Thanks for the comment.
I totally agree that game theory is only one way to approach social network formation. And I know quite a bit about the predictable irrational behavior that Dan Ariely talked about.
I also agree that people may choose to associate with others with no real goals or motives. This may simply be due to homophily, triadic closure, or happen to be in a certain geographic location, etc. But I am not certain if these ties will developed into strong relationships though. Some of them may (this is not a physical law), but I think the number may be pretty small.
I will check out the reference you mentioned "The Hyper-Social Organization" by Gossieaux and Moran.
Thanks again for commenting. Hope to see you again on lithosphere.
... View more
Not a problem. We are all learning in some ways, just in different areas. I'm glad you find my articles informative and instructive.
Now I get what you are asking. Yes, communities is not a rigid social structure. It is definitely dynamic, and there are a lot of fluidity in them. People come and go, and topics of interest shift all the time. I've definitely seen this in our data. For example, a tech support community can shift it focus to be more marketing and sales driven after a product launch. Likewise, an enthusiast community can behave more like a support community after some bugs were found. All these time sensitive events are responsible for the shift in the community (ie bug report, product launch).
These shift certainly brings in different groups of people and allow different sets of people to interact. So there are certainly more chance to create weak ties. However, to develop these into strong relationships, members of the community still need to invest the time into building the relationship. But, if you are asking the possibility, then yes. I've definitely seen what you are describing in our data.
Either way, thank you the inquisitiveness and for posting your question here.
... View more