What effect does web2.5 have on your emotional intelligence and how are you contributing to the Cognitive Surplus?
Passive Aggressive Newsgathering wove it’s way into the social side of networking, and like all forces of good, there looms a dark side. The huge shift in journalism as the result of subscription based (and really simple) syndication has become a mainstream [american] household discussion by way of (if nothing else) anchors on major network CNN, MSNBC, BBC integrating twitter, facebook, myspace etc into their daily news. Social media and networks clearly had a major effect on the recent Barack Obama election victory. I work in the music industry, which is forever changed by the perpetuation of all the same integrative nuance.
But we are still humans, building machines. And we are still humans writing codes and building interactive platforms. Still just humans dealing silicon, greening our iPods. Still just a bunch of frontal lobes, thumbs, and hearts that bleed.
Our human social behaviors are in a constant state of development because our inner computer is regularly aggregating knowledge;. And even during phases of deterioration, our instinct is to communicate. We are social by nature. Our social behaviors are fostered by the tools that nurture us. And we are nurtured by the tools we are given. Well…. monkey_have_new_tools_now.
The model for news subscription has transformed from web 2.0 into 2.5 – we’ve adapted to the environment by using the tools as social construct. Now, we are subscribing to our own social lives, and we risk replacing empathy with social regression & narcissism. We (accidentally?) risk reverting into playground mode. On the playground, we risk hurting our own tribe members with passive aggression and we risk making Seth Godin sad. The darker side of Web 2.5 is social regression inadvertently created by social networking tools – with the power to directly affect real lives.
Examples of the transformation of passive aggressive newsgathering into socially regressive behavior can be as tragic as suicide (see: myspace suicide case), or a seemingly trite “unfollow” on twitter. But in the suicide case, it was clear that the perpetrators clearly believed what they were doing was socially trite. It wasn’t.
I live in San Francisco
Let’s face it. San Francisco is the perfect petri dish for at least 300 new sociology dissertations. I live & socialize and work in a city where we all like unicorns, the windows are made of rainbow dust and every weekend i need a new costume. And i use social networks as do many others who reside in this city. Ergo i have friends with whom i communicate in “real life” and online in various forms. I use social networks for work and play, and i generally find them fun. I am always online if you consider the constant connectivity i achieve with my iPhone. I teach labels and bands how to use the internet, for a living. I live in SF and am actively using social networks, keeping friendships & acquaintances who live in SF both online and off – and from social media to spontaneous tweetups, i am fully aware that i live in a bubble.
But still, we are all the potential purveyors of a cognitive surplus. With the growth of social tools, their increasing ease of use, and the behaviors that ensue comes the chance to ignite a surplus of creativity, the wealth of knowledge and cognitive evolution. Potential social regression challenges the Cognitive Surplus. It is the web equivalent of a potential online idiocracy. It is the dark side of Web 2.5. To understand how to fill the surplus with all that is conducive to growth, it is important to explore the underbelly: Social regression and passive aggression in online social circumstance.
2 Examples of Social Regression and Passive Aggression
Qwitter
I’m often rather [accidentally] socially naive, so I was actually shocked today to find out some people who regularly send out personal messages on Twitter also use an app called Qwitter. If you unsubsribe to their feed, they will know almost immediately. I understand using Qwitter for a business twitter account. It could viably teach a company how to communicate with consumers. I do not understand using this app for any other purpose, other than as the conduit for potential social playground drama. There are too many opportunities for social regression in using this tool that it becomes nothing other than a tool from the dark side. In this bubble, i have received warnings from friends “fyi s/he uses Qwitter” – It completely violates the rule of thumb everyone should have learned when they were five: And you and me are free to be you and me
(and yes, anyone is free to add qwitter too. yes i know some people can justify reasons to use it, some people have audiences. And that’s great! Just know your role in this whole cognitive surplus/ social web thing. if you have *that* many “followers” then at what point to you carry a responsibility to your tribe in the messages you send either overtly or passively?)
Compare People
Compare People is an app on facebook that, like so many sexy sirens, likes to spam you when your friends use it. But more importantly it asks you to compare all of your friends to each other….after 100 comparisons you are invited to look at your own rank. That’s when you get to see that you aren’t as pretty or popular as your friend down the street. Need i say more? I have this app on my page because i was initially amused by the questions. It would repeatedly show me two pictures of two different bald men and ask “who has better hair?” Hilarious, but In the wrong hands, this app could be misconstrued as a socially negative motivator rather than fodder for humor. Imagine finding that 0 out of 25 people rated you as “pretty.” with so much potential hurt, how are we inflicting pain on the kinetic potential of our Cognitive Surplus?
Stalkers & The Act of Privatizing: Protection versus Public Exclusivity
I’ve had an online stalker (“cyberbully”), and had to make the choice about privatizing my network(s). After some aggressive (legal) action and processing of that experience, i now have a new respect for the study of social privacy online. But i didn’t give in to terrorism. Most of my feeds were public before it started, they are still public and i like it that way. I know what data I relay and in what arenas, most of the time. This is my responsibility to myself and to the people in my life: i know what i put “out there” and i make overt attempts to be sensitive to those around me, give or take my sense of humor, oft sarcastic but not manipulative. Perhaps it will change, but my feeds are open, and just some are closed. I am who i am, there is a digital life that i live, and i know it. That said, we see it time and time again: Unfriended friends in a quarrel, the meaningless announcement of a dating relationship broken or created, the name dropping and location mongering on twitter, the playground dramas of publicly announcing exclusivity. the dark side. These socially passive methods of communication render nothing less than cruel social ambiguity if used as actual means of communication. The exclusivity of a network are strategic for b to c business, but are merely tools of social regression with regard to many levels of personal use. I’m no less guilty than anyone else, but each time i notice how my actions online affect another human in real life, I try to learn and improve. Socially passive aggression and public exclusivity is clearly the opposite of open communication, participatory networking, subscription based models and dharma. The tool is usually supposed to provide the means of a more direct communication – it is supposed to enhance our levels of interaction; not give us means to enhance our systems of indirect communique.
We are humans.
We are wired to communicate. We are just humans, and when we deal with social awkwardness by abusing alcohol, drugs or technology, we are devaluing our vital role in the cognitive surplus. Suddenly we are forced to make sense of the tools we are still building, and in doing so we are finding out what kind of participation enhances our human condition. Social regression hinders our new chance at higher emotional intelligence. Feeding anger with socially passive aggression online is the new form of rage on a playground.
Cognitive Evolution – it’s all the rage.
Well said, but did you REALLY have to use the term “web2.5″?
It seems we often get stuck in the playground. The games of the pre-teen never give way to the life of the adult. There’s a lot of sound and fury signifying next to nothing. It’s a distraction from the very interesting work/play that could be occurring across the Network. Are we strong enough yet to resist the pull of irony?
still looking for dissertation fodder? more than a few crumbs to build on there, no? i tend to steer clear of what I perceive to be vanity narcissist portals ala myspace (too heavy on the social perversions and bad aesthetic vibe) – but do frequent places like metafilter, ask-metafilter, lifehacker, etc. — the signal to noise ratio at those sites is more to my liking. i think the trap some may fall into is using the interweb as social substitute rather than what could otherwise be a productive tool. ahhh…but enough of the AOL days for one comment. 8 )