Social Hallucinations

Generation M and the Conflict of Generations

The situation, most of you will recall from the young years. You come back home very late. You  open the door quietly, so as not to cause noise, because you know everyone in the house is probably sleeping. You sneak slowly inside, creeping like a cat. You don't want to wake anyone, just head directly to bed to hide your too late arrival. But your efforts fail - there is always someone waiting for you. The conflict of generations - round one. Parents are angry cause they worried and feel deeply responsible for you and expect you to play by their rules and you are tired and think this is the storm in a glass of water cause you are grown up enough to decide yourself and do what you want - your independence from parents is crucial for you.

Each society has its own culture, a different era and different generations like every family. Every new generation is different and poses some other values, has other interests and what to emphasize and rationalize their otherness. The conflict of generations is as old as humans existed. Such conflicts seem to be an inevitable necessity. Only when two cultures / generations clash, their interdependence and fierce fighting can lead to the creation of something new, revelatory and riveting. Development as the result of conflict. Well, conflict doesn't need to have the negative staining. The secret lies in how we do play the rounds in the match between generations. How clever we are to use the old's wisdom to build something new.

Umair Haque writes "Dear Old People Who Run the World, my generation would like to break up with you." Every era has its own goals and tend to forget about yesterday's dreams, but trampling on the previous generations altars will not bring any good. I agree with Umair Haque that we need to "create an authentically, sustainably shared prosperity". We need to do instead of talk. But manifestos and breaking up will not take us there. In my humble opinion, it is interdependence along with fierce fighting and learning from the past success and fails that will bring us to the new set of values and allow to make a difference and move forward.

It is irrevocable, that everything is transient and the light of the young stars who just won over the old ones will be turned off later on in the curse of history as the new generations arrive. We need solid foundation anchored in culture and cores values to make a difference. Development. Otherwise we build house of cards. Every time the new winds blow, house falls down and the new generations come and build the new houses of cards, over and over again. In the result we never learn from the past and seem to start from the scratch.

The new generations like to rebel but overthrowing the old and replacing it with new manifestos doesn't guarantee the success. We can't cut off our heritage that shaped us and the society we are living. Not everything sucked what old people created as long as the new generation turned out to despise greed and crave for the new authentic and sustainable reality - we haven't been created in vacuum. The Generation M is the natural result of the collapse of the systems and economies that is happening in front of our eyes but it can't bury the past. It needs to learn from it. Generation M can't burn down the old monuments, it would be revolution and those usually lead to decapitations in the first place. Generation M needs to analyze the past, learn, blend and act, act smarter as it has the potential and tools to do so. After all, Generation M is a necessary reality, as if we don't introduce new trends, if we don't have ideals, and don't discover the new experiences, our world would be wishy washy and dull gray ... we would be stuck...

Photo by Pensiero

Social(istic) Media or The Rise of the New Capitalism?

From now and then, there are voices talking about the digital media and the possibilities they bring - the driving force behind the new socialism era. But the question is whether the possibilities created by the digital media make socialism possible, or whether what we see is the rise of the new capitalism.

Image via Wikipedia

Socialism (latin societas - community) is the ambiguous term, referring to attempts to reduce social inequality and the spread of social services, treatment or management of social control through state institutions, local government, corporation or cooperative). What's common for various types of socialism is partial or total rejection of  the idea of capitalist free market, the restriction of private property and promotion of the idea of social justice. The aim was to build a socialistic society without poverty, where market forces are not the primary mechanism for distribution of wealth and where the functioning of society is based on common ownership, mutual cooperation and altruism. Beautiful idea but never proved to work (or fail - as it is not compatible with human nature). We are herd animals, but every herd needs the leader and clearly defined roles to ensure the proper functioning and survival of the group.

The whole problem with socialism is that the idea of socialism looks good on paper:

You have two cows. The government takes them and puts in the cowshed with other cows. You have to look after all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

Image by publicenergy via Flickr

Then you have the real socialism (which I experienced and would never recommend to anyone as one of the most humiliating systems to an individual and humanity):

You have two cows. The government takes them and puts in the cowshed with other cows that is taken care of by a former poultry farmer. You have to deal with the chickens, which the government took away from the farmers who are in charge of cowsheds. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as law allows, not as much as you need.

