My Very First Source: An Inspiring Read
This entry was written in response to the Research Blogging Assignment for Stanford's Fall 2008 Cultural Interfaces class. For more about this assignment, click here. You can leave a comment on this post by clicking on the "comment" link below.
I’m not usually one to bandy the phrase “paradigm shift” around, but it really suits the early stages of my research this quarter. Prior to PWR 2, it was always the same deal: decide my topic on a hunch, and find the substantiating research later. Of course, the step that came in-between those two was “cross fingers tightly,” and I consider myself lucky that the routine always panned out. This time, though, I can truly say guided my topic decision, and not just personal experience. Not a surprise, considering the here-and-new nature of this PWR course. Chances have never been greater that I’d find something relevant in my normal routine, and that’s the story behind my first source. Who knows, I may have even put Cultural Interfaces at the top of my preference list with this New York Times article in mind.
The story was written by Clive Thompson, and focuses on one or two specific tools offered on Facebook—status updates, and pictures. The author then describes the pattern of user behavior associated with these features. By article’s end, he even pinpoints and labels what he views as the psychological phenomenon underlying this behavior.
The phenomenon Thompson speaks of is called “ambient intimacy.” It’s the idea that people can feel closely connected by simply reading the step-by-step story of each other’s lives—those things Facebook calls “status updates.” He extends this idea to the use of sites like Twitter (where people can ONLY express themselves via status update), but also looks back to its history in other media. Like with text messaging: Thompson references a past study regarding long-distance lovers and their methods of developing a “co-presence” from miles away. In many cases, the meat-and-potatoes of their communications were simple status-update text messages—presumably to let their partner in on a daily routine.
This article certainly brings up some questions on the topic of ambient intimacy. For instance, do status updates have the same satisfying effect on a reader if they are broadcast to everyone, rather than sent specifically to that reader? Beyond Thompson’s status update phenomenon, though, it’s the way he went about writing his article that most excites me. He opened the door to all sorts of behavioral analysis on Facebook, and is one of the first major journalists to look beyond the fact that the site has “cool” features. In this sense his article struck oil, but also let me know that there’s more to dig for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&hp
Comments
Excellent blog post. I can tell you are really intrigued now with your topic, and it's nice to hear how you're evolving your standard research practices for PWR 2. As always, your tone and diction in the blog post were entertaining and appropriate. I'm also interested in reading that Thompson article myself. As a source, newspaper articles are usually not the most credible because of the short time frame of publication, but a NYT article on a popular topic such as facebook certainly seems credible to me. Good luck with the rest of your research.
Posted by: Ben Halpern | October 9, 2008 10:46 AM
Interesting first source I'd say. Looks like you should be inspired to keep researching, in hopes of finding information as dense and exciting as the article you reported on! What struck me was the idea of "feeling connected" (possibly intimately) solely based on status updates. I mean, I never really thought about this, (I'm presuming you hadn't either until you were blessed with this article), so it's a bit eye-opening. The idea that "behavioral analysis" can sprout from a networking tool like Facebook is just a sign of our digital age. Moreover, something definitely worth focusing on in an in-depth research paper. Facebook does shape identities, and it might actually be beneficial to you, Mr. Lyman, to figure out how we are all acting and reacting to Facebook's bells and whistles--on a psychological scale. Let me know how things turn out for you.
E Wish
Posted by: Eric Wishom | October 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Here you present a very interesting article on a very specific topic. I would have never expected people to analyze this aspect of facebook, but the topic seems really intriguing. The paper seems to give in depth analysis on ambient intimacy and how it is related to behavior and psychology. I am wondering if you are going to take a scientific approach on examining facebook's status update and how people respond to them? Are you interested in analyzing the behavior of the users. And if so, how will you do this kind of analysis.
Posted by: Ming | October 9, 2008 10:48 AM
John- this is a really striking article. Particularly because I was on the "dreaded" myspace yesterday... Given that myspace was started first, all of the websites nuances were, at the time, completely acceptable and not out of place. However, having adjusted to wall posts and status udates, instead of stationary "quote" and bulletin entries, I had forgotten how strange the bulletin posts really are. Many people, including Clive Thompson apparently, are fascinated with the status phenomenon. But the Bulletin phenomenon is much much stranger. Statuses you MAY see if comes up on your profile on facebook, but bulletins you HAVE to see when a friend posts one. Bulletins are stranger, because they not only give a quick synopsis of the person's current emotional state, but also lots of irrelevant information. Mostly surveys and ridiculous inside jokes. I think if anything is strange in relation to the rest of the online community it is the Myspace Bulletin feature.
Posted by: Austen Wianecki | October 9, 2008 10:48 AM
It's great that you found a NYT article about your topic. The idea of "ambient intimacy" is definitely something to explore when looking at how people connect via status updates, but I remember you mentioning another perspective in your research brainstorm - why do people post in the first place? When people update your status on Facebook, are they really trying to connect with friends, or are they just narcissistic?
Another question to ask is if this ambient intimacy good or bad for social relationships. People obviously still need to communicate directly via phone or email or in person - does this supposed connection through status updates actually reduce the amount of communication?
You should also look at both Facebook and Twitter and the differences in their offerings - i.e. you can do @tom to target something at Tom on Twitter, but who are you talking to on Facebook? Oh, and something interesting I saw yesterday - someone was trying to sell baseball tickets through their Facebook status. How does Facebook's new feature of allowing comments on statuses change the way people use it?
Posted by: Constance Duong | October 9, 2008 10:49 AM
Thanks for starting us out on the research blogging assignment! You've received some good comments so far -- I think Austen's and Constance's were really great. I love the way that Austen brought MySpace back into the fold -- in terms of understanding the social networking site (SNS) phenomenon, appreciating the way these issues play out on MySpace is particularly valuable because it might get at the purpose behind these tools, even if the implementation is not quite what was originally intended. And that point, exactly, is what intrigues me so much about Constance's post -- the idea of what some might call "subversive" use of these tools, and the way that actual Use can trump original Intent.
I had mentioned to you that I read something about Twitter once that mentioned something similar to the idea of ambient intimacy. What's funny is that I went back and found it and -- guess what? -- it was written by Clive Thompson in 2007! It's funny because here we can see the development of a line of research, where he was fascinated with a phenomenon in 2007, but it took him a while to really fix it down and "name" it. You can read this article at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-07/st_thompson.
Good luck on your research!
Posted by: Christine Alfano, Stanford Instructor | October 9, 2008 01:07 PM