I think this research is somewhat doubtful. Yes, we send zillions of email-messages, SMS and phonecalls that go a few miles at most. Not strange at all, we do live, love, work together with people that are geographically close to us, afterall.

But we *also* have friends, people that's been a persistent part of our lives for a decade, and that we communicate with every week or every day in places our grandparents had hardly heard of.

Yes, I'm sure, 90% of my email comes from Norway. And half of that which isn't from Norway is from Europe.

That still leaves a dozen or two messages that are from Kenya, Iran, Trinidad&Tobago, South-Africa, Japan, Canada and Zimbabwe.

How many foreigners did -your- grandmother communicate with in an average month ? For that matter, how many people living more than 10 miles from her did she communicate with in the same month ?

No, geographical distance isn't irrelevant. But it's still a lot less relevant than it was a generation ago.

I think the research is entirely valid.  It reflects my experience and that of a couple of people I checked with at random, and as mentioned by the previous commentator and in the article itself, it makes perfect sense.

However, I believe the writers fail to see the trees and bushes in the forest of statistics, and that's where the poison ivy is (or in this case, the silver lining, to mix a metaphor).  Before email, I occasionally dropped a line to one correspondent in the UK.  Now I routinely correspond with people on every continent except Antarctica -- my acquaintance there finished his tour.

It is true that the great majority of our IM's, email and so forth are to people close to us both emotionally and geographically.  But that few percent at the bottom of the curve represents a quantum leap in intercontinental and intercultural communication.  It is in the percentage increase of communication amongst ordinary people with common interests that the importance lies, not simply with raw data.

Essentially reiterating the above points: without the Internet, that graph would have almost no tail!

Even the shape of the graph seems an artifact of the sample. Presumably, there are quite a lot of people who communicate MORE with those who are geographically distant than those who are close. But Facebook users are not that demographic -- they actively choose to keep tabs on past and present school friends and work colleagues. Thats a pretty biased sample for the above hypothesis.

Watts himself has published more interesting results showing the same thing. The original research by Milgram and Watts-Strogatz is about structure, not dynamics. They would be surprised not at all by this result.

The Watts et al. research is here

They claim that "in our contemporary IT-intensive world, geographical proximity has become an even stronger force than ever before," yet this misses several important factors. If your data says less people send letters to people they are geographically close to and more people send emails and texts to people they are close, it doesn't mean what they think it means. They entirely failed to take into account common sense.

Sending a letter to someone you are close to is almost pointless. You couldn't easily hold a conversiation via letter since they would take a day or more to arrive. It also costs money to send stuff by post. Interacting in person is much easier. On the other hand sending letter to people that are distant from you makes a lot of sense since you couldn't easily interact with them otherwise.

On the other hand emails and facebook messages require less (physical and emotional) effort than physically interacting someone. You don't have to leave the house, you don't have to keep up an emotional persona, interaction can happen when ever and doesn't require any prior planning, and conversation and interacting doesn't have to take much time. Unlike mail there is little lag between sending an email and someone receiving it. In this way email and online interaction is becoming an easier substitute for physical interaction. This is why so many people electronically interact with people close to them as opposed to only far away. People are still interacting at a distance. In fact said interaction has become much easier. I bet if you looked at that data more people are interacting at a distance now than they did a while ago. It only looks small when you take into account how much electronic communication has supplanted and or supplemented physical interaction.

Their sampling was also horrible. Email and facebook? It is much easier to meet and interact with foreign people through things like forums. Unlike with email and facebook where not knowing the person would make conversation awkward(understatement) you meet and interact with people easily no matter the distance. Of all the forums I have frequented very few of them have had people I knew in real life and then those people made up a very small percentage of the population. This obviously isn't true for all forums but if you took the data of those it was true for and those it wasn't, I bet you would find data that didn't fit with their world is smaller theory. Another very big source of data they overlooked is online gaming, especially Massively Multiplayer Online(MMO) games. Just like with forums there is a high rate of interaction with people you don't know. While some interaction would still happen between geographically close people a lot of the interaction in those games is between total stranger(who may or may not be physically close but in meeting with strangers online geography is not as much of a factor).

In short they are wrong because they failed to take into account more than just their data.

With all this news about emails, and the kind of reading we do online, versus how we read on paper, can you blog one day on Alex Beam's recent June 19 column in the Globe called "I screen, you screen, we all screen".....? it is a very important oped piece.

