
05:50
I think the headline in The New York Times was,
140
335000
2000
05:52
"Are you packing it on?
141
337000
2000
05:54
Blame your fat friends." (Laughter)
142
339000
3000
05:57
What was interesting to us is that the European headline writers
143
342000
2000
05:59
had a different take: They said,
144
344000
2000
06:01
"Are your friends gaining weight? Perhaps you are to blame."
145
346000
3000
06:04
(Laughter)
146
349000
5000
06:09
And we thought this was a very interesting comment on America,
147
354000
3000
06:12
and a kind of self-serving,
148
357000
2000
06:14
"not my responsibility" kind of phenomenon.
149
359000
2000
06:16
Now, I want to be very clear: We do not think our work
150
361000
2000
06:18
should or could justify prejudice
151
363000
2000
06:20
against people of one or another body size at all.
152
365000
3000
06:24
Our next questions was:
153
369000
2000
06:26
Could we actually visualize this spread?
154
371000
3000
06:29
Was weight gain in one person actually spreading
155
374000
2000
06:31
to weight gain in another person?
156
376000
2000
06:33
And this was complicated because
157
378000
2000
06:35
we needed to take into account the fact that the network structure,
158
380000
3000
06:38
the architecture of the ties, was changing across time.
159
383000
3000
06:41
In addition, because obesity is not a unicentric epidemic,
160
386000
3000
06:44
there's not a Patient Zero of the obesity epidemic --
161
389000
3000
06:47
if we find that guy, there was a spread of obesity out from him --
162
392000
3000
06:50
it's a multicentric epidemic.
163
395000
2000
06:52
Lots of people are doing things at the same time.
164
397000
2000
06:54
And I'm about to show you a 30 second video animation
165
399000
3000
06:57
that took me and James five years of our lives to do.
166
402000
3000
07:00
So, again, every dot is a person.
167
405000
2000
07:02
Every tie between them is a relationship.
168
407000
2000
07:04
We're going to put this into motion now,
169
409000
2000
07:06
taking daily cuts through the network for about 30 years.
170
411000
3000
07:09
The dot sizes are going to grow,
171
414000
2000
07:11
you're going to see a sea of yellow take over.
172
416000
3000
07:14
You're going to see people be born and die --
173
419000
2000
07:16
dots will appear and disappear --
174
421000
2000
07:18
ties will form and break, marriages and divorces,
175
423000
3000
07:21
friendings and defriendings.
176
426000
2000
07:23
A lot of complexity, a lot is happening
177
428000
2000
07:25
just in this 30-year period
178
430000
2000
07:27
that includes the obesity epidemic.
179
432000
2000
07:29
And, by the end, you're going to see clusters
180
434000
2000
07:31
of obese and non-obese individuals
181
436000
2000
07:33
within the network.
182
438000
2000
07:35
Now, when looked at this,
183
440000
3000
07:38
it changed the way I see things,
184
443000
3000
07:41
because this thing, this network
185
446000
2000
07:43
that's changing across time,
186
448000
2000
07:45
it has a memory, it moves,
187
450000
3000
07:48
things flow within it,
188
453000
2000
07:50
it has a kind of consistency --
189
455000
2000
07:52
people can die, but it doesn't die;
190
457000
2000
07:54
it still persists --
191
459000
2000
07:56
and it has a kind of resilience
192
461000
2000
07:58
that allows it to persist across time.
193
463000
2000
08:00
And so, I came to see these kinds of social networks
194
465000
3000
08:03
as living things,
195
468000
2000
08:05
as living things that we could put under a kind of microscope
196
470000
3000
08:08
to study and analyze and understand.
197
473000
3000
08:11
And we used a variety of techniques to do this.
198
476000
2000
08:13
And we started exploring all kinds of other phenomena.
199
478000
3000
08:16
We looked at smoking and drinking behavior,
200
481000
2000
08:18
and voting behavior,
201
483000
2000
08:20
and divorce -- which can spread --
202
485000
2000
08:22
and altruism.
203
487000
2000
08:24
And, eventually, we became interested in emotions.
204
489000
3000
08:28
Now, when we have emotions,
205
493000
2000
08:30
we show them.
