Last week, David Weinberg blogged about Friendster by hand. In order to explain why Friendster makes no sense, he describes a Friendster scenario that is laughable when translated to real life.
His post made me think of a paper that i wrote a few years back called Sexing the Internet. It is really common for us to introduce ourselves to people in real life through a series of rituals. At the core, you’re asking “what do we have in common?” but to do so, you ask where the person is from, who they might know that you might have in common, what the person does, etc. You are trying to find common ground. This type of behavior is easily translated to the digital world and even a query so simple as A/S/L is about more than the questions “age? sex? location?” At the core, you’re asking if you have enough culturally common ground to speak and hopefully the answer will provide you with fuel for a pick-up line as exciting as “Oh, i lived in Boston once!”
The thing is that the ritual of finding common ground is not so much about the answer as much as it is about the pattern of asking/responding. When we create profiles, we privilege the answer. This makes the response all the more awkward. Suddenly, “Oh, i lived in Boston once!” translates from trying to find common ground to “i’ve stared at your profile and i think you’re hot but we have absolutely nothing in common and i have nothing interesting to say so i’m going to react to your location and hope that you’re so desperate that you’ll respond positively to my sketchy pick-up line that’s even more offensive because i appear to be stalking you.”
Reacting to a profile is just 10x more socially odd than small talk. And unfortunately, the profile itself takes away one’s ability to engage with the standard “what do we have in common” questions. Thus, the lurker gets that far and then they have to find something meaningful to say without the ice breaker. Given this, it’s such a miracle that profile-based dating ever works.
Of couse, that’s the trick, right? It only works when both people are actively looking or when one person brings something brilliant to the table that goes far beyond small talk.
Zephoria: Friendster short-circuits small-talk
via David Weinberger, Zephoria has an insightful post about why profile-based conversation is wierd: Reacting to a profile is just
It’s a very reasonable critique, however I think there’s a danger in expecting social software to match existing human behavior perfectly. The social dance of A-S-L is tedious because people have no better information about each other available upon first contact. Often the best in-person meetings are when person A already knows something about person B from person C which gives person A a deeper topic to start at. Bios allow you to start with something that matters instead of Boston. Existing social norms are a consequence of an impoverished public information space – we are adapting our social behavior to match the new, richer public information space.
Jeff – my point is that the information isn’t always the point – sometimes, it’s about the dance. It’s *very* awkward to start a conversation from a bio, far more awkward than from a how’s the weather type of icebreaker. Social norms have and will emerge online, but the solution is not simply a matter of providing more information.
I hear what you are saying and I agrese that the aproachee must show some sort of effort in attaining that tid bit of information key to making a successful sell. I feel that it is not the ritual that is important, or the information, but it is the display of effort and genuine interest that counts. If a guys throws out a 1/2 hearted line a girl knows he is not putting any effort in. In the same respects what is a major concern with established relationships … one partner is not putting in enough effort. Profiles make it all easier, so how do you appear earnest in this e-dating scene?