Here is the LINK to Beam's column. You can screen it here:

http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-screen-you-screen-we-all-screen-new.html

I screen, you screen, we all screen

By Alex Beam
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

June 22, 2009

Do we read differently on the computer screen from how we read on the
printed page? It’s an interesting question.

Before hearing from the experts, let’s review what we think we know.
Even the best computer screens are harder on the eyes than the paper
page is. Jakub Nielsen, a Web usability researcher, reports that we
generally read 25 percent more slowly on the screen. I read more
quickly on the screen and edit out about 40 percent of what appears
before my eyes. If you haven’t told me what you want by line four of
your e-mail, trust me, I didn’t get the message.

A Norwegian researcher, Dr Anne Mangen, recently weighed in with an
interesting paper in the Journal of Research in Reading, asserting
that screen reading and page reading are radically different. “The
feeling of literally being in touch with the text is lost when your
actions - clicking with the mouse, pointing on touch screens, or
scrolling with keys or on touch pads - take place at a distance from
the digital text, which is, somehow, somewhere inside the computer,
the e-book, or the mobile phone,’’ Mangen writes.

Her conclusion: “Materiality matters. . . . One main effect of the
intangibility of the digital text is that of making us read in a
shallower, less focused way.’’

When writing about digital reading - blogger Danny Bloom is pushing
the neologism “screening,’’ for reading on the screen -
http://zippy1300.blogspot.com -- Mangen, Nielsen, and others focus on
the issue of distractibility. How can schoolchildren really read at
computer terminals, scholars argue, knowing that more interesting Web
pages are just a few clicks away? But don’t dedicated reading devices
like the Sony Reader or the Amazon Kindle change this equation?

Nielsen agrees that Kindle is trying to out-book the book. He argues
that Kindle reading can be even more immersive than book reading: “All
you are aware of is the next page, you don’t get this feeling that you
are coming to the end of the book. It’s like being plunged directly
into the author’s content.’’

I asked Mangen via e-mail if she thought there might be a future
convergence of Kindle reading and Gutenberg reading. “Reading digital
text will always differ from reading text that is not digital (i.e.,
that has a physical, tangible materiality), no matter how
reader-friendly and ‘paper-like’ the digital reading device (e.g.,
Kindle etc.),’’ she answered. “The fact that we do not have a direct
physical, tangible access to the totality of the text when reading on
Kindle affects the reading experience. When reading a book we can
always see, and feel with our fingers and hands, our progress through
the book as the pile of pages on the left side grows and the pile of
pages on the right side gets smaller. At the same time, we can be
absolutely certain that the technology [the book] will always work -
there are no problems with downloading, missing text due to technical
or infrastructure problems, etc.’’

She says the e-reader experience introduces “a degree of
unpredictability and instability’’ that influences reading, even if we
are not aware of it.

Two years ago, media critic William Powers wrote a romantic defense of
the ancient medium I publish in. His essay, “Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Why
Paper Is Eternal,’’ was widely quoted by journalists, of course. Mr.
Paper - he not dead, Powers wrote: “There are cognitive, cultural, and
social dimensions to the human-paper dynamic that come into play every
time any kind of paper, from a tiny Post-It note to a groaning Sunday
newspaper, is used to convey, retrieve, or store information.’’

Paper will never die, Powers concluded: “It becomes a still point, an
anchor for the consciousness. It’s a trick the digital medium hasn’t
mastered - not yet.’’

Two years ago, I might have agreed. If I had a daughter, yes, I would
send out her wedding invitations on paper, not on Evite. (America has
many daughters, hence a future for mail carriers.) But for books,
magazines, and newspapers, “eternity’’ is a long time. When
Kindle-like readers cost less than $50 and the e-Ink technology is not
just very good, but excellent, there may be more “screening,’’ and
less reading, in our future.

-------------------------------------------------------

Alex Beam is a Boston Globe columnist in the U.S. His email address is
beam@globe.com

The research here seems fine, but as others have pointed out, the conclusions may be off. First, the sample excludes distance communication tools (skype) and practices (twitter, blog commenting) that are often how we maintain communication with people whose location *doesn't matter.* Secondly, Facebook is a socnet for friends -- better would be to include LinkedIn. Friends tend to be nearby; Linkedin relationships would include many of those folks we used to work with but are no longer in touch with.

Point being that to claim the proximity drives the behavior in Facebook, and that this conclusion can be extended to all online communication practices, demonstrating that proximity is a primary cause of online communication and not simply one of its attributes, would seem to me a false or indefensible conclusion.

That said, research like this is always great to have, and I'm grateful to those who crunch the numbers to conduct it.