206
495000
2000
08:32
Why do we show our emotions?
207
497000
2000
08:34
I mean, there would be an advantage to experiencing
208
499000
2000
08:36
our emotions inside, you know, anger or happiness.
209
501000
3000
08:39
But we don't just experience them, we show them.
210
504000
2000
08:41
And not only do we show them, but others can read them.
211
506000
3000
08:44
And, not only can they read them, but they copy them.
212
509000
2000
08:46
There's emotional contagion
213
511000
2000
08:48
that takes place in human populations.
214
513000
3000
08:51
And so this function of emotions
215
516000
2000
08:53
suggests that, in addition to any other purpose they serve,
216
518000
2000
08:55
they're a kind of primitive form of communication.
217
520000
3000
08:58
And that, in fact, if we really want to understand human emotions,
218
523000
3000
09:01
we need to think about them in this way.
219
526000
2000
09:03
Now, we're accustomed to thinking about emotions in this way,
220
528000
3000
09:06
in simple, sort of, brief periods of time.
221
531000
3000
09:09
So, for example,
222
534000
2000
09:11
I was giving this talk recently in New York City,
223
536000
2000
09:13
and I said, "You know when you're on the subway
224
538000
2000
09:15
and the other person across the subway car
225
540000
2000
09:17
smiles at you,
226
542000
2000
09:19
and you just instinctively smile back?"
227
544000
2000
09:21
And they looked at me and said, "We don't do that in New York City." (Laughter)
228
546000
3000
09:24
And I said, "Everywhere else in the world,
229
549000
2000
09:26
that's normal human behavior."
230
551000
2000
09:28
And so there's a very instinctive way
231
553000
2000
09:30
in which we briefly transmit emotions to each other.
232
555000
3000
09:33
And, in fact, emotional contagion can be broader still.
233
558000
3000
09:36
Like we could have punctuated expressions of anger,
234
561000
3000
09:39
as in riots.
235
564000
2000
09:41
The question that we wanted to ask was:
236
566000
2000
09:43
Could emotion spread,
237
568000
2000
09:45
in a more sustained way than riots, across time
238
570000
3000
09:48
and involve large numbers of people,
239
573000
2000
09:50
not just this pair of individuals smiling at each other in the subway car?
240
575000
3000
09:53
Maybe there's a kind of below the surface, quiet riot
241
578000
3000
09:56
that animates us all the time.
242
581000
2000
09:58
Maybe there are emotional stampedes
243
583000
2000
10:00
that ripple through social networks.
244
585000
2000
10:02
Maybe, in fact, emotions have a collective existence,
245
587000
3000
10:05
not just an individual existence.
246
590000
2000
10:07
And this is one of the first images we made to study this phenomenon.
247
592000
3000
10:10
Again, a social network,
248
595000
2000
10:12
but now we color the people yellow if they're happy
249
597000
3000
10:15
and blue if they're sad and green in between.
250
600000
3000
10:18
And if you look at this image, you can right away see
251
603000
2000
10:20
clusters of happy and unhappy people,
252
605000
2000
10:22
again, spreading to three degrees of separation.
253
607000
2000
10:24
And you might form the intuition
254
609000
2000
10:26
that the unhappy people
255
611000
2000
10:28
occupy a different structural location within the network.
256
613000
3000
10:31
There's a middle and an edge to this network,
257
616000
2000
10:33
and the unhappy people seem to be
258
618000
2000
10:35
located at the edges.
259
620000
2000
10:37
So to invoke another metaphor,
260
622000
2000
10:39
if you imagine social networks as a kind of
261
624000
2000
10:41
vast fabric of humanity --
262
626000
2000
10:43
I'm connected to you and you to her, on out endlessly into the distance --
263
628000
3000
10:46
this fabric is actually like
264
631000
2000
10:48
an old-fashioned American quilt,
265
633000
2000
10:50
and it has patches on it: happy and unhappy patches.
266
635000
3000
10:53
And whether you become happy or not
267
638000
2000
10:55
depends in part on whether you occupy a happy patch.
