This article was particularly interesting to read given that I’ve actually thought about how difficult it must be to understand specific human social interactions before everything was so digitized, which wasn’t that long ago at all. Now, going back almost 200 more years and trying to understand interactions would be much more difficult. Using biographical data would make sense under these circumstances, as there aren’t many clear indicators of social interactions in more historical time periods that would provide enough data points, as it was mentioned that letters are clearly good indicators of social interactions but doesn’t represent full populations by any means. In response to\u00a0my colleague’s post<\/a>, I think it’s interesting to see the conjunction of historians and computer scientists, and how useful having a strong background of data analysis can be when attempting to better understand history, especially given how hard it can be to interpret certain sources of historical information.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This article was particularly interesting to read given that I’ve actually thought about how difficult it must be to understand specific human social interactions before everything was so digitized, which wasn’t that long ago at all. Now, going back almost 200 more years and trying to understand interactions would be much more difficult. Using biographical … <\/p>\n