Proposed Methodology & Individual Influence Chart

This chart is expanded from the original I posted last week. In this expansion I believe that I have taken the chart to its logical conclusion. I have graphed, from the perspective of the individual, all sources of influences.

I am contending that the sources of local influence: geography, social circles, family and local mentors all exert a larger influence over individuals then contacts that are strictly over social mediums. This seems self-evident, however personal preferences can sometimes follow no apparent pattern.

The only way to approach and quantify the problem is probably through the use of targeted surveys to develop an understanding of an individual's relations to political issues that are both "local" and "not local." It would be good to survey self-associated groups as we might find some interesting data. A first generation immigrant would be a good example of someone perhaps having certain emotional connection to "not local" issues.

We then can develop several classes of connection.

1. People are strongly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to "not local" politics.
2. People are strongly connected to their "local" politics and strongly connected to "not local" politics.
3. People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to "not local" politics.
4. People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and strongly connected to "not local" politics.
5. Other situations not otherwise in aggregate 

• People are strongly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "not local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "not local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and strongly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "local" issues.
• People are weakly connected to their "local" politics and weakly connected to most "not local" political issues; however, they are strongly connected to a few "not local" issues.

Now this is where things get difficult. Simply knowing a persons preference towards their issues-du jour is not enough. We also need to know what if anything these people have done in actualization of their politics. Have they rallied or protested? Have they raised money? Response bias might run rampant here. We also must account for the possibility that an individual might have moved. After all it makes much more sense for an Egyptian Émigré to care about issues in Egypt then does a small town American.

As we develop the data and start mapping it we might be able to gauge how strongly or weakly geography, and local influencers might affect politics in aggregate. As I suspect that even those who do care strongly about "not local" issues might also have a geographical explanation.

If we develop data sets like this we could also try and shine more light on the functional ties within a network that practices either open source war, or  online political rallying.