268
640000
3000
10:58
(Laughter)
269
643000
2000
11:00
So, this work with emotions,
270
645000
3000
11:03
which are so fundamental,
271
648000
2000
11:05
then got us to thinking about: Maybe
272
650000
2000
11:07
the fundamental causes of human social networks
273
652000
2000
11:09
are somehow encoded in our genes.
274
654000
2000
11:11
Because human social networks, whenever they are mapped,
275
656000
3000
11:14
always kind of look like this:
276
659000
2000
11:16
the picture of the network.
277
661000
2000
11:18
But they never look like this.
278
663000
2000
11:20
Why do they not look like this?
279
665000
2000
11:22
Why don't we form human social networks
280
667000
2000
11:24
that look like a regular lattice?
281
669000
2000
11:26
Well, the striking patterns of human social networks,
282
671000
3000
11:29
their ubiquity and their apparent purpose
283
674000
3000
11:32
beg questions about whether we evolved to have
284
677000
2000
11:34
human social networks in the first place,
285
679000
2000
11:36
and whether we evolved to form networks
286
681000
2000
11:38
with a particular structure.
287
683000
2000
11:40
And notice first of all -- so, to understand this, though,
288
685000
2000
11:42
we need to dissect network structure a little bit first --
289
687000
3000
11:45
and notice that every person in this network
290
690000
2000
11:47
has exactly the same structural location as every other person.
291
692000
3000
11:50
But that's not the case with real networks.
292
695000
3000
11:53
So, for example, here is a real network of college students
293
698000
2000
11:55
at an elite northeastern university.
294
700000
3000
11:58
And now I'm highlighting a few dots.
295
703000
2000
12:00
If you look here at the dots,
296
705000
2000
12:02
compare node B in the upper left
297
707000
2000
12:04
to node D in the far right;
298
709000
2000
12:06
B has four friends coming out from him
299
711000
2000
12:08
and D has six friends coming out from him.
300
713000
3000
12:11
And so, those two individuals have different numbers of friends.
301
716000
3000
12:14
That's very obvious, we all know that.
302
719000
2000
12:16
But certain other aspects
303
721000
2000
12:18
of social network structure are not so obvious.
304
723000
2000
12:20
Compare node B in the upper left to node A in the lower left.
305
725000
3000
12:23
Now, those people both have four friends,
306
728000
3000
12:26
but A's friends all know each other,
307
731000
2000
12:28
and B's friends do not.
308
733000
2000
12:30
So the friend of a friend of A's
309
735000
2000
12:32
is, back again, a friend of A's,
310
737000
2000
12:34
whereas the friend of a friend of B's is not a friend of B's,
311
739000
2000
12:36
but is farther away in the network.
312
741000
2000
12:38
This is known as transitivity in networks.
313
743000
3000
12:41
And, finally, compare nodes C and D:
314
746000
2000
12:43
C and D both have six friends.
315
748000
3000
12:46
If you talk to them, and you said, "What is your social life like?"
316
751000
3000
12:49
they would say, "I've got six friends.
317
754000
2000
12:51
That's my social experience."
318
756000
2000
12:53
But now we, with a bird's eye view looking at this network,
319
758000
3000
12:56
can see that they occupy very different social worlds.
320
761000
3000
12:59
And I can cultivate that intuition in you by just asking you:
321
764000
2000
13:01
Who would you rather be
322
766000
2000
13:03
if a deadly germ was spreading through the network?
323
768000
2000
13:05
Would you rather be C or D?
324
770000
3000
13:08
You'd rather be D, on the edge of the network.
325
773000
2000
13:10
And now who would you rather be
326
775000
2000
13:12
if a juicy piece of gossip -- not about you --
327
777000
3000
13:15
was spreading through the network? (Laughter)
328
780000
2000
13:17
Now, you would rather be C.
329
782000
2000
13:19
So different structural locations
330
784000
2000
13:21
have different implications for your life.
331
786000
2000
13:23
And, in fact, when we did some experiments looking at this,
332
788000
3000
13:26
what we found is that 46 percent of the variation
333
791000
3000
13:29
in how many friends you have
334
794000
2000
13:31
is explained by your genes.
