Coming up: Total chaos?
In one of my previous posts I tried to explain how one’s sense of self emerges through interaction with other people.
The direct consequence of this dynamic is the idea of the relational self:
The relational self is the self in relationships. We are different selves to different (groups of) people.
This is not wrong, dishonest, or flip-flopping. It is not schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. It is healthy adaptation, both from a psychological and communication point of view. It may even be social intelligence.
Some groups are more important to us and our identity than others: They have more of an impact on who we are, because they are more important to us (significant others). We call those reference groups.
Depending on the groups with whom we interact and on context, social psychologists claim that we have situation prototypes, relational schemas – or, simply put, scripts for proper interaction in common situations.
For example, we have the script for proper interaction at a restaurant with friends, at a restaurant with clients, at a restaurant on a first date, etc.
These scripts (social norms) guide our social interactions. Not only do they help us figure out what is the appropriate thing to say in a given situation, they also help us anticipate an outcome of communication (if I say this, then… ) and, most importantly, they help us interpret the meaning of messages.
The same thing, said by someone else, in a different context, means something else – aka meaning is context-dependent.
So, hold on, this argument is taking you somewhere. Are you with me? Let’s sum it up: The relational self depends on social groups, communication scripts depend on social groups and contexts, meaning depends on social groups and contexts.
Integration of different social networking platforms (Facebook with Twitter with LinkedIn with … peanut butter, with chocolate, with mamaliga with vegemite) mixes up social groups and social contexts and therefore, messes up meaning.
Yes, it may be easy to cross-post from Twitter to Facebook and LinkedIn, and in some situations, it may even make sense. But, don’t be fooled. Just because it’s easy and it can be done, it may not be a good idea to do it.
Keep in mind that the meaning of your tweet depends on:
- your relational self – who you are in relation to the people you’re interacting with (if they’re different on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, you and the meaning of your words are different, too)
- social context – and the types of conversations appropriate in each context
- social group – and your relationships with each group.
So, we have to be careful here and maybe NOT take advantage of all the technology has to offer. The result may very well be misunderstanding, miscommunication, frustration, and, to quote Adrian Chan, total chaos.
Sphere: Related Content
How do you learn social media social norms?
[cross-posted to my teaching blog]
Most of our social interactions are governed by scripts and rules that we internalize and apply when appropriate. For example, we all have the scripts of “first date,” “job interview,” and, possibly, “the talk.”
How do we pick up the social norms for these scripts? How do we learn what type of communicative behavior is appropriate in certain situations? By observing, from movies and TV, from stories people tell, maybe even from etiquette books and columns.
Usually, it takes time for these scripts to emerge, and it takes time to learn them.
In social media, it seems to me, these social norms for appropriate communicative behavior emerge much faster, and are picked up much faster. Twitter lists have barely launched, and we already have some norms, and “best practices” about using them.
Twitter and LinkedIn just announced their integration, which means we’ll soon have social norms for appropriate behavior there, too. In fact, barely 24 hours later, there are articles with Do’s and Don’ts about it.
So, I have two questions for you:
- How are social media social norms created? Do they emerge organically, as we communicate with social media? Are they spelled out so quickly by “opinion leaders” that behavior is shaped by them so quickly that we don’t have time to experiment and figure them out?
… - How do you learn social media norms? From blog posts/articles? By seeing behavior be reprimanded? By watching others and doing what they do? By being exposed to rants about unacceptable behaviors?
Twitter barrier of entry and ego inflation
Twitter is wonderful, as many of us know. But Twitter is hard, also, The barrier of entry is high, and one of the most difficult things is finding people to follow (here are some tips).
So Twitter and Twitter users have introduced a couple of ways to overcome this difficulty: #FollowFriday and, most recently, Twitter lists.
