Uses and Gratifications

There are some nice insights in this study. I like that they used the focus group method because it allows users of social media to really talk about their experiences and motivations behind all their Facebooking and Myspace-ing. The people in the study groups enjoyed the ease and instant-gratification of using these social media sites to keep in touch and connect with family and friends. Also echoed in this study and our Burkitt reading was the power to construct your own online identity, which could be done by selecting what your interests and hobbies are and also by who you friend on the sites. I think it's interesting that we can safely present ourselves in the way, that we can "efficient way to tailor one’s appearance from the comfort of [our own] home[s]" (226). I was a bit intrigued by the bit about "scene kids" bit, especially because it seemed to come out of nowhere in the study (I do remember them being a thing back in high school though.) Another interesting point in the article was that is was very common for people to kind of snoop around other people's Facebook or Myspace pages, yet most people did not feel comfortable being snooped on themselves.

Online Social Networking Behavior: The Case of Facebook

This is the first study I have read that really tries to break down and analyze people’s social behavior on Facebook, and I thought it has some very revealing information. It takes into consideration some important factors such as introversion vs. extroversion, gender, and self-esteem. On the topic of gender in online social networks, I am not really surprised that females have larger numbers of friends on their social networks; I am generalizing here, but I do see a lot of females that have a large network of friends in their face-to-face interactions, and to me it always seems that they are expected to be “chattier” than males for some reason. So I can see how that can spread into their online interactions. However, I did think it was interesting that “although women are expected to be more protective and selective in online communication atmospheres,” they were more likely to accept friend requests from people they many not know very well (78).

Another interesting point of this study was the connection between self-esteem and the amount of strangers in one’s online network of friends. People with a high level of self-esteem were more selective about who they "friended" than people with low self-esteem. It seems that people were are more self-conscious of themselves are willing to take chances that this stranger could be a nice online friend, while a person with high-self esteem might think, “Eh, I don’t know this person and I don’t think I’ll ever talk to them.”  

The Medium is the Message

McLuhan certainly approaches media in a way I haven't quite thought about. Is the medium more important than message it carries? Personally, I don't agree with McLuhan, but I do think he brings up some clever examples to support his belief. His analogy of light as a medium that carries no content in its pure form, but that it can be manipulated into signs and advertisements and THEN have content, was very interesting. McLuhan explains that different formats of media have their own character, and that it is "the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action" (203). I do agree with that point; there is a different sort of "personality" or legitimacy of information depending on how it is presented. For example, people would probably trust news they read in a printed newspaper article more than they would something posted from a person's Twitter account. 

And I can see how media has definitely changed the speed and scale at which communication happens, what with so many TV shows, ads, radio channels, and social media outlets, information  can spreads quite fast. McLuhan goes on to describe all this “electric media” as an “inundation” (206). That I can agree with. However, I just do not really believe that the medium is more important than the content. I mostly see the medium as a tool to spread the content, but the content is still the main object.

Social Selves, Ch. 2

From chapter 2 of the Burkitt text, I learned that there are many ideas as to what forms our own identities as “social selves.” Most people believe that although each of us is unique as individuals, we are to some extent products of the environment we live and interact in. One of the schools of thoughts that Burkitt discusses here is the pragmatists. He says that Pragmatism was born as a way for people to “cope in an increasingly modernizing capitalist society where older customs and communities were disappearing” (32). I thought it was interesting to think of a school of thought developing as a coping mechanism in a changing world, which at first sounded pretty depressing to me. But once Burkitt explained that Pragmatism also teaches people to actively change the world as they want it to be, that ideas are “tools” for us to use and produce that change, then that sounded better. In the context of social media, I can see a lot of ways people interact that tie in with Pragmatism thinking. Social media has increasingly been a way for people to reach out to others, and many people use outlets such as Facebook and Twitter as a way to call for action. These needs can be anything from drawing attention to an important social cause such as raising money for underprivileged kids, or to marketing and hyping up a new product for consumers to buy.

