I disagree and here's the reason why. Social networks appealed primarily to the under 24 year old to communicate. I grew up hanging out with friends at McDonald's, Church, the local youth centre and someone's house. But now most kids don't have those places and so use technology ie SMS, IM and now SN.
If you're over 30 and have random people offering to be your friend and you're not an extrovert and not a lover of people in general - well what can I say, you won't be into it.
As for me, I love finding out what makes people tick, what they're thinking and being able to connect with people who think like me (hard to find in my real world - trust me!)
I love the fact that people can become friends with others many timezones and thousands of miles away. What is a friend anyway. I live in London and see my friends maybe once every 2 months... go figure.
As the use of SNs grow, people will truly identify why they NEED as opposed to want to use one. As for me, I'm connecting, it's what I do and what I love to do. I love to give too, so if karma feels I'm deserving of great rewards I'll be blessed too.
Social networks have existed for centuries. The social network I belong to formulated its social rules over the last 500 years. It is only in the world of technology that social networks are deemed to have been “created” in the last 5 years. When semantic networks are fully developed, then and only then will the electronic social networks begin to even match the sophistication of global cultural social networks that exist today and still exist in all those nations or segments of people who have not discarded their history or their roots. A “friend” is not defined by a social network, a friend is more often defined in times of ones greatest needs, friends therefore reveal themselves in times of crisis and not in moments of collaboration. I have already made an observation this morning in the previous “Big Idea” that these current stock of “Big Ideas” are only ones I consider to be unduly negative, for IMHO they fail to grab hold of the imagination to grasp how we can be more than we presently are, and so may limit us to the backwaters of short-term thinking, the very thinking promoted by short-term capital decisions, short-term network affiliations, short-term media mindsets and questions which serve the narrowness of today, rather than the vastness of tomorrow. At least try to incorporate some level of profundity in the “Big Idea” presented here – so allow the guest or reader to make the negative judgment, but don’t put the negative right upfront and expect people to exercise their brains in proactive ways, for if one leads with a lower bar, then expect the resulting conversation to be pitched at that level. IMHO Serve up the upside, the profound and the intriguing statement and leave it to guests or readers to note any downside or criticism of aspiration or utopia. These kind of reflections remind me that the world we all live in is not in any short-supply of negative inference or reactivity, but it does require outlets for proactive imagination, for life today should not be about watercooler conversations - it should be about figuring out among other things how the watercooler became the favourite destination for the birth of informal social networks. Apologizes for the length of tthis expression this morning, but this is a visceral reaction, so accept this opinion by that given measure......M.
Surely this was inserted as a straw man conversation starter, not as a serious statement. Have your friendships suffered? Mine either. Rather they've benefited greatly as I've re-established friendships with people I've known and worked years in the past.
I took a different meaning from the statement. To me it is in the context of "friends" one has made via chat rooms etc. and that likely have never seen each other face to face. Never having had the opportunity of a friendship that develops from interacting in the same room would seem to at least limit the complexity and rapport that could occur.
Social networks work at many different levels and yet all these levels cover off on what we loosely call 'friends'.
At the entry level of any social network you gain a new set of acquaintances or friends (like pen friends in the past) who will chatter with you incessantly. In many instances you will never ever come to see them face to face.
At the next level social networks give you 'friends' who you simply 'hang with', the Clan, and they maybe global or local. If they are global then chances are you will never actually meet them face to face. If they are local then you might meet irregularly for coffee at Starbucks (this type of gathering is what made the Starbucks brand so famous).
Finally 'the truly, madly, deeply friendship' is probably local and so it involves regular face to face meetings. These circles of friends are often purpose-driven in they come together because they share a hobby, religion, sport, creative passion, etc. These friendship circles come with deep feelings of belonging, as within a Tribe, and thus with some sense of commitment and accountability to each other.
Social networks from Clusters, to Clans, and through to the Tribes are all layers of friendship for digital age people who are bored, lonely, and switched off from their local communities, politics, and social issues.
These are new social networks that form quickly on the web but still impact on lives in real time as much as other types of friendships did under any other technology regime.
How many "friends" have I made in real life vs how many in SNs? Really depends on what you call friends. But if someday I really really need help, I know where I will go.
