Social media, social cohesion, banalities and love

From Evernote:

edinburgh alumni full discussion

Social media investigation.

There is a general view that social networks are exciting even risky places where pooled intelligence is enabling individuals to find like minds, to explore themes, to mine the collective knowledge and to extend their experiences. These are bold claims and I wonder if they are true to any major extent, though they may well be true for a small sector of society.  My question is 'do they reflect what people are actually doing with social networks, rather than what people merely hope social networks can do?

Sometime ago, on a whim, I joined my recently created University Alumni group on Linkedin. The principle discussion among this group was, 'What was your favourite student bar in Edinburgh?  http://www.linkedin.com/e/vwy60p-gb1ggz9q-1z/ava/17730010/74624/EML_anet_qa_ttle-cThOon0JumNFomgJt7dBpSBA/

It was a sleepy group with infrequent and brief postings of mostly brief mentions of bars and clubs in Edinburgh enjoyed by the poster every 3 or four days or so.  This group contained 154 postings at the point at which I decided to shake it up a little and drop this stone into the calm waters:

This kind of thread is a classic example of the 'enabling mediocre'. It has been well noted that in committee meetings, there is likely to be more discussion about whether to have ginger biscuits or chocolate cookies for the break than there will be on the agenda itself. Anyone can jump in on harmless and irrelevant conversations and make themselves felt without controversy. Hence twitter et al. Social media actually contains very little hard core information other than the aforementioned 'enabling mediocre' and the generally observed posturing to gain a social presence.

1.It's taken a while to realise that social media networks are mostly about bonding not about discovery. Hence the proposition that  'mediocre' remarks are more 'successful' in the doing the job of bonding than critical or confrontational ones,  For example from posting 158, 'It is good to see so many comments which says we all like to belong to this group and now we feel included.'  and this from posting 159, 'We've gone to high-brow philosophical responses for a harmless thread',  and this, '...How lovely that across generations and geography we can be joined in a common theme...' (164)

To make a challenging remark about the group is to severely disturb the 'comfort factor' of the network. You might think that such a remark not having anything to do with the discussion about bars would be simply ignored.  Not a bit of it. Even a sleepy group like this has boundaries, defences and self-appointed defenders.  The average rate of new messages to this topic ran at a little less than one every 3 days, as can readily be seen on its Linkedin page.  The moment I posted my remark, it took only 17 mins for the first four responses to appear, reacting strongly to my comment. E.g. posting 160 '...Someone should buy Andrew a drink at the next reunion...'  Posting 163 '..."Enabling mediocre" - what a load of p*sh...'  After the first 4 the next 4, were posted around midnight. Ending with this complicated insult from posting 166 '...At any student do there is always someone standing in a corner smoking a Gauloise and pretending not to enjoy themselves. Occasionally they say something philosophical, it sounds good, but it was pinched off George Bernard Shaw on the whole...'  So one can see that even with a 'harmless thread' (159) and one that '... brings a smile every time someone mentions a bar not yet in the thread...' (163), there was a high level of concern about thread content in spite of a) the normal infrequent posting rate, and b) the genuinely banal content. 

Social media networks are clearly defensive.  You might think, since they are generally open to new members (and by member here I mean a subscriber to a theme or a process) at any time that these networks are outward looking and welcoming, but actually no, they are tightly focussed on the internal cohesion between members. 

45 minutes after the defensive 'action' came the reestablishing action.  A posting about a bar.  6 more followed that morning. It was like a system re-set.  After this, I reacted as if the defence mechanism had worked and made an abject apology citing poor judgement. No one commented and the mundane postings settled down to the infrequent rate of more innocent times.  'Thank god we're back on track, for a moment there I started picking the fluff out of my belly button...' (170)

I was interesting to see the defence mechanism in action.  It was not something I might have predicted in such a mundane discussion. It suggests that social cohesion is the most likely core purpose to all social networks and the strength of which is probably related to the controversy rate of discussion.  The more argument there is in a thread the less loyal the individuals are to it. Which is probably fair enough.

However, there is another possibly more chilling fact about the this particular discussion which many of the its members may not be aware of. How 'innocent' is it?  Linkedin is a social networking site designed for business people. SO it should be expected that anyone posting on it will also have some kind of business profile.  This particular discussion was initiated by Sharon Lorimer, who is according to her web site, a photojournalist, a writer and businesswoman and founder of doshebu, a consultancy business dedicated to helping people settle in new countries.  At the time of posting she was organising a webinar on the Top 10 bars around the world.  So it is easy to see the hidden agenda behind the thread. Registrations for the webinar on her web site opened April 22.  She opened the thread on the Edinburgh Alumni linkedin page on  April 22nd. By virtue of this post and by keeping up with it, she maintains her visible place as one of the 'top influencers' in the Linkedin group.  This comment is not a criticism of Sharon in any way - this is the actual point of these networks even if the users are less conscious of it. 

The Twitter and Facebook models are much more explicitly designed to facilitate selling,  and I would expect most users to be aware of such a purpose.  Had everyone been aware of extremely low key Alumni discussion founder's hidden business agenda, would the discussion have continued?  Would there have been as many messages?  Would the users have felt more or less bonded? It suggests something about human behaviour and the market place:  That approvals and disapprovals do not have similar weights when it comes to making decisions.

So, why are users apparently less conscious of the selling purpose of these networks? It is, I suggest, that our ability to relate to people is connected to perceived 'equality', so we have a tendency to the mediocre in order to search for equality in partners. 

Which brings me round rather too quickly to other intersting questions about personal relationships.  Is love better maintained through banalities or through controversies? Is the critical mind the most unlovable of all?