Third option is the national socialism - total exploitation, mean capitalism in disguise:

You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to care for them and sells you the milk with the flag state.

Sharing, cooperation and collaboration that are characteristic for the social media aren't quite working in the socialism, because there are always institutions watching and controlling the sharing or collaboration and trying to regulate those with laws. Maybe not a bad idea, but where regulations and power are involved, the inequalities usually emerge.
Of course there are also some positive sides in socialism, because it focuses on the common good but I can't see its chances to thrive in the world where people value their privacy and right to property. We are too independent and focused on our own success and own profits, driven by our needs. The value is YOU. Youniverse & Meritocracy are what drives the digital media evolution.

What we observe today is the rise of the new networked capitalism with intellect as the form of social capital that increases with use and the new digital opportunities are facilitators that drive the intellect growth. The value of the corporations in the new capitalism era - cognitive capitalism - comes from their ability to create new communication tools (Google), connect people (Facebook, Twitter), etc. Personal drivers as taste, creativity plays a huge role in the production process (Nike ID, Aston Martin). The property rights in relation to intellectual property also dramatically change (Napster).

In the industrial capitalism machines sucked workers in, depersonalized and automatized work, today computers / software sucked our knowledge, mashed it up and customized it getting it available and usable / reusable at every click. The question is not longer how much you produce but how much you manage to seed. The more you seed the more growth you create. What justify the existence and enhances the power of our ideas are their ability to spread and inseminate other minds (self-promotion happens to be quite effective insemination technique when used right) - twitter, blogs etc. being the tools helping on the way. It means social media has nothing to do with socialism except first 6 letters, they are the new capitalistic means of production and seeding. The question whether they contribute to the common wealth or satisfy egoistic needs and ambitions, I will leave open for now...

Image by diankarl*www.diankarlina.com* via Flickr

Sources:

Capitalisme cognitif (Le):nouvelle grande transformation, Moulier Boutang Yann

The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online, Wired

Groups Aren't Always Good at Taking Decisions

Image via Wikipedia

And here is why:

"Groups tend to spend most of their time discussing the information shared by members, which is therefore redundant, rather than discussing information known only to one or a minority of members. This is important because those groups that do share unique information tend to make better decisions.  ... Ironically, ... groups that talked more tended to share less unique information."





Read more about the meta-analysis of 72 studies, involving 4,795 groups and over 17,000 individuals

It is very interesting in relation to focus groups and diverse forms of works where any kind of information is shared or decisions should be taken. Such behavior and tendency to focus on the widely shared informaiton can lead to serious bias of conclusions and decisions taken.

Can You See Any Black Swan in Your Rear-view Mirror?

I am currently reading the fantastic "The Black Swan" by  Nassim Nicholas Taleb a narrative of the importance of the highly improbable events that influence our existence and change the history we believed to be predicted and to happen as planned. The Black Swans are the metaphor for things we don't know before we see them and we rarely tend to notice them as we are focused on looking back.

"Trying to predict the future based on research is like trying to drive a car by looking in the rear-view mirror."

                                                                                                                (Marshall McLuhan)

While being unexeptionally busy with looking back, we hit black swans and left surprised how could this happen.

I can see one good advice: look forward.



Photo by jcoterhals

Connected Silos

Online vs. offline, digital vs. analog - two different and opposite elements of the communication world. The media thinking is stigmatized by dualism that makes us perceive and understand the world as being divided into two categories that can't connect, but just exist one next to another divided by a silent wall of the silo thinking. Silos are easy to control and manage. Silos allows the regime of truth and can't surprise. When something came in, something must come out at the other end. But digital is not a silo. Every media have digital component and can be connected one with another.

1+1 =3

Connected silos that can communicate and connect online with offline reality creating the new immerse experiences. Two different elements that put together, create the new reality. The connected silos aren't the humans' extension they create the new dynamic structure, which we become a part of.

Does it exist, one may ask? See yourself.

