Group items tagged

What's to stop an online mass of anonymous but connected people from suddenly turning into a mean mob, just like masses of people have time and time again in the history of every human culture? It's amazing that details in the design of online software can bring out such varied potentials in human behavior. It's time to think about that power on a moral basis.

In this research, Durkheim's theory of the universalization of religious beliefs is extended to analyze the occurrence of religious rituals. Drawing upon Schutz's phenomenology of social relations, we amplify theoretically the Durkheimian perspective and suggest that the universalization process is stimulated by an increase in anonymity (as opposed to intimacy) in society. Structural factors consistent with anonymity--i.e., increasing population density, political and economic differentiation, and monetary exchange--are hypothesized to influence the universalization of ritual occurrence

In a rather wet community, members easily specify other members. This is effective for managing memberships and changing knowledge from tacit to formal. In a rather dry community, members barely identify with other members at all. This method is suitable for the formal-to-tacit phase of knowledge creation. Finally, it is discussed how social intelligence should be designed and what features are needed to support knowledge-creating communities.

However, the Internet is not merely the Swiss army knife of communications media. It has other critical differences from previously available communication media and settings (see, e.g., McKenna & Bargh 2000), and two of these differences especially have been the focus of most psychological and human-computer interaction research on the Internet. First, it is possible to be relatively anonymous on the Internet, especially when participating in electronic group venues such as chat rooms or newsgroups. This turns out to have important consequences for relationship development and group participation. second, computer-mediated communication (CMC) is not conducted face-to-face but in the absence of nonverbal features of communication such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and potentially influential interpersonal features such as physical attractiveness, skin color, gender, and so on. Much of the extant computer science and communications research has explored how the absence of these features affects the process and outcome of social interactions.

Sproull & Kiesler (1985) considered CMC to be an impoverished communication experience, with the reduction of available social cues resulting in a greater sense or feeling of anonymity. This in turn is said to have a deindividuating effect on the individuals involved, producing behavior that is more self-centered and less socially regulated than usual. This reduced-information model of Internet communication assumes further that the reduction of social cues, compared to richer face-to-face situations, must necessarily have negative effects on social interaction (i.e., a weaker, relatively impoverished social interaction).

The relative anonymity of the Internet can also contribute to close relationship formation through reducing the risks inherent in self-disclosure. Because selfdisclosure contributes to a sense of intimacy, making self-disclosure easier should facilitate relationship formation. In this regard Internet communication resembles the "strangers on a train" phenomenon described by Rubin (1975; also Derlega & Chaikin 1977). As Kang (2000, p. 1161) noted, "Cyberspace makes talking with strangers easier. The fundamental point of many cyber-realms, such as chat rooms, is to make new acquaintances. By contrast, in most urban settings, few environments encourage us to walk up to strangers and start chatting. In many cities, doing so would amount to a physical threat."Overall, then, the evidence suggests that rather than being an isolating, personally and socially maladaptive activity, communicating with others over the Internet not only helps to maintain close ties with one's family and friends, but also, if the individual is so inclined, facilitates the formation of close and meaningful new relationships within a relatively safe environment.

A theory introduced to civilization in the form of Socrates, Unwarranted Self-Importance (USI) is the feeling that you are actually worth something despite not having made any contributions to anything at all, thus making yourself look like a complete twat. This is common amongst LiveJournal and Kuro5hin users, chavs, Coalition soldiers who have actually been to Iraq and others prone to arrogance (Kyle Herman, a wannabe pimp, fits nicely into this catagory and should be slapped for his faggotry). It occurs on ED all the time. Unwarranted self-importance is also often associated with flamers or n00bs, Americunts, and The French. It will be found on sites where posts or edits are encouraged, as many imagine themselves working for some greater power as they upset others. It also comes into play when the unwarrantably self-important are lacking in one or more areas of their lives, e.g. being too poor to afford a TV. Most people that reward themselves with the feeling that they are important can easily be considered bastards. People who believe themselves important should seek help, perhaps because of narcissistic tendencies - except for Jacknstock, who was fucking fired instead.

Reasons for Elitism There are multiple reasons someone may think themselves less pathetic than the rest of the human race. Because they (fill in the blank): Are thinner than you. Hate fags more than you. Are more conservative than you. Eat moar placentas than you. Have more artistic talent than you. Are more special than you. Believe in God less than you. Drink more blood than you. Are cooler than you. Have an older religion than you. Know that nobody's perfect and they've got a work it again and again 'till they get it right

Examples of Unwarranted Self-Importance on Wikipedia Basically, most Wikipedians are guilty of unwarranted self-importance. The mildest cases are those who think their edits are actually contributing significantly to an encyclopedia. Jimbo-christened administrators have unwarranted importance, but it may or may not be self-importance, since Jimbo seems to think them important (or more important than other peons Wikipedians). The worst case of unwarranted self-importance are those Wikipedians who have not been Knighted by Jimbo, but pathetically, desperately want to be, like this guy, so they actually start sycophantically acting like administrators,in the hope that their "initiative" will be noted and rewarded. Here is an example of Jaysweet's self-importance:  “  Hi, if you are reading this you saw that I am helping out at the administrator's noticeboard, even though I am not an admin. I believe what I do is useful, and I will continue to do so unless/until an admin asks me to stop. I created the disclaimer after a user became frustrated that he had filed a report and a non-admin had responded. I think I was helpful in that case anyway, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I now often let people know as soon as I answer an ANI report that I am not an admin, especially if I believe the thread will eventually result in admin intervention.

It is easy to become unsettled by privacy-eroding aspects of awareness tools. But there is another — quite different — result of all this incessant updating: a culture of people who know much more about themselves. Many of the avid Twitterers, Flickrers and Facebook users I interviewed described an unexpected side-effect of constant self-disclosure. The act of stopping several times a day to observe what you're feeling or thinking can become, after weeks and weeks, a sort of philosophical act. It's like the Greek dictum to "know thyself," or the therapeutic concept of mindfulness. (Indeed, the question that floats eternally at the top of Twitter's Web site — "What are you doing?" — can come to seem existentially freighted. What are you doing?) Having an audience can make the self-reflection even more acute, since, as my interviewees noted, they're trying to describe their activities in a way that is not only accurate but also interesting to others: the status update as a literary form.

Laura Fitton, the social-media consultant, argues that her constant status updating has made her "a happier person, a calmer person" because the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively. "It drags you out of your own head," she added. In an age of awareness, perhaps the person you see most clearly is yourself.

"It's just like living in a village, where it's actually hard to lie because everybody knows the truth already,"

In essence, Facebook users didn't think they wanted constant, up-to-the-minute updates on what other people are doing. Yet when they experienced this sort of omnipresent knowledge, they found it intriguing and addictive. Why?

Social scientists have a name for this sort of incessant online contact. They call it "ambient awareness."

The growth of ambient intimacy can seem like modern narcissism taken to a new, supermetabolic extreme