Do social networks like Twitter belong in media?

No Gravatar

There’s an article on on ABS/CBN news site (Do social networks like Twitter belong in media?) discussing, among other things, the business models of social media, if it’s possible to monetize Twitter, and whether or not Murdoch will invest in Twitter after MySpace.  About 3/4 of the way down the article is a statement that shows me how hard it is for people to let loose of their current models of how the world works and why so many companies and people are having a hard time taking advantage of social networking technologies.  The author writes: “What is also unclear is whether social networks belong under the roof of Internet companies or traditional media.” Why is it that we insist on putting something firmly in an existing category?  Why must social networks be under one roof or the other?

Partly it’s because that’s how brains work.  We process new information by sticking it to something similar in our “brain bank” of stuff so we can decide what it is–or even remember it at all.  We do that with all kinds of things based on our experience.  Call it classification, call it stereotyping.  They are the same.  It is the process of trying to understand new information in the context of old information.  It isn’t a moral failure, it’s a biological constraint.  If we weren’t able to do that, we’d never make it out of the house in the morning for having to figure so much stuff out.  And we get really nervous if we can’t stick things somewhere, so we put new information, new experiences, and stuff we don’t understand firmly into the closest bucket.  And that’s the problem, because once in a bucket, it’s really hard to get it out.  And to make matters worse, this new bucket entry serves as a place to stick other stuff that kind of matches it, and they become equally as questionnably filed away.  When it comes to technology, this constrains us, not helps us.

Hello?  Did anybody watch the CNN coverage of Michael Jackson’s Memorial streaming across Facebook while people texted their experience in Twitters?  It’s time to wrench our old metaphors about media technologies out of the old media vs. new media model.  The boundaries are going away.  Making judgments based on out of date metaphors makes bad decisions.  It is true no matter what arena you’re operating in–business, socially, politically, interpersonally or scientifically.

California Prop 8: Minorities vote to block rights of other minorities

No Gravatar

I’m supposed to be packing because moving vans come tomorrow, but I had to remark on this story in the Washington Post: Most Calif. blacks backed proposition 8: 53% of Latinos Also Supported Proposition 8

In it, Vick and Surdin write:

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 — Any notion that Tuesday’s election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.

This makes me extraordinarily curious about the rationale these voters had on this issue.  Is it religious?  Or is it that we all need to “other” somebody?  A huge body of research talks about intergroup conflict, group affiliation, and the need to establish clear boundaries of others to affirm our own groupness.  This is the same tribalism I talked about in the last post.

I question if it is every possible to overcome this because biologically we’re driven to form groups.  It is important for safety, food gathering, and the survival of our genes (our kids.)  Even though we don’t have to worry about tigers behind every tree, humans also need the psychological connection to flourish.  We know there is cognitive comfort in similarity —and this is not racial but shared perspectives, which can of course be racial, but lots and lots of other things also bring people together into “tribes”: art, music, sports, geography, clubs, status, etc.

If, therefore, we need groups, we probably need to get over this idea that everyone should like each other and just focus on a more basic approach, like right to exist.  I wonder if we took the argument to a more basic level of humanity, if we could get past some of the emotional baggage that accompanies these issues which are predominantly about acknowledging any human’s right to be who they are*. (*With the caveat of not doing others harm of course.)

We talk all the time about framing in the media.  But framing is just the context of any communication.  If gay marriage had not been framed as “marriage,” i.e. challenging a long-standing cultural and religious issues, would it have passed?  Do gays need to call it “marriage” or could a new word be used with equal meaning and legitimacy if it would allow the earlier achievement of being essentially married?  Once you’re legally united, of course, you can call it whatever you want.  I realize that those same cultural values are what embue “marriage” with meaning for everyone, straight or gay and this may not be acceptable to many.  I just wonder if sometimes we need to decide the highest priority and compromise on some of the others.

My mother is old and crazy. She isn’t ever going to change.  This is really unfortunate.  I know her hot buttons and if I need to get something done, I frame it in language that fits her world model.  I don’t care what we call it; I want to get it done.  My sister, on the other hand, still wants our mother to get her point of view.  Not going to happen.  And they have the battle scares and little progress between them to prove it.

For better or worse, there are a lot of old, crazy, or just inflexible folks in the world.  Would we be better able to make some human rights and social progress if we weren’t so determined to get other people to accept a cultural re-definition or our cultural definition?   I don’t know.  I guess it depends on how flexible we are.  Your thoughts?

Media framing: “Conservative” or Cognitive Inflexibility?

No Gravatar

Scott Kaufman in a Psychology Today blog discusses research claiming that conservatives are less creative (Are conservatives less creative than liberals?).  Kaufman is fairly even-handed, but I have a problem with research that takes several political policy positions and uses that to establish that some is a “conservative” since that has a much broader social connotation.

Why not frame of this finding using a more appropriate (and possibly more accurate) designation such as cognitive inflexibility. This takes away the political baggage and inherent emotion that baggage brings. There have been many studies that link individuals who need cognitive closure and have an intolerance for ambiguity with lack of creativity. (note: links are relationships, not causality).

Given the research premise, these findings should be consistent with anyone who is firmly and unwaveringly committed to ideas and positions without questioning–conservative or liberal or in between. As he notes, there is variation in conservatives. For example, some people are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Anyone reading the headline would assume that much broader definition of conservative than the research supports.

I think in the spirit of the Obama win, we should work toward humanizing individual differences and avoid stereotyping of any group.

Copyright © · Media Psychology Research Center · on WordPress ·