I Belong therefore I Am

Image by michael.heiss via Flickr

The need for belonging is one the most powerful needs we share. Being with others people, being social is what our nature demands to function. Some wise-men even claimed that the secret of a good life lies in the harmony between social and personal feelings.
We are herd species and we want to belong something bigger than us. Danes proved it when Anders Colding-Jørgensen Internet psychologist from the University of Copenhagen made an experiment on Facebook. He created a group called 'No to demolition of Stork Fountain' (Storkespringvandet - fountain in Copenhagen). There was nothing strange in it, except the fact that no one wanted to demolish the fountain.
He sent invitation to the group to all his approx. 120 Facebook friends with a message that there was an experiment and asked them to join in. First, the group began to grow quietly. On the second day was reached small 300 members. Then went the stronger and after a little week, reached the 10,000 members. The group has around 25,000 members and is growing fairly stable with approximately 2 members in a minute!

Despite the fake cause, there were 25.000 people who joined and were against something what wasn't suppose to happen. The conclusion - the people didn't join the group to protest against the demolition of the fountain, they joined to be a part of something bigger than them, something that connected them with other people and gave them feeling of joint cause and belonging. This the same as with the groups that protest against new FB layouts. It is not about layout, it is about being part of something bigger than ourselves.

Belonging, being part of something bigger is the one of the most powerful needs you need to consider while working on your digital strategy.

PS. FB group changed its name to "I love Stork fountain" after experiment was done. And it has now over 27.000 users.

120 - Dunbar's Number

Image via Wikipedia

Update on Dunbars Number

Social media may get us more connected but they still haven't made us increase the size of our social network. Social media may create a huge potential but the neocortex is still the limit.

Facebook inhouse sociologist Cameron Marlow crunched a few numbers to test Dunbar's thesis and he found out that despite the possibilities and accessibiity, the circle of our interactions is relatively small and stable.

We are not afraid of intimacy at least, as we have no problems with streaming our lived through updates, photos to broad audience, but we are not keen on investing in creating more meaningful interactions.
I wonder whether we don't use the whole potential social media are giving us because we can't process it or rather cause aren't interested in interacting with too many people.

Read the whole article on The Economist - Primates on Facebook

***************************************************************************

Do you recall Dunbar's number that describes the the number of people with whom one can maintain social relationships: knows who each person is and how that person relates to others. Dunbar's number is 150. It is interesting to see the number of friends average user has on Facebook.

Average user has 120 friends on Facebook.

It is defintely below 150 . Not everyone is Alpha Friender. Some are just use social networks to maintain and extend their offline relationships.

Find more Facebook statistics here.

Instruction Manual for Life

We live by book. We follow each step manual outlines and become terrified of any change, of anything that's different. We risk getting stuck...

This video make me think about Georges Perec and his beautiful and unpredictable books.

"What we need to question is bricks, concrete, glass, our table manners, our utensils, our tools, the way we spend our time, our rhythms. To question that which seems to have ceased forever to astonish us. We live, true, we breathe, true; we walk, we go downstairs, we sit at a table in order to eat, we lie down on a bed on order to sleep. How? Where? When? Why?"
— Georges Perec (L'Infra-ordinaire)

Throw away your manual for life in the upcoming week. Do things differently. Suprise yourself.

$100k Makes People Collaborate

Great example of social behavior. If you give people something to share / talk about they will get involved and will collaborate even though they are complete strangers. The common purpose forms community.

Found at RedFraggs blog

Human interactions are initialized by things

Image via WikipediaWe are no longer focusing on the socializing with others. Our human relations get objectified and objects are necessary for social interactions. They facilitate them and enhance them. People are not unique, the objects they own, are.
Increasingly, human interactions are initialized by things – they intermediate our contacts with others and definte the nature of our interactions.
Things become essential in the human connections. Nintendo Wii becomes the essential object for kids, it becomes the "be or not to be" of their social life. Should we study Nintendo Wii manual to get more profound understanding of youngers social life? It may be not so silly idea after all seeing so many extreme reactions to receiving Wii.

50 kids happy to get a Nintendo Wii for Christmas - watch more gamer videos

Hat tip to Seth Godin

'The Common Sense Sociology'

Internet is infested with social media experts who apply "the common sense sociology" to explain and consult on social behavior. There are dangers of the common sense wisdoms that lead to blurring the reality and taking the wrong decisions based on the wrong assumptions.

