Six degrees of separation?

by Dr. Pat Garner

When I first heard about the concept of “six degrees of separation,” I was very skeptical. The idea that any of us is separated from any other person in the world at a distance of six different contacts seems absurd. Despite the fact that there had been several studies that seemed to confirm this odd occurrence, I continued to doubt both the research and the idea of this phenomenon … until 2016. Right after Donald Trump was first elected president, I surprisingly realized that in two instances I was only two or three degrees separated from him. This was a jarring thought. One of the president’s press secretaries was one of my son’s primary tennis competitors when he was in high school. As well, one of my former debaters and students is the chief of staff to a prominent U.S. congressman who doubtless talked with the president.  Who could imagine being so distant from, yet connected in some way, to many millions, perhaps even billions of people? At the least, this phenomenon compels a person to think about what unknown effects he or she may inadvertently be having on who knows how many people.

The researchers Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler decided to examine the extent of interpersonal influence on a level smaller than six degrees of separation. They were concerned with just what effects one person’s behavior has throughout immediate and even distant social networks. Their research showed that any behavior has a rippling effect within a network to three degrees of influence. In their book, Connected, Christakis and Fowler say, “Everything we do or say tends to ripple through our network, having an impact on our friends (one degree), our friends’ friends (two degrees) and even our friends’ friends’ friends (three degrees).” Of course, we are likewise influenced by our friends to the same extent. Note that “the Three Degrees Rule applies to a broad range of attitudes, feelings and behaviors” occurring in such diverse areas as “political views, weight gain and happiness.” 

The bombshell that explodes from their research is basically mathematical. Actually, the effect is exponential. Our social networks are configured within other interwoven webs of relationships. This means that potentially we are interconnected directly and indirectly to thousands of people. Christakis and Fowler found that if you have 20 social contacts and each of them, in turn, has a similar number of contacts, you are “indirectly connected to four hundred people at two degrees of separation. And your influence does not stop there; it goes one more step to the 20 friends and family of each of those people, yielding a total of 8,000 people who are three degrees removed from you.” All of these are within your immediate sphere of influence as you are theirs.

We would like to think that our behavior is ours and ours alone. We like to think we are independent actors. But this is not true. Behaviors are contagious. If my friend’s group starts to go to the gym, so do I. If my friends start to eat lots of Big Macs and shakes, so do I. If I yield to someone at a four-way stop, when that person arrives at another four-way stop, they will imitate my behavior, yielding to other cars. As Christakis and Fowler definitively show, the imitative power of our behaviors has significant effects far past their point of origin. John Donne was right: “No man is an island.” The way you interact — verbally and nonverbally — has potentially constructive or destructive effects to literally thousands of others. 

Think of it. There is the checkout lady at Walmart, the server in the restaurant, the teller at the bank, the person in line with you at the airport, the person in line with you … wherever. There are all of the people with whom you interact, verbally and nonverbally, in your office or work space. And, not least of all, there are those in your immediate family and friend group with whom you have your closest relationships. All of these are being affected by our verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The power of human communication, human interaction, is incredible, pervasive and absolutely unavoidable. Thus it would seem wise for all of us to try to understand what is involved in the process of communication. But to do this, we must deconstruct the whole process. This will involve moving past our behaviors and looking inside the individual to determine why we do what we do. Immediately several questions rise to the surface as critical keys to unlocking the internal bases of communication.

• How might our need to imitate others be tied to the nature and function of the brain? To types of neurons? To the expending of brain energy?
• How do internal mechanisms relate to our desire to surround ourselves with people like us, even people who smell like us.
• Is there some genetic component influencing our development of relationships?
• Why is there an upward limit to the number of relationships a person might maintain? And what is that number?

Years ago, when my grandson, Nathan, was about 4 years old, he did something; I do not remember what. In response to him, I asked, “Nathan, why did you do that?” His response was almost profound: “I do what I do.” Too often this is also the response many adults have to their communication behaviors, both good and bad. But this response, though understandable for a 4-year-old, is inadequate for adults. Recent research in the social sciences has begun to explain in detail why we do what we do in every aspect of the communication process. It is our privilege to know, understand and use that research to increase our self and interpersonal knowledge of the communication process.

Source: Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, Connected. New York: Back Bay Books, 2011.