A family, from a network perspective, is a highly inefficient structure. The entry of new information into the network is often low and the influence of certain nodes is often disparate. Phrased differently, a father’s forceful opinion can limit the opportunity for others to exist. Consider that the key determinant in political persuasion is your family. Where a loving son calls it a tradition to be a Democrat, a network theorist would call it an inefficiency.

Advice is an interpersonal hot-house for structural holes. We seek consult on the basis that people close to us are the most trusted. But are our friends “best-placed” to offer strategy? Consider these four situations.

Advice as Consensus

The decision maker moves forward based on popular opinion. More aptly put: “marketing”.

Advice as Evidence Building

The decision maker seeks out evidence for different points of view.

Advice as Competing World Views

The decision maker considers how advice givers are grouped. The question evolves into one about alignment. Which side do I want to be on?

Advice as Access to Novel Information

The decision maker looks at the access to resources an advice-giver has. Like an expert community, for example.

None are correct. Personally, the joy of making a decision based on an in-group is remarkably fun. I like knowing that my decision was one of many when that community is awesome. Other times, I’m looking to do the opposite. The take-away is to never fall into extremes without consideration. Don’t blindly except the popular view and avoiding zagging simply because everyone has zigged.