Talk:Three degrees of influence

Criticism

This entire concept is logically fallacious. Why would influence end at three degrees? Obviously they just didn't have enough statistical power to detect influence past three degree of separation. Of course, they needed a catchy name in order to gain the attention of the media. It's pathetic that "scientists" would conduct this sort of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.110.35.196 (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism

"If we are connected to everyone by six degrees (according to the social psychologist Stanley Milgram) and influence those up to three degrees (Christakis), then we can reach half the world's population."

This sounds like linear reasoning whereas the phenomenon could actually be exponential. It might be better to say that one individual could influence the world population up to three degrees of magnitude. Which would still be far from negligeable. --JamesPoulson (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement appears fundamentally flawed. If everyone entertained connections with n other people and we do not count recursions, then you get a ratio of

n^{3}/n^{6}

which is not anywhere close to 1/2. Try it. -- Kku 08:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)