Internet addicts
October 27, 2009, 7:01 am
Filed under: relationships | Tags: , ,

Image from Stéfan on flickr

Check out this video from CNN Video


Facebook – dictating and affecting
October 26, 2009, 3:17 pm
Filed under: relationships | Tags: , , , , ,

In a report published by CyberPsychology & Behaviour, psychologists looked at the actual impact of facebook on relationships.

“Our results suggest that Facebook may expose an individual to potentially jealousy-provoking information about their partner, which creates a feedback loop whereby heightened jealousy leads to increased surveillance of a partner’s Facebook page. Persistent surveillance results in further exposure to jealousy-provoking information.”

Muise, A., Christofides, E. & Desmarais, S. (2009). More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 441-444.

Such findings reveal the affective nature of facebook to transgress its cyber boundaries and extend into the real world. In a historical sense what can be concluded is that facebook wields significant power through the collective generation of data – peoples’ posts, images and  status comments to turn around and impact the course of peoples ‘real world’ lives and create new personal histories. While at its core – user generated, we have simultaneously surrendered a certain level of control – where we are vulnerable to the actions of others.

October 26, 2009, 3:01 pm
Filed under: relationships | Tags: ,

[we do not claim copyright over this material]

How do we mediate relationships online?
October 26, 2009, 2:28 pm
Filed under: relationships | Tags: , , ,

What histories do we create when we build our profiles? Are these histories the result of maintaining relationships and reinforcing the social codes we follow with certain people? For example are you inhibited by what your boss would think? Why do you tag and untag images of yourself? What is your tagging policy? Are these decisions based on how others would perceive you? Thus, does the integrity of facebook itself rest on our relationships? Forming and maintaining – if nothing but our external selves for those around us to observe?

The following images are screen shots taken from profiles. What can we assume of these people, and what do we assume of other people in our friend list? Who are we concerned with or by, when we choose are own profile pics?

Profile Pic #1

How do we judge?

What do we know?

What do we know?

what can we assume?

what can we assume?

can we assume anything?

can we assume anything?

what we think we know already
October 26, 2009, 2:19 pm
Filed under: relationships | Tags: , , ,

What we know for sure about facebook (sample survey of peers and colleagues)

  1. In most cases the name is accurate
  2. Many people like receiving birthday wishes – birthdays are most likely accurate
  3. Profile pictures are going to either consist of:
    1. Self portrait
    2. Self portrait with friends – also insightful
    3. Favoured item/pet/location – also insightful
    4. Arbitrary image – reflective of persons personality
    5. Friends list is indicative of ‘who you are’. Pple are weary of those with ‘too many’, and take more seriously those with what is considered an ‘average’ amount

Additions welcome . . . .

who are we here and who are we there?
October 26, 2009, 2:17 pm
Filed under: relationships | Tags: , ,

OK so just reflecting on previous post, it’s a huge call to make admittedly – but if we consider the ways in which we act towards our family in contrast to the way in which we act in a place of work and again in contrast to the way in which we act in social situations, is this not equally ‘constructive’? When we don different personas for different people, are we not actively constructing our own identities time and time again? Thus the questions lies, how can the ‘constructivist nature’ of our facebook profiles be any less of a real account then the conglomeration of identities we use to showcase ourselves to a variety of different publics?

Essentially the point and/or question: the historical validity of facebook?? Its biographical legitimacy and socio authority in confirming who we are and who we are connected to.

facebook as history
October 26, 2009, 2:13 pm
Filed under: relationships | Tags: , ,

The fundamental principle of history 2.0 is the notion of user generated. The idea that we in the present are creating history simply by participating is not a new concept, unique to history 2.0 is the abandonment of the heriarchy that has successful dictated the practice of historiography. Certain histories are no longer privileged and our access to the stories of the everyday is greater than ever before. I wonder, like many historical periods from the enlightenment to post-modernism, whether our attention to user-generated content will be remembered as a significant mark on the spectrum of the way in which we know our past? What we can draw into analysis is the way in which history2.0 lifts the standing of social networking sites to historical sources.

We are constantly involved in the formation of both our own and other peoples identities. The question is whether these identities are indicative of who we actually are? We must consider the impact of relationships we share with those in our networks on the way in which we portray ourselves, or perhaps the REVERSE – the impact of the way we portray ourselves on our relationships with other people? Is it possible to simultaneously assume multiple identities? And the crux – if we adopt multiple codes of conduct/social norms depending on the company we currently keep – are social networking sites identities in their purest form?