Richard, most of us are not true digital age people, we are farmer people trying to reverse into tribal people. If we think being digital means thinking and behaving like tribal people, in that regard we are then retrieving from the past rather than developing for the future. Marc Prensky has already done research about how a digital age person differs from digital immigrant - and it is a major shift in thinking and even social behaviour. We can choose our tribe and turn ourselves into tribal thinkers, or we can ask ourselves what is going on and what this all cerebral mobility really means and become digital thinkers. I don't need a strawman to express a viewpoint in the 21st Century, what kind of peace pipe blowing mandala thinking is that? Yet I will point out people in the construction of "Big Ideas" are revealing their negativity, and so I am not asking any of us thinkers to look in the mirror, I am asking the people at FC who load these "ideas" to look in the mirror if what makes people think better is a negative inference. We also know that Generation Y is highly tribal in nature, but that does not mean that their children are going to be just like them, and so tribalism is not about digital life simply because of how one particular generation behaved. The "friendship" being discussed here [the tribal mind] is more a search for identity and connection, but one has to have confusion and disconnection in order for that to have meaning or to occur. IMHO we do not ever gain when we confuse friendship with identity or ritual, for then what we produce from tribes and tribal culture is a hunter-gather way of life, except now we exercise this mode of life through an information safari. The true digital native will recognize the impact and ultimate consequence of identity and tribal rituals, for IMHO that is the DNA for being tethered to a pole, where the relationship between identity and violence simmers underneath and not a doorway to freedom. Ultimately unless we challenge the way we think (ourselves) our thinking produces the very disconnection, that we believe technology is going to reconnect, so the connection is in our own capacity to think these things through at a personal level, what it means to us. If we are to break and share the bread of meaning, I hope I am not serving to make others a clone of me! IMHO that is as tribal as the tribe can be, ultimately mobility isn't something new, humans have been mobile for centuries, it is our immobility and disconnection which technology is now revealing to us, or at least how much the industrial age has immobilized us all. I guess when we understand that, then we can think like digital age people, rather than as tribal ones. Of course I am not denying that there is a psychological or emotional connection to our new found mobility, I am just saying that we have to sit back personally think about it rather than agree or disagree with each other, but one things for sure, whoever used the word "CHEAPENED" in the "Big Idea" above isn't an individual whose ready to live in a digital age world - in a digital world we have the freedom to think, and that does not require any social prompting. I will now crawl back now from the digital rock I emerged from......M.
I think we have just not found the right vocabulary to describe the kind of relationships that are created on social networking websites. We use the term "Friend" because that is the closest term we can find. But certainly friendship in a social-networking context is different in many ways from friendship in a face-to-face context. They are different things; we are just struggling with creating the vocabulary to describe these new kinds of relationships.
I believe this is true to a certain extent. The popularity of social networking has given risen to those that simply want to get their name out there for selfish reasons. On the other hand, it has opened up a door to the virtual world of genuinely getting to know people and developing relationships. With any good idea comes those that choose to profit from it in their own selfish ways-this will never change- the best one can do is act in a way that works for each of us. In the end, we get out of it what we put in to it.
Daniela
Comments | 10 Total
May 1, 2008 at 11:03am by Desiree Banugo
I disagree and here's the reason why. Social networks appealed primarily to the under 24 year old to communicate. I grew up hanging out with friends at McDonald's, Church, the local youth centre and someone's house. But now most kids don't have those places and so use technology ie SMS, IM and now SN.
If you're over 30 and have random people offering to be your friend and you're not an extrovert and not a lover of people in general - well what can I say, you won't be into it.
As for me, I love finding out what makes people tick, what they're thinking and being able to connect with people who think like me (hard to find in my real world - trust me!)
I love the fact that people can become friends with others many timezones and thousands of miles away. What is a friend anyway. I live in London and see my friends maybe once every 2 months... go figure.
As the use of SNs grow, people will truly identify why they NEED as opposed to want to use one. As for me, I'm connecting, it's what I do and what I love to do. I love to give too, so if karma feels I'm deserving of great rewards I'll be blessed too.
May 1, 2008 at 12:01pm by Mark Zorro
Social networks have existed for centuries. The social network I belong to formulated its social rules over the last 500 years. It is only in the world of technology that social networks are deemed to have been “created” in the last 5 years. When semantic networks are fully developed, then and only then will the electronic social networks begin to even match the sophistication of global cultural social networks that exist today and still exist in all those nations or segments of people who have not discarded their history or their roots. A “friend” is not defined by a social network, a friend is more often defined in times of ones greatest needs, friends therefore reveal themselves in times of crisis and not in moments of collaboration. I have already made an observation this morning in the previous “Big Idea” that these current stock of “Big Ideas” are only ones I consider to be unduly negative, for IMHO they fail to grab hold of the imagination to grasp how we can be more than we presently are, and so may limit us to the backwaters of short-term thinking, the very thinking promoted by short-term capital decisions, short-term network affiliations, short-term media mindsets and questions which serve the narrowness of today, rather than the vastness of tomorrow. At least try to incorporate some level of profundity in the “Big Idea” presented here – so allow the guest or reader to make the negative judgment, but don’t put the negative right upfront and expect people to exercise their brains in proactive ways, for if one leads with a lower bar, then expect the resulting conversation to be pitched at that level. IMHO Serve up the upside, the profound and the intriguing statement and leave it to guests or readers to note any downside or criticism of aspiration or utopia. These kind of reflections remind me that the world we all live in is not in any short-supply of negative inference or reactivity, but it does require outlets for proactive imagination, for life today should not be about watercooler conversations - it should be about figuring out among other things how the watercooler became the favourite destination for the birth of informal social networks. Apologizes for the length of tthis expression this morning, but this is a visceral reaction, so accept this opinion by that given measure......M.
May 1, 2008 at 12:28pm by Martin Nickel
Surely this was inserted as a straw man conversation starter, not as a serious statement. Have your friendships suffered? Mine either. Rather they've benefited greatly as I've re-established friendships with people I've known and worked years in the past.
