Comments on: Thanks for humoring me, really.

By: rob

rob — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:46:24 +0000

@Shel – thanks for stopping by. Chris and I have been exchanging some ideas – ones I’ve documented well on this blog over the last year.

I don’t think you and I disagree on this matter – and I’ll use you as an example:

I added you as a friend on Facebook. You replied back, “Hi Robert. Thanks for linking to me as a friend, but I’m not sure how we know each other. Could you refresh my memory?”

I responded : “Mostly through your blog, and through Alex de Carvahlo. I’ve never met either of you though (but that’s true of me and a lot of people I know). Anyway, we had a long conversation about your blog post, “The Scrapblog job is taken”.

Having established that we had some connection, you added me as a Facebook Friend. This is exactly what I am arguing above – that I need *some* connection – otherwise you being my friend has no context.

You established that connection between me and you by sending me an email, and me responding. It would have been much faster and less instrusive if when you received my friend request it already had some context to it – if only the software could offer that. And that’s really what I am arguing for – a global profile where we can set the personal “context” of our online persona – depending on who is asking for it, and why.

Rob

By: shel israel

shel israel — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:22:40 +0000

Rob,

Chris K. tells me I have something to do with the conversation you two have been holding. I have to add in that my experience is different. I first met Steve Rubel, Loic Lemeur, Ewan McIntosh,Tom Raftery, Hugh MacLeod through social networking. That experience has contributed greatly to me realworld network and I include them all as valued friends. Theveues where we met may have been virtual but the friendship is very real. In terms of Facebook, people have been instrumental in helping me with my SAP Global Survey and FB has contributed directly and signficantly to my income this year. Linked In, where I have been a member for four years has not.

By: rob

rob — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:21:19 +0000

@c keene – You certainly raise valid points. The difference now is the reach people have when “friending” others. They no longer have to be within reach of a “pear throw”. On a social Soccer related site I am a member of I constantly get friend requests from people all over the world that want me to buy their XYZ soccer league and make millions with them. All I want from the soccer site is to help the founders out a bit. I’m not a big fan of soccer.

This goes back to “context” – something these social network sites are not managing very well. I should be able to check my levels of interest in various aspects of soccer (player, coach, parent, investor, etc) and communications and friend requests should take this information into account when handling requests. Sure – people can still ignore the “context” but if they do it enough, you ban them. I ran a public BBS for years in the early 80’s. Banning was something we often had to resort to just to maintain the atmosphere of the community.

If people set a preference and “context” and others ignore it, they should be held accountable for being rude in my community.

Thanks much for the comment – like I said to start with – you’ve made some very good points.

Rob

By: c keene

c keene — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:16:55 +0000

The behavior that constitutes friendship varies dramatically based on context. My favorite example was when my sister was in 2nd grade and arrived home announcing that she had a new boyfriend. When I asked her how she knew, she replied “he’s my boyfriend because he threw a pear at me on the way home.” Every context has different rules for being “friends” – much of the fun of social media is that we are getting to live through a global learning process around the rules that apply to friendship in a variety of new communication environments.

By: Kami Huyse

Kami Huyse — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:18:42 +0000

I am finally catching up with my feeds, but I have to agree with this “friending” business. It is really odd to call complete strangers friends.

By: YuviSense: Codin Kid » Me on Facebook

YuviSense: Codin Kid » Me on Facebook — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:53:09 +0000

[...] I try to send this URL through it, here it is for anyone wanting to add me on Facebook and I follow Rob’s policy on adding friends. Posted at 4 August 2007 under [...]

By: rob

rob — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:19:07 +0000

I exchange ZERO Christmas cards. I have a fairly large “secondary tier of friends”. Call them the Christmas Card group – the one’s people might send a card to but not call. I call my inner group… I email or blog to my outer group – which probably is about 250 people. But I don’t spend money on stamps

By: Paul Claessen

Paul Claessen — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:14:47 +0000

Some of those ’social science’ studies have an ‘arbitrary feel’ to them (at least, to me).
I mean, the number 150 was based on a ‘prediction’ based on the size of the human neocortex.
And then a study (and research) is conducted, that seems to ‘confirm’ this number, and THAT study is based on the exchange of Christmas cards.
That leaves me staring at the ceiling.
What can we conclude? That the number of Christmas cards we humans exchange is a function of the average size of our neocortext?
I have to fear for the size of MY neocortex then!

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:02:51 +0000

“The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us.”

–Professor Robin Dunbar
http://www.liv.ac.uk/evolpsyc/dunbar.html