The tools are meant to help people find people to follow. The problem is, every time someone recommends you should follow person X, either in #FF or by placing her on a list, person X is flattered. Her ego gets a boost. Now, depending on the psychological perspective we use to look at this (Western or Eastern), the ego boost may or may not be a good thing for person X himself. But what makes it annoying for all of us is that person X cannot keep it to himself. He has to count the number of lists he’s on, the number of times she’s been recommended, and let all her followers know – usually, this is done in the form of thanks: “Thank you everyone for putting me on 500 lists!” It is annoying, because along with the sincere thanks we see an overinflated ego that cannot be contained within oneself.
So, #FF and Twitter lists become ego-inflating tools, and many of us find them annoying. The question is, even though annoying, do they help newcomers find people to follow?
Unfortunately, Twitter got rid of what I thought was the best way of finding people to follow: Seeing all @replies enabled one to identify new people connected to the people she was already following. Now, you can only see @replies if you follow both people in a conversation. As Twitter adds capacity, I hope they’ll come back to the old model – it will help newcomers build their social network slowly and organically.
Now, back to the annoying part, should we blame the tool or the people? Or, is this not a problem, and no one needs to be blamed?
Personally, I would like to see a bit of humbleness… What’s your take?
Sphere: Related ContentNew Pew report on social media use
Sphere: Related ContentBuilding Relationships part 2
In the previous post in this series, I argued that Twitter is great for building bridging social capital – loose connections with large numbers of people who are quite different than you. Bridging social capital has several benefits, innovative thinking and new work opportunities being among them.
In this post, I draw upon Dale Carnegie to give you very simple advice about how to build relationships on Twitter. This question seems to be on my students’ minds a lot.
I fully believe that at this point in our social media world, the most precious and scarce resource is attention.
_
To build relationships, give people attention.
How do you give them attention? Reply to what they said. Jump into conversations, or reply to lonely tweets. Say something nice, or interesting, or supportive, or ask a question. Be careful with humor, it may or may not come across right in writing.
I was reading a women’s magazine’s yearly mandatory article about how to have fun at holiday parties. This line from a fashion model’s mother sounded like the perfect blend of Dale Carnegie in the attention economy:
“Look everybody in the eye and make them feel special. Give them warmth and attention.”
What are some of the things you do on Twitter that make people people feel special? How do you give warm and attention on Twitter? Can you share some tips with my students?
Sphere: Related ContentBuilding Relationships part 1
This is part of a series of post about building relationships online and the relationships we build online.
The initial idea was triggered by reading in one of the books for TECH 621 about marketable relationships. Marketable relationships were defined as relationships we build for the sake of the relationship, without expecting an immediate reward. However, the rewards, often in the form of employment, speaking engagements, etc., come as a result of having these connections. Nothing new here. This is how connections work.
I don’t particularly like the term “marketable relationships,” but luckily, the concept does go by another name: social capital.
Social capital was defined by Bourdieu as one of three types of capital:
- economic (financial resources)
- cultural (knowledge resources)
- social (connections, acquaintances, people we know who could do us favors)
Putnam (the one who wrote Bowling Alone) further broke down the concept of social capital into 2 sub-types: bonding and bridging capital.
- bonding capital = close relationships among homogeneous groups (birds of a feather, your close group of friends, family, etc).
- bridging capital = loose connections with diverse people. It is out of these types of connections that most benefits and innovations emerge.
So, here are some hypotheses:
- Many people use Facebook to maintain bonding capital
- Many people use Twitter to build and maintain bridging capital
Are these the predominant uses of Facebook vs. Twitter? To how many people do these hypotheses apply? Do they apply to you? Are the trends changing towards Facebook becoming more open to loose connections and to building bridging capital? i.e. do you “friend” people you don’t know very well?
[update 10/25: Facebook's new News Feed vs Live feed feature makes Facebook technology more conducive to maintaining bonding capital, because the algorithm selects the updates to show you in the News Feed based on the previous level of interaction -connection depth?- with that person.]
Next posts in this series:
- Apply Dale Carnegie’s ideas to building social capital on Twitter
- Apply Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism theory to building social capital on Twitter
Twitter competition: Flutter
Sphere: Related Content“Too academic”
I’m not getting into this. But what I picked up was the use of being “too academic” as an explanation – as if being “too academic” were a bad thing. It’s not, not always [1].
