Image via Wikipedia

In 1948 fewer than 10% of the residents were obese, increasing to 18% by 1985 and to a staggering 40% today. In effect, obesity worked in a viral fashion to change the social norm for many residents. Research revealed that having an obese spouse raised the risk of becoming obese by 37%, and if a friend became obese the risk increased by 171%! Perhaps most interestingly, different groups of people began clumping together; rarely was a lean person tied closely to a social network of obese people. Social networks and friend groups became segregated based on weight. Even space did not stop the viral spread of obesity; friends who moved hundreds of miles away from Framingham still had an impact on behavior.

“Think of it this way: Even if you see a friend only once a year, that friend will still change your sense of what’s appropriate. And that new norm will influence what you do.” – - James Fowler

The influence of social networks does not stop at obesity; smoking, happiness and nearly any human behavior can be affected. In Framingham in 1971 smokers were evenly distributed throughout the social network and 65% of residents between 40 and 49 smoked regularly. By 2001, only 22% still smoked and the remaining smokers were more socially isolated than non-smokers. If a person quit smoking, their friend was 36% more likely to quit as well. Each happy friend, according to the article, can increase happiness by 9%. A $5,000 dollar raise raised happiness by only 2%. This phenomena has also, logically, carried over to social media. Studies on Facebook have shown similar trends of similar behavior.

Translation to Architecture and the Built Environment

Our unique American urban and suburban landscape can be attributed to many things; can social networks be one of them? For millions of people, living in a suburban neighborhood in a house that is remarkably similar to all the others is common. It seems possible that this is related to our desire to fit in with those we are around. We are all familiar with the colloquialism of “keeping up with the Joneses”, but unfortunately we picked odd examples of people to keep up with, valuing status symbols like cars and jewelry more than a good place to dwell. Although there is something there. Status is terribly important to our social lives and to our ability to have a leg up in intrasexual competition and increase our reproductive success. Perhaps as cars and jewelry can be shown and seen at great distances from our homes, our ability to advertise our status with those devices is elevated.

Maybe there are more benefits too. Those with a lower status, or those deviant parts of the population can hide behind the edifice of the

But what about from another perspective? A new arrival in an old neighborhood, first week there he tears the whole place to the ground to start over. He builds something new, something different. One can imagine he will be less than warmly received, but why? Others in the neighborhood may fear home values falling, decreasing their monetary value and their status along with it. Or perhaps by removing the one symbol that made him similar to his neighbors, he has exposed himself to be socially different as well, not quite “their type”. His social status may suffer before he even gets a chance to establish it. Imagine transplanting a house from the Haight District to a quiet neighborhood in God-fearing Colorado Springs. What was successful and accepted if San Francisco does not work there. The clash of disparate architecture provides a visual for the clash of social groups and norms behind the architecture.

One can imagine how these social viruses can influence zoning decisions, transportation decisions, infrastructure decisions, and on and on. Unique social groups and networks produce unique interactions and responses in the built environment.

That’s all I’ve got for now, but I am sure there is far more there…

Related articles:

• Bradley W. Bloch: How Much Does Your Network Weigh? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Anthropology Comes to Facebook (battellemedia.com)
• Originator of the Term “Eco-City” Cites Misuse (ecocity.wordpress.com)

“Then all of these [men] vanish into the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s own mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that the fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality.”

Image via Wikipedia

From the bright flash of youth there are, according to Rand, two paths to take. Reach for fulfillment or slowly give up. The latter of these paths seems to be the one that is far more traveled, but why? What benefits do these men stand to gain by succumbing to the seemingly poor advice of their elders?

From an anthropological point of view, those that give up may be able to increase their reproductive success by fitting in with their social group. Research has shown that conforming to social norms and group identity can increase individual success (see: Conforming to Social Norms). At is simplest, conformity supports group unity and cooperation, giving members a better chance to access resources and find mates. While it seems that they are “giving up” the endless possibilities of their own future, they may in fact be ensuring that they have a future with their social group and access to a mate. There is an inverse relationship between success and what is known as costly signals. Costly signals are behaviors or rituals that have a negative cost to the person in some way. The more costly the signals are the greater the rewards in terms of individual success and the greater degree of stability the group will enjoy. According to these phenomena of human behavior, many people may see that there is much to be gained by giving up one’s mind, values and self-esteem. The costly signals will allow them to reach the American dream, but none of their own.

Conversely, what of those who hold on? What, and how, do they stand to gain in terms of success? Electing to reject the norms of the group and strike out on one’s own could be seen as risky behavior. However, research has shown that risky behavior has its own rewards for individual success. We are a male-bonded society and group status is intricately linked with success. Risky behavior can elevate a person’s group status and give them an edge in intra- and intersexual competition.

Perhaps in this example there is a twinkling of the interaction between genes and memes. The obvious genetic desire for reproductive success comes into contact with the cultural and social route used to attain those desires.

Related articles:

• Primer On Decision Making How Decisions Happen By James G March 5 Star Review (slideshare.net)
• 3 Psychology Secrets of Social Product Launches (conxentric.com)