335
796000
2000
13:33
And this is not surprising. We know that some people are born shy
336
798000
3000
13:36
and some are born gregarious. That's obvious.
337
801000
3000
13:39
But we also found some non-obvious things.
338
804000
2000
13:41
For instance, 47 percent in the variation
339
806000
3000
13:44
in whether your friends know each other
340
809000
2000
13:46
is attributable to your genes.
341
811000
2000
13:48
Whether your friends know each other
342
813000
2000
13:50
has not just to do with their genes, but with yours.
343
815000
3000
13:53
And we think the reason for this is that some people
344
818000
2000
13:55
like to introduce their friends to each other -- you know who you are --
345
820000
3000
13:58
and others of you keep them apart and don't introduce your friends to each other.
346
823000
3000
14:01
And so some people knit together the networks around them,
347
826000
3000
14:04
creating a kind of dense web of ties
348
829000
2000
14:06
in which they're comfortably embedded.
349
831000
2000
14:08
And finally, we even found that
350
833000
2000
14:10
30 percent of the variation
351
835000
2000
14:12
in whether or not people are in the middle or on the edge of the network
352
837000
3000
14:15
can also be attributed to their genes.
353
840000
2000
14:17
So whether you find yourself in the middle or on the edge
354
842000
2000
14:19
is also partially heritable.
355
844000
3000
14:22
Now, what is the point of this?
356
847000
3000
14:25
How does this help us understand?
357
850000
2000
14:27
How does this help us
358
852000
2000
14:29
figure out some of the problems that are affecting us these days?
359
854000
3000
14:33
Well, the argument I'd like to make is that networks have value.
360
858000
3000
14:36
They are a kind of social capital.
361
861000
3000
14:39
New properties emerge
362
864000
2000
14:41
because of our embeddedness in social networks,
363
866000
2000
14:43
and these properties inhere
364
868000
3000
14:46
in the structure of the networks,
365
871000
2000
14:48
not just in the individuals within them.
366
873000
2000
14:50
So think about these two common objects.
367
875000
2000
14:52
They're both made of carbon,
368
877000
2000
14:54
and yet one of them has carbon atoms in it
369
879000
3000
14:57
that are arranged in one particular way -- on the left --
370
882000
3000
15:00
and you get graphite, which is soft and dark.
371
885000
3000
15:03
But if you take the same carbon atoms
372
888000
2000
15:05
and interconnect them a different way,
373
890000
2000
15:07
you get diamond, which is clear and hard.
374
892000
3000
15:10
And those properties of softness and hardness and darkness and clearness
375
895000
3000
15:13
do not reside in the carbon atoms;
376
898000
2000
15:15
they reside in the interconnections between the carbon atoms,
377
900000
3000
15:18
or at least arise because of the
378
903000
2000
15:20
interconnections between the carbon atoms.
379
905000
2000
15:22
So, similarly, the pattern of connections among people
380
907000
3000
15:25
confers upon the groups of people
381
910000
3000
15:28
different properties.
382
913000
2000
15:30
It is the ties between people
383
915000
2000
15:32
that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
384
917000
3000
15:35
And so it is not just what's happening to these people --
385
920000
3000
15:38
whether they're losing weight or gaining weight, or becoming rich or becoming poor,
386
923000
3000
15:41
or becoming happy or not becoming happy -- that affects us;
387
926000
3000
15:44
it's also the actual architecture
388
929000
2000
15:46
of the ties around us.
389
931000
2000
15:48
Our experience of the world
390
933000
2000
15:50
depends on the actual structure
391
935000
2000
15:52
of the networks in which we're residing
392
937000
2000
15:54
and on all the kinds of things that ripple and flow
393
939000
3000
15:57
through the network.
394
942000
2000
16:00
Now, the reason, I think, that this is the case
395
945000
3000
16:03
is that human beings assemble themselves
396
948000
2000
16:05
and form a kind of superorganism.
397
950000
3000
16:09
Now, a superorganism is a collection of individuals
398
954000
3000
16:12
which show or evince behaviors or phenomena
399
957000
3000
16:15
that are not reducible to the study of individuals
400
960000
3000
16:18
and that must be understood by reference to,
401
963000
2000
16:20
and by studying, the collective.
