Author Archives: zephoria

the 150 limit and social upkeep

When anthropologist Robin Dunbar wrote about a 150-person cap in one’s social network, he was not referring to 150 people in one’s lifetime. He was saying that people can maintain up to 150 weak ties at any given point in time. [And that tie maintenance is directly related to gossip upkeep and brain size, just as monkey tie maintenance is directly related to grooming and brain size.]

When i have 200+ friends on a site like Friendster, i’m not a social networks anomaly. What is actually being revealed is that my articulated network goes beyond the relationships that i currently maintain. While a high percentage of my friends and associates are on Friendster, not all of them are. There are quite a few relationships that i currently maintain that are not represented there. Additionally, many of the relations represented are outdated or on hiatus, not because i don’t love or appreciate those people, but because we are not geographically colocated or our personal situations have created a situation where time to connect is limited. This doesn’t mean that i don’t love and appreciate those people, just that they’re not part of my current situation.

I say all of this because it’s another factor of why an articulated representation is not equivalent to the network that one is actually maintaining. By suggesting that those ties are valid and relevant, we’re suggesting that we can call on those, regardless of our upkeep. This is a bit problematic.

For example, last nite, i needed to call someone who i could guarantee would be online in order to ask them to look something up for me. This is not a heavy favor, but in choosing who to call, i made certain conscious choices. My cell phone represents one form of an articulated network. As i browsed through the people, i chose not to call certain people for various reasons.

I eliminated some people because i doubted they would be online. I eliminated others from the potential pool because i felt as though the favor would be too inappropriate given our relationship. (For example, i didn’t call my advisor because it would seem an odd request.) But the most cringeful reason that i failed to call a group of people who would likely be online was because i owed them a conversational call (social upkeep) and to call to ask a menial favor when i didn’t have time to do the upkeep was totally out of line.

Now, the limiting factor was, of course, that the task was menial. Had i been in a desperate situation that truly felt magnificent in nature, i would’ve called any one of the people in my cell phone. I knew them all. I loved them all. But the support i requested was contextualized because of the value and whether or not i’d been good about social upkeep.

This is important to realize in the realm of an articulated network. When people go through me to connect with other friends of mine, there can be quite a bit of social awkwardness when i failed to maintain that relationship. When i, as the bridge, have the ability to control when those connections are to be made, i have the opportunity to repair the upkeep gap before asking a favor. For example, when i get a phone call from an old colleague asking to write a recommendation, the conversation inevitably starts with a lot of social upkeep before the favor is requested. Otherwise, it would seem odd.

Continue reading

on dating

Last night, i went to the Commonwealth Club talk on dating in contemporary urban cultures. The panelists included folks from PlanetOut, Friendster, Match.com, and speed dating.

Obviously, i went to get a better idea of what Jonathan’s approach to dating was, in the hopes that it had evolved from the conversation we had a few months ago. It hadn’t. He still believes that relationship formation is not a science and that they just happen. [In March, he told me that the only thing people looked at when dating online is a picture and that he only put up the rest to make his advisors happy.] Of course, he also believes that his site exists out of happenstance and that it is simply that his friends told his friends and voila everyone was interested. –sigh–

Despite my disappointment with his perspective, i was truly taken aback by the rabbi who created speed dating. He was *great*. Unlike the Match.com rep (who had fantastic statistics and scientific analysis), the rabbi just had good insight and wisdom.

He told the audience that dating is like running a company. You can’t just rely on sales and marketing; you need to focus on product development (the product being you). Dating takes work and compromise.

He also told us to change our perspective on seeking people out. Rather than finding the best person for us, look for the person that we could spend the rest of our life trying to make happy. When two people are devoted to making each other happy, the relationship would work.

Those two thoughts are so simple, but yet they were said so elegantly and i really appreciated it.

200 cap on Friendster

Well, i finally hit it. A colleague of mine added me as a Friendster and i went to approve him, but i received a nice little message telling me that i have too many friends. Apparently, 200 is the cap (although i have 215). Of course, i can only assume that Jonathan is intending to block Fakester behavior through this cap, but i find it hysterical that in doing so, he’s actually blocking me, particularly since i’ve been so vigilent about only linking to people that i actually know (well, except for “Brown” who has done me well by letting me find old friends.).

As someone who has been on the darn site for ages and is constantly in communication with folks about it, it shouldn’t be surprising that i know more than 200 people on the system. I have all sorts of colleagues on there (law professors, gender theorists, social software folks, software engineers, etc.). Friends from all aspects of my life are there now. Basically, my account is a funny hodgepodge of a diverse population.

