As far as we are subject to influence of people around?not only surround the Environment, but also forms me. It molds each of us in his own image, we want that or not. The weight, a state of mind, romantic preferences, wealth and even life expectancy - all this at all not result of our free choice or casual combination of circumstances. It appears, they are given from one to another as infectious diseases. The science is surprised, but is categorical. Mike (30), the worker find fault with
- a teka, visited in a year twenty weddings of the close friends. “ Until recently, he tells, all of us were inveterate bessemeynik. Nobody stammered at a marriage. But once one couple broke this canon, and we were captured by wedding epidemic. Recently speed grew to three weddings a month. Being literally and figuratively expressed, I feel like the last bachelor “.
Similar feeling is peculiar not only thirty-year-old and is accompanied by the most different things. Old friends suddenly find out that they married nearly at the same time that their photos on Facebook are surprisingly similar that they have identical political views that they together smoke cigarettes or, on the contrary, try to get rid of smoking that they have a similar standard of living that recently they endured similar events …
Personal qualities and the facts of the biography tend to extend by contacts or simply “ by air “. Such is the main conclusion of the longest and documented social research in the history. Its drama results were published in the book “ Connected “ (“ Connected “) let out in 2009. On expression “ To the Nye - York Tayms “ this work can change all our outlook.
the Book is transferred to tens of languages, including Russian, but we, being burned with curiosity, already now we will leaf through its pages. Research was conducted by two professors: Nicholas Kristakis (Nicholas Christakis) and James Fowler (James Fowler). They very convincingly show that the most important decisions, both in work, and in private life, the person accepts, mainly, because his friends undertook something similar. At the same time everyone is deeply sure that he acts voluntarily, having considered and having weighed all “ for “ and “ against “.
What exactly spheres are subject to so radical influence of the environment? Yes in principle, all. A physical state - for example, tendency to obesity or to longevity, - as well as a measure of happiness which we test, are caused not by a case and often even not genes. They - a mold of our social communications. A depression, divorce, smoking, generosity, alcoholism, frequency of the sexual relations, participation in elections, probability of suicide, body language, musical taste, approach to life - all this we adopt each other. Sometimes simple action or imperceptible line of one person is promptly thrown on tens of members of his circle.
“ We came to this tremendous opening nearly by mistake “ - Nicholas Kristakis, the doctor and the specialist in social policy from Harvard included the " magazine says; Time “ in the list of hundred most influential people of 2009. His colleague James Fowler is considered one of the most original minds of America. Its social researches are widely quoted in tens of mass media, including CNN, the « magazine; Wired “ and the weekly supplement to “ To the Nye - York Tayms “.
“ It is difficult to believe, - Kristakis continues, - that our freedom of choice is an illusion. Actually, we practically are not imperious over anything. The obtained data are so unambiguous that we are simply forced to recognize it. People do not differ from birds in pack or from the buffalo s who are running herd and amicably turning together with all. When we are asked why we grew stout, we lead the conversation on bad genes. When at us are interested why we left off smoking, we refer to care about health of children. Actually we just move with herd, picking up “ infectious “ social phenomena. Having correctly understood them, we will manage to change a lot of things in society by right realization of a personal contact and social " mechanisms;.
B 2007 Kristakis and Fowler began to publish results of the researches in the famous British medical magazines, blowing up small “ bombs “ in the scientific environment. They were based on results of the long-term supervision over 12 thousand by residents Framingem located near Boston. So large-scale statistical base gathered never before. She visually showed that the social phenomena and physical states extend among friends on regularity which is not always explainable.
For example if my friend began to smoke, probability that I will begin to smoke too, increases by 61%. The relative at whom the child was born for 15% increases my chances to become the parent in the next two years. A depression or disagreement in personal relations also “ infect “ circle of acquaintances.
would Seem, nothing surprising? However it only beginning. The matter is that similar interdependence remains at long distances and goes too far. The same smoker gives the harmful addiction even to friends of friends who also had never heard of it. And them already hundreds. First lit, first grown stout, first marrying, first divorced becomes sometimes the catalyst of mass changes in life of those whom he never met and will not meet.
the Science still had no idea of similar phenomena, and nevertheless, they are already recorded and confirmed, unlike many social theories distributed presently. So can be, we all - should treat people around on which, without exaggeration, our life depends more attentively? the City on a palm
in 2000 when Kristakis studied at the Chicago university “ effect of widowhood “. He found out that people who should look after fatally sick relatives begin to have problems with health and besides manage to transfer this tendency to relatives. In 2002 - m Kristakis got acquainted in Fowler who investigated “ epidemiology “ participations and nonparticipations in elections.
At that time over all country rattled Malkolm Gledvell`s best-seller “ Turning point “ (“ The Tipping Point “) - collection of scientific data, jokes and personal conclusions of rather secret mechanisms of formation of global trends and world fashion. The academic circles rejected the original theory of Gledvell, considering that it is based on literary talent, but not the phenomena which give in to measurement. However other America bought 1. 7 million copies of the book also accepted its terms: “ social epidemic “ and “ binding “ - i.e. special people thanks to whom the minor detail can become history.
Kristakis and Fowler decided to believe this “ poetry “ algebra and to translate new terminology into language of science. They requested from government fund a grant in $25 million for six years` research of 30 thousand Americans to check whether really they infect each other with ideas and behavioural templates. The request was rejected for the reason that “ social epidemics “ had even no primary scientific confirmation.
“ Then - that we also came to Framingem “ - Kristakis tells. This city since 1948 formed huge base for search of the factors causing heart attacks - the leading cause of death in the USA. At the first stage five thousand residents were carefully investigated also proanketirovana. The purpose of scientists was to give as much as possible “ volleys “ in all directions over time to compare the saved-up data. Each four years respondents were invited to repeated procedures and anew answered questions, and the quantity of questions and scale of coverage of the population constantly grew.
By 1971 participants of experiment were already 12000 people. Those who for any reasons left the city did not drop out of a field of vision of scientists also. So far three generations of respondents allowed to create “ scale of Framingem “ - a formula on the basis of which the probability of heart attacks in the next decade is calculated.
But in addition, Framingem became model thoroughly investigated pass - societies with semicentennial chronology of social and family relations, habits, biographies and medical indicators. The real treasure which does not have analogs in psychology, sociology and cultural science. Three extents of influence
B 2003 Kristakis with Fowler collected with