Here’s my list [2] of the main characteristics of being “academic:”
Has this been said before?
Academics research thoroughly what has been written before on their topic and related concepts, in one or more disciplines. They don’t reinvent the wheel. Lack of familiarity with previous literature reduces one’s credibility and increases the risk of reinventing the wheel. Keyword: library (yes, library!)
I remember of a dear and very much appreciated analyst who was working on a report on communities and was crowd-sourcing the definition of “community.” There are full library shelves on the concept. Read ‘em. Cite ‘em. Think of the literature review as a different from of crowd-sourcing 
Claim + Supporting evidence
Academics follow this formula very rigorously. For every single claim (every single sentence, sometimes word in a publication), you need evidence.
Claim: Tomatoes are red.
Evidence: ??? Can be empirical (inductive) – based on observations, surveys, etc. or can be a logical argument. In which case, avoid fallacies.
My dear mentor [3] would question every single statement in my papers and in the process taught me that you cannot make a claim without solid supporting evidence. And when you only have this much evidence, you make a smaller, more specific, claim.
So, if: “The public has been ignored in public relations” = claim, what is the evidence for that? What kind of evidence would you provide, and are you sure that the evidence is sufficient and valid?
Academic writing is specific & precise
… and that’s what makes it inaccessible. Oh, why do we need the word “stakeholder” when we have “public”? Well, because we define concepts and we need words to refer to the specific concepts. We need to avoid confusion with the general usage of the word. Inaccessibility is the downside.
The upside is that, good academic writing is not vague – it has (almost – see[1]) surgical precision. You need that surgical precision to stand up to scrutiny, to make sure you don’t over-generalize, and that there’s good fit between the evidence and the claim.
I strive to produce both academic AND accessible writing, and maybe so should you. Go ahead. Be academic.
Footnotes:
[1] Academic thinking will teach you to avoid overstatements and over-generalizations; to be specific if possible, inclusive or ambivalent otherwise.
[2] I can hear my dear mentor’s [3] voice: Why do you put only these things on the list? How do you know you’ve exhausted all possibilities? What are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion/sorting of the list? Beware the laundry list fallacy.
[3] Carl Botan
Post-script:
This is why I recommend graduate school. I don’t care if it will make you more money or get you a better job. It will sharpen your mind, enhance your critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and teach you humility – at least you know what you don’t know, and you learn to question everything, your work and yourself included (downside: bye-bye, self-esteem!).
Sphere: Related ContentMonkey trap
I heard my husband yesterday explain to a friend the concept of a monkey trap – maybe you’re familiar with it, but for me it was new and interesting, something to meditate upon:
One method of capturing monkeys is to place a piece of fruit in a cage or a vessel with an opening just large enough for the monkey to put its hand through it, but small enough that if the monkey makes a fist, holding on to the fruit, it cannot take its hand out.
That’s quite a lesson in letting go!
Sometimes, you can achieve your goals -or freedom!- if you just let go.
Do you have a monkey trap story of your own? Care to share?
Sphere: Related ContentHow Twitter can make history
Here’s a talk by Clay Shirky about how the changing media landscape is changing the world.
A few takeaways from this talk:
* technology starts making a difference in society when it’s not shiny anymore, when it’s mainstream
* before the Internet, communication media that were good at conversation were not good at creating groups, and media that were good at creating groups were not good at conversation
* the Internet is still changing as it becomes more social
* May 2008 China earthquake: reported on Twitter several minutes before U.S. Geological Survey had any information online; BBC got the news from Twitter. Previous major earthquake in China: took China 3 months to admit it even happened. This is no longer a choice.
* the major change is that media consumers are also media producers. Not only can they talk back to organizations (“a bit freaky, but organizations can get used to it”, but they can talk to each other, building huge, powerful networks)
* mature use of social media: to convene supporters/people, not to control them
* “professionals broadcast messages to amateurs” – this model is over; social media is an environment for convening and supporting groups. It might not be the media model we want, but it is the media model we’ve got.
Sphere: Related Content