I remember a few months back when one of my friends was asked if i was a Fakester because i seemed to be such a ridiculous hub. ROFL. Perhaps by being too real, i’ve moved into the realm of absurd and thus fake?

social construction of technology

In class today, we were introduced to the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework/methodology. I am certainly not an expert on this approach, but i’m quite curious to learn more as it’s the first direct methodology that i’ve seen to address the socio-political impacts of technology creation and adoption. All too often in tech-land, we think of efficiency and desire as our metrics of the success of a piece of technology and its adoption. But there’s so much more to how and why these items are created and popularized.

Update 11/06/03: Ack, given that this is way too high on Google’s search for SCOT, i thought i’d give some proper references on the topic. Anyone who is interested in knowing what SCOT is (not just my version) should read:

Bijker, W. E. (1995). King of the road: the social construction of the safety bicycle. In Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change (pp. 19-100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pinch, T. (1996). The social construction of technology: a review. In R.Fox (Ed.), Technological change (pp. 17-35). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

anthropology: time, space and other

Early anthropologists belkieved that distance is equivalent to the past. Thus, the further away someone is to the European central, the more likely they are to represent the past. This is embedded in the notion of “otherness.” Of course, we no longer believe that people far from us are that (biologically) different than us, but those early thoughts fundamentally framed some of our thoughts about difference.

For most people, those far away or in a distant past feel so still fundamentally different.

What is interesting about the web is that it starts to collapse time and space. In theory, this should eliminate the notions of “otherness” but somehow, in reality, i think that it will just create confusion. I’d hypothesize that people will continue to judge others along their local notions of similarity and create new barriers to time and space that did not previously exist. Of course, perhaps i’m just being pessimistic today.

the value of the prototype

When we talk about information categorization, we assume that our coarse categories have no impact on the people who deal with them. People need to adapt to the atrocious indexing that we do, right? If a category is wrong, it’ll be adapted, right?

But the thing is that if you believe Elliot Aronson’s arguments in “Social Animal,” you have to believe that our early categorizations play a significant role in how people relate to the material, as they are more likely to reinterpret current information to fit their early mental models than to adjust their early categories.

What does this mean for coarse categorization that is implied to evolve? How does Yahoo!s listing of categories shape the way we think about web information?

back in school

Now that i’m back in school, i’m going to be chewing on a lot of different ideas. I will probably post some of them here, although they will be very informal and not completely thought through. Still, it’s always good to have to put things down to really question what i’m thinking…

a real life buzz kill

In addressing the upcoming Fakester Revolution protest, Clay provides too very good points:

1) The real person behind a Fakester is never as much fun as the character. “Did these people never see the Wizard of Oz? Never let them see behind the curtain — the creator is much duller than the creation.”

2) At this point, Friendster will gain nothing by reverting its policy on Fakesters. The buzz kill has already happened.

I would love to disagree with Clay on the latter point, but i think he’s dead-on. At the same time, i think that there are fundamental lessons for social software creators embedded in this battle. Fundamentally, a successful digital space for social interaction must allow a diverse set of uses and personalities.

By creating a rigid “public” environment and controlling the types of social activity that go on, you inherently limit your audience and weaken your product. Just as in RL, there is value in having a “public” environment where a vastly diverse population can just live and let live. Diversity makes the world go round.

Secondly, play is really important. With play comes humor and creativity. This is the glue the helps connect people, the motivation for doing serious activities. Life is like a treasure hunt – it’s about finding those more subtle awe-inspiring moments. Connecting with people is not a dry mechanical task and to turn it into one will inevitably demotivate people.

One year from now, i suspect that the current incarnation of Friendster will have faded from people’s memories, a fad that was fun to play with and to find people. For the next evolution of said software, it’s going to be essential for designers to figure out how to provide an environment where people have freedom, while simultaneously empowering people to ignore segments of the population. In effect, they need to figure out how to model the variety of a good city. Social software must learn from social environments, not try to artificially construct them.

[Ever since Many-to-Many killed comments, i feel compelled to respond to posts there here… Yet, it feels like an odd form of disconnected dialogue.]

back in school

OMG. I’m back in school. I actually went to classes today. -bounce- I forgot how much i adore being in school. Also, i’ve been practicing new meditation techniques in class every time my mind wanders. And i decided to sit in the front row of every class. I’m determined to actually stay focused on school this time and not get destracted by all of the funny fairie adventures that run throgh my head.

The first class was a discussion of how we categorize information. It involved lots of Lakoff and i was actually able to recall Aronson’s “Social Animal” to argue that people will constantly adjust current infromation in order to fit their early categorization schemes (rather than adjusting those).

The second class concerned legal issues around digital information. I had a hard time not going meta on this class because the teacher’s style was sooo similar to the prof that i had back at the Berkman Institute and it made me wonder if all law professors teach in the same fashion (just as they learn to write opinions in the same fashion as law clerks).

Tomorrow should be the interesting day though as i’m hoping to get into an anthropology class. Time to catch up on all of that theory that i’ve been inadequately acquiring through scanned readings.