Man-Computer Symbiosis

Licklider examines the growing connection between man and technology from a very unique perspective. I agree that he was ahead of his times in these ideas (1960, wow!) First of all, I thought it was strange to think of a future relationship between people and their machines as a symbiosis. When I think of symbiosis, I think of it in a biological context, something that co-evolves with the other for a long time. But then again, that is what we seem to be heading towards. Now more than ever, technology is rapidly improving to be faster and more intuitive. People are being more and more reliant on their devices in their daily lives (smartphones to check their emails, gps when you get lost, keeping your schedules on your phone, etc.)

The concept of being so intertwined with machines that they’ll help us think faster and solve problems more quickly sounds exciting. In some ways, I think it’s a little creepy too. Just how smart and human-like can our computers get? How close and dependent do you think we’ll get? I started wondering if technological progress will get to the point where people will want to start implanting devices into their brains so that they will have a higher than average speed/knowledge base to tap into. Wouldn’t everyone want to think faster and know more, and then other people might feel the need to keep up? Maybe that’s just weird crazy sci-fi talk, but who knows?

I thought that Licklider’s point about the disconnect between human and computer language was interesting also. There is such a vast difference. You basically tell what the computer to do, but you usually have to do it in a specific way for it to understand. If we could make our machines respond and understand us in a more human-like way, that would using them easier. Today there are some good examples of a more human-like thinking in our devices, such personal assistants like Siri on the iPhone. Also, did any of you watch the Jeopardy match between IBM’s supercomputer Watson vs. two other top Jeopardy (human) contestants last year? I thought that was really cool, considering how the computer had to properly interpret the questions (which had to be fed electronically,) search in its own database, come up with possible answers, and then respond. The mistakes he made were funny but you can see how Watson’s less “organic” way of thinking could lead to this. For example, in one category (“Olympic Oddities”), the question was this: “This anatomical oddity of U.S. gymnast George Eyser, who won a gold medal on the parallel bars in in 1904.” Watson answered, “What is leg?”, but got it wrong because he should have said, “What is a missing leg.” A leg is not an oddity, Watson, but missing one is! So close though!

Quality of Online Social Relationships

I think that this study was a good attempt to examine the quality of online social relationships compared to face-to-face relationships. I am not surprised with the result that face-to-face relationships were considered stronger than those mostly based on online interaction. Online communication, to me, always feels a bit detached and less direct.  It's harder to connect because you can't always see what the other person's personality is like, what they're tone sounds like, or what they're expressions are like. There is usually less emotion in the online communication, and in my opinion, less of an obligation to keep up with the relationship.  

I also think it was interesting to think about whether all this online communication hurt or helped existing face-to-face relationships. The study discussed how the effect of online social communication would differ depending on how often you see the friend face-to-face.  I see how online communication can strengthen a good friendship if you are able to to meet with the other person at least occasionally. I do think that relying too much on online communication, especially if you shy away from face-to-face interaction, can have a detrimental effect on one’s social relationships. If you have trouble interacting in-person, then you’re probably more likely to go to online communities, although the online relationships probably won’t seem as “high in quality” as if you were truly interacting face-to-face. But times are changing, and with the popularity of online dating these days, more and more online relationships have developed into "real-life" ones!

Introductory Post

Hi everyone!

I'm SeaPotatoes and I am a fourth year student at SJSU. My major is graphic design, but my major used to be biochemistry before I changed paths and transferred here two semesters ago. Although graphic design is all about visual communication, I do not have much other communications experience other than one public speaking course I took about two years ago. My personal interests include art, design, and science. I really enjoy drawing, riding my bike and hiking. I love learning about the natural world. (My alias name, SeaPotatoes was thought up randomly because I think potatoes is a funny word and I think marine biology is cool. It turns out there is a such thing as a sea potato–it's a type of sea urchin!)

I hope to learn a lot about social media, such as RSS feeds, blogging, and whatever else people are using to connect with each other.  I feel a bit behind. I have a Facebook, but then there are so many other things like Pinterest and Twitter that I never quite got in to. So this class should be interesting!

-SeaPotatoes