"The common senImage by Compound Eye via Flickrse sociology" 3 mistakes:

1. Presumption that we know the social reality because we live in it, and on the basis of our experience we take for granted certain social relations and social behavior. There is an internal limitation stopping us from making the right judgments - many of our social experiences aren't recorded by our awareness thus they are not included when making judgments. Besides our experience is in most cases limited to a single group of society. We take those limited experiences and create oversimplified theories for the whole society.

2. We believe that the research or study we are working on is always linked directly with practical objectives and we measure the reality in relation to the norms that we use to describe what is desirable or undesirable.

3. Assumption that each group of social facts may be considered theoretically and practically in isolation from the rest of the life of society. Despite it is our mantra, we forget about it when talking about social behavior or social relations - Everything is connected!

As a result we can lots of bullshit said around. Lots of so called experts who mess in the heads of uncritical sheeps.

The good example of such an ignorance and the usage of the common sense science was the discussion on Twitter authority where Loic Le Meur and Michael Arrington demonstrated the lack of understanding for basic terms like authority and social relations linked to those. Authority for those gentlemen is the measure of the number of followers. What a misjudgment and oversimplification of social interactions based on the power of authority. There is a huge difference between authority and popularity (I think the whole discussion about the number of followers is referring to the latter one). Applying the number of followers equals authority logic would mean Britney Spears is a heck of an authority! (BTW she has almost 13.000 followers, gee it must be some pearls of wisdom on her profile).
Majority the social media experts are just popular through self-promotion. There are only a few who are credible experts. The difference comes from professionalism, truthfulness, trustworthiness and impartiality.
We need to be more careful and fight for professionalizing in the field to avoid being drifted away by "the common sense science" and tempted with the easy solutions based on vague theories build solely on one person experience: 'I did it this way, it worked, so it must be true for everyone and everything else.' This way of thinking is just the reproduction of the existing stats quo of the cultural structures driven by a great army consisting of the people who do not get it, but have the right to vote.
If we are here to make change we need to keep on being clever and avoid those 3 mistakes of the applying common sense thinking into any social science.

Drawing by gapingvoid

Sharing

"Take an apple or two" .  I've stumbled upon this box this afternoon. It seems like someone had too many apples and decided to share. Nice gesture. People share by nature.

Global Warming

Incredible video. I imagine it must be even stronger when seen in HD quality.Watch, stop and think...

Television Without Borders

I've come across an interesting news site Link TV that broadcasts programs that engage, educate and activate viewers to become involved in the world. Link TV mission is about giving people broader perspective on news and covering topics that aren't available in the US media. Lots of interesting news and topics covered. It is really worth exploring.

It is a good example of online taking role of educating people. I had an interesting discussion today about media literacy among youth today. The conclusion was that youth today lack tools for filtering and coping with the information overload. I've observed the tendency for taking the first information available for granted, they express rarely any criticism toward what they find on Google or watch in TV. There is definitely the need for this type of initiatives that have educational aspect and show diversity.

TV, education, media literacy

You Eat We Donate

I have rather ambivalent attitude towards charity events that involve eating. There are quite a few of them in Denmark . You sign in to eat food and than you pay for it. The money you spend are donated to charity.

Yes, I can definitely see the point that it is about helping those who are in need. But on the other hand I find it deeply disgusting to think about bunch of people filling themselves with gourmet food and flushing it with expensive wine, looking around with the self enjoyment. "I am so good. I've just ate 300 gram steak with good conscience. I don't have to feel bad that people die of hunger, while I am eating more than I need. I've paid myself out of it."

It gives the new meaning to I consume therefore I am.

I have a hard time accepting it. For me it is just an excuse to have a good meal and use it as recognition factor. It is contradictory. If you want to help, just help. Not eat!

What happened to the simple need of helping the less fortunate without getting something in return? Did we bury the altruism virtue away? Don't we feel the moral obligation of helping others any longer? Aren't we able to do a simple act of helping even though if it means we need to sacrifice our own interest?

August Comte wrote long time ago in Catechism of Positivism "Man must serve Humanity, whose we are entirely." Living simply for others can seem like unachievable virtue, but in fact is about asking yourself a question: how can I make those people life a bit better and reaching the helping hand out.

We have so much to give....

Photo by Carf

society, charity, altruism