402
965000
2000
16:22
Like, for example, a hive of bees
403
967000
3000
16:25
that's finding a new nesting site,
404
970000
3000
16:28
or a flock of birds that's evading a predator,
405
973000
2000
16:30
or a flock of birds that's able to pool its wisdom
406
975000
3000
16:33
and navigate and find a tiny speck
407
978000
2000
16:35
of an island in the middle of the Pacific,
408
980000
2000
16:37
or a pack of wolves that's able
409
982000
2000
16:39
to bring down larger prey.
410
984000
3000
16:42
Superorganisms have properties
411
987000
2000
16:44
that cannot be understood just by studying the individuals.
412
989000
3000
16:47
I think understanding social networks
413
992000
2000
16:49
and how they form and operate
414
994000
2000
16:51
can help us understand not just health and emotions
415
996000
3000
16:54
but all kinds of other phenomena --
416
999000
2000
16:56
like crime, and warfare,
417
1001000
2000
16:58
and economic phenomena like bank runs
418
1003000
2000
17:00
and market crashes
419
1005000
2000
17:02
and the adoption of innovation
420
1007000
2000
17:04
and the spread of product adoption.
421
1009000
2000
17:06
Now, look at this.
422
1011000
2000
17:09
I think we form social networks
423
1014000
2000
17:11
because the benefits of a connected life
424
1016000
2000
17:13
outweigh the costs.
425
1018000
3000
17:16
If I was always violent towards you
426
1021000
2000
17:18
or gave you misinformation
427
1023000
2000
17:20
or made you sad or infected you with deadly germs,
428
1025000
3000
17:23
you would cut the ties to me,
429
1028000
2000
17:25
and the network would disintegrate.
430
1030000
2000
17:27
So the spread of good and valuable things
431
1032000
3000
17:30
is required to sustain and nourish social networks.
432
1035000
3000
17:34
Similarly, social networks are required
433
1039000
2000
17:36
for the spread of good and valuable things,
434
1041000
3000
17:39
like love and kindness
435
1044000
2000
17:41
and happiness and altruism
436
1046000
2000
17:43
and ideas.
437
1048000
2000
17:45
I think, in fact, that if we realized
438
1050000
2000
17:47
how valuable social networks are,
439
1052000
2000
17:49
we'd spend a lot more time nourishing them and sustaining them,
440
1054000
3000
17:52
because I think social networks
441
1057000
2000
17:54
are fundamentally related to goodness.
442
1059000
3000
17:57
And what I think the world needs now
443
1062000
2000
17:59
is more connections.
444
1064000
2000
18:01
Thank you.
445
1066000
2000
18:03
(Applause)
446
1068000
3000

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Nicholas Christakis - Physician, social scientist
Nicholas Christakis explores how the large-scale, face-to-face social networks in which we are embedded affect our lives, and what we can do to take advantage of this fact.

Why you should listen

People aren't merely social animals in the usual sense, for we don't just live in groups. We live in networks -- and we have done so ever since we emerged from the African savannah. Via intricately branching paths tracing out cascading family connections, friendship ties, and work relationships, we are interconnected to hundreds or even thousands of specific people, most of whom we do not know. We affect them and they affect us.

Nicholas Christakis' work examines the biological, psychological, sociological, and mathematical rules that govern how we form these social networks, and the rules that govern how they shape our lives. His work shows how phenomena as diverse as obesity, smoking, emotions, ideas, germs, and altruism can spread through our social ties, and how genes can partially underlie our creation of social ties to begin with. His work also sheds light on how we might take advantage of an understanding of social networks to make the world a better place.

At Yale, Christakis is a Professor of Social and Natural Science, and he directs a diverse research group in the field of biosocial science, primarily investigating social networks. His popular undergraduate course "Health of the Public" is available as a podcast. His book, Connected, co-authored with James H. Fowler, appeared in 2009, and has been translated into 20 languages. In 2009, he was named by Time magazine to its annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world, and also, in 2009 and 2010, by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of 100 top global thinkers

More profile about the speaker
Nicholas Christakis | Speaker | TED.com