Skip to main content

The Nuances of a Public Conversation

I've been using (the ridiculously addictive) Facebook and even Orkut quite a bit over the last year. I'd signed up ages ago very soon after both sites just came out, but it took enough of my friends/(extended) family signing up for me to become active. It looks like I fall into the "early majority" on most technology diffusion curves.

The feature I've been using quite a bit, are the Wall and Scraps, as ways to quickly communicate with my friends. If you haven't used these, they're exactly what they sound like. You can leave messages for people to read on their "wall" or leave them a note (or "scrap".) The people can read these later at their convenience; the thing is so can everyone else....and they do. Features like Facebook's mini-feed make this easier to do, and so even more addictive. After all there's nothing more interesting than seeing what other people are up to.

Like leaving comments on someone's blog post, you're not just responding to person's comment or congratulating them, you're doing so loudly on record for the rest of the world to see: its not a private conversation, its a public toast/roast. I'm not sure what the right analogy is; if an email is like a private conversation between two people, a "scrap" or "writing on a wall" is like shouting to a person across a room, or writing in their scrapbook knowing its going to be passed around right after?

Anyway, what I was trying to get to is that the Observer effect seems to kick in, and the way people would communicate (tone, words, even if they would choose to communicate or not) changes. I've found myself scrapping people I'm not sure I would send an email too. I've had to catch myself from writing a little differently when sending an email to a list rather than just one person. A friend once told me he thought he was being "louder" and a little more obnoxious (than usual) on people's walls.

So maybe public scrutiny has a counter-intuitive (at least to me) effect. It seems to free people up to be bolder/louder rather than quiet them down.

But that's just my read so far. What's your take?

Comments

Le Voyageur said…
Only because the consequences of retribution for being bolder or louder in certain online arenas have not yet been fully realized. If the blog or forum has particularly high volume or influential readership, the poster that wants to make a point and stand out may be willing to be bolder. But if he is ever "called" on something and repercussions occur in real life instead of just online flaming, he may not be so bold the next time.

Popular posts from this blog

Yup - humans still lack humanity

Every once in a while, I'm reminded that humans can be completely lacking in humanity.

My wife had the following experience yesterday on her ride back home. She got on the train and found a seat. The train was unusually crowded and it looked a lot of people had to stand for a long ride. An elderly Asian gentleman carrying a few things in both hands, was looking for spot, started to complain smilingly about the train being so full and stood in the aisle at the back of the carriage some seats away from her.

She expected someone closer to gentleman in the aisle (lots of younger people on the train) to give him their seat.

No one did.

The train started, and it was clear the man was having a lot of trouble standing up. Then at the next stop there was actually an announcement saying the train was full so please give up your seats to people who needed them.

Still nobody moved.

My wife got up walked to the end of the train and asked the gentleman to go over to her seat. She still couldn&#…

Whimsy when I changed my profile picture...

I changed by profile picture at work.



Later in the day, two people on my team had changed their profile pictures to these.. :-)



It made my day!

I changed my profile pic again today. Let's see how fast anyone catches on this time. :-)

Measure f-ing everything, and assume f-ing nothing!! - Or how mentoring ruined lives :-(

I've been really enjoying the Freakonomics podcast of late. This episode and the lesson we should take a away from it, was a stark reminder of one of the most important things we should be doing - but often don't - in building products or making any decisions: measuring the impact of absolutely everything we do, including the things that seem obviously good.

I recommend listening to the podcast if you have the time, but here's the summary. Stephen Dubner describes the Cambridge Sommerville Youth Study. The impact of social intervention programs in general is hard to measure and so they seldom are. This was the first attempt at measuring the impact over a long period of time.

It's a great story and there are a few good take-aways, but here's the main one: troubled or at-risk youth that received mentoring (good mentoring!) had worse life outcomes across every dimension than the kids that were left alone. Despite the recipients saying that the mentoring was incredibl…