May 1, 2008 at 9:31pm by Paul Markle
I took a different meaning from the statement. To me it is in the context of "friends" one has made via chat rooms etc. and that likely have never seen each other face to face. Never having had the opportunity of a friendship that develops from interacting in the same room would seem to at least limit the complexity and rapport that could occur.
May 2, 2008 at 1:23am by Richard Lipscombe
Social networks work at many different levels and yet all these levels cover off on what we loosely call 'friends'.
At the entry level of any social network you gain a new set of acquaintances or friends (like pen friends in the past) who will chatter with you incessantly. In many instances you will never ever come to see them face to face.
At the next level social networks give you 'friends' who you simply 'hang with', the Clan, and they maybe global or local. If they are global then chances are you will never actually meet them face to face. If they are local then you might meet irregularly for coffee at Starbucks (this type of gathering is what made the Starbucks brand so famous).
Finally 'the truly, madly, deeply friendship' is probably local and so it involves regular face to face meetings. These circles of friends are often purpose-driven in they come together because they share a hobby, religion, sport, creative passion, etc. These friendship circles come with deep feelings of belonging, as within a Tribe, and thus with some sense of commitment and accountability to each other.
Social networks from Clusters, to Clans, and through to the Tribes are all layers of friendship for digital age people who are bored, lonely, and switched off from their local communities, politics, and social issues.
These are new social networks that form quickly on the web but still impact on lives in real time as much as other types of friendships did under any other technology regime.
May 2, 2008 at 5:33am by Desmond Haynes
How many "friends" have I made in real life vs how many in SNs? Really depends on what you call friends. But if someday I really really need help, I know where I will go.
May 2, 2008 at 7:40am by David Brockman
I think social networking is here to stay. It is faster communication, and more global. In todays instant gratification society it works well.
May 2, 2008 at 7:45am by Mark Zorro
Richard, most of us are not true digital age people, we are farmer people trying to reverse into tribal people. If we think being digital means thinking and behaving like tribal people, in that regard we are then retrieving from the past rather than developing for the future. Marc Prensky has already done research about how a digital age person differs from digital immigrant - and it is a major shift in thinking and even social behaviour. We can choose our tribe and turn ourselves into tribal thinkers, or we can ask ourselves what is going on and what this all cerebral mobility really means and become digital thinkers. I don't need a strawman to express a viewpoint in the 21st Century, what kind of peace pipe blowing mandala thinking is that? Yet I will point out people in the construction of "Big Ideas" are revealing their negativity, and so I am not asking any of us thinkers to look in the mirror, I am asking the people at FC who load these "ideas" to look in the mirror if what makes people think better is a negative inference. We also know that Generation Y is highly tribal in nature, but that does not mean that their children are going to be just like them, and so tribalism is not about digital life simply because of how one particular generation behaved. The "friendship" being discussed here [the tribal mind] is more a search for identity and connection, but one has to have confusion and disconnection in order for that to have meaning or to occur. IMHO we do not ever gain when we confuse friendship with identity or ritual, for then what we produce from tribes and tribal culture is a hunter-gather way of life, except now we exercise this mode of life through an information safari. The true digital native will recognize the impact and ultimate consequence of identity and tribal rituals, for IMHO that is the DNA for being tethered to a pole, where the relationship between identity and violence simmers underneath and not a doorway to freedom. Ultimately unless we challenge the way we think (ourselves) our thinking produces the very disconnection, that we believe technology is going to reconnect, so the connection is in our own capacity to think these things through at a personal level, what it means to us. If we are to break and share the bread of meaning, I hope I am not serving to make others a clone of me! IMHO that is as tribal as the tribe can be, ultimately mobility isn't something new, humans have been mobile for centuries, it is our immobility and disconnection which technology is now revealing to us, or at least how much the industrial age has immobilized us all. I guess when we understand that, then we can think like digital age people, rather than as tribal ones. Of course I am not denying that there is a psychological or emotional connection to our new found mobility, I am just saying that we have to sit back personally think about it rather than agree or disagree with each other, but one things for sure, whoever used the word "CHEAPENED" in the "Big Idea" above isn't an individual whose ready to live in a digital age world - in a digital world we have the freedom to think, and that does not require any social prompting. I will now crawl back now from the digital rock I emerged from......M.
May 2, 2008 at 10:29am by Curtis Griesel
I think we have just not found the right vocabulary to describe the kind of relationships that are created on social networking websites. We use the term "Friend" because that is the closest term we can find. But certainly friendship in a social-networking context is different in many ways from friendship in a face-to-face context. They are different things; we are just struggling with creating the vocabulary to describe these new kinds of relationships.
May 2, 2008 at 12:26pm by Daniela Rodriguez
I believe this is true to a certain extent. The popularity of social networking has given risen to those that simply want to get their name out there for selfish reasons. On the other hand, it has opened up a door to the virtual world of genuinely getting to know people and developing relationships. With any good idea comes those that choose to profit from it in their own selfish ways-this will never change- the best one can do is act in a way that works for each of us. In the end, we get out of it what we put in to it.
Daniela