On Saturday, Paul Carr posted a perspective piece inspired by a special Weezer concert event attended by a mix of MySpace fans and VIP guests. In that article, Carr criticized the technology community’s recent fascination with real-time search, viewing the concert as a good example of the negative effects brought about by the iPhone generation.
[I]t’s not just a question of micro-ego: when a juror is tweeting teasers from the jury room, part of them must know that a guilty verdict is much more exciting to their audience than one of innocence. How can that not subconsciously influence them? […] In a perverse twist on the uncertainty principle, knowing that our behavior is being observed inevitably changes it for the more dramatic. Just look at reality TV.
While I am an advocate for the many positives that emerge from engaging people in their own lives and being willing to share these observations with others, Carr’s insight is undeniable. Humans have always been affected by their interactions with the environment. With access to social media and a culture of attention to support it, the difference now is that the observer is also a conduit capable of bringing others into the experience. Carr sees this as “a hideous dystopia” where participants are worried more about audience than the context of what they are witnessing.
This prediction of doom, however, is predicated on a handful of flawed assumptions.
The first is that posting content is performing for an audience. While journalists and the bloggers they spawned likely do view the world in that way, I don’t think it follows that as content contribution expands to the general populous everyone becomes a journalist. Most networks on Twitter are small ones reflecting social circles already existing offline. Posts in this context are arguably not about taking credit or reaching the masses as much as sharing experiences with friends.
The second key assumption is that the real-time web is an individual activity. It isn’t. Individuals are involved, but the appeal and value of real-time content is in the sheer number of people participating and the wide range of personal experiences they capture. Real-time is an emergent phenomenon, which means much of the value we may draw from it in the future is unknown. Writers following Twitter’s deals with Microsoft and Google may focus on how quickly trending topics can be identified and reflected better in search results, but where most people spend their search time is with the long-tail terms that have personal relevance. Search may well migrate from individuals-finding-information to ad hoc interest groups finding each other. The real-time web is made of people.
Most importantly, a culture of embodied observation is also one of changed behavior. A third assumption may be that those who are motivated by ego to post content will always be motivated by ego. With new information comes new skills and opportunity for reflection. We see this happening all the time with the evolving strategies of Twitter use (get lots of followers, prune your network, automate follow messages, don’t use direct messages, etc.). The value you see today may not be the same value you will see tomorrow. People change.
It would be a mistake to adopt a utopian view and discount Carr’s critique. However, I believe that what will ultimately emerge from real-time web is a Zen awareness in the here and now. The current flaws in this beast can and will be overcome.
4 replies on “Real-Time is a Collaboration”
[…] Your page is on StumbleUpon […]
Great analysis. Too few people question assumptions.
Incidentally, Paul’s prediction of doom is quite accurate, because his flawed assumptions aren’t flawed at all.
1. “Posting content is performing for an audience.”
Absolutely it is. Posting content is an egocentric behavior, even in the context of spreading and sharing. It brings reward and fulfillment to the poster, regardless of how virtuous the intentions. They use it for cultural identification and social relevance. If that weren’t the case, videos and photos would never leave personal hard drives. Every diary writer will admit — despite insisting on the therapeutic benefits — that they wouldn’t be writing one without intending for anyone else to read it. Even if the footnote to that eventuality is post-mortem.
2. “Real-time web is an individual activity.”
I wouldn’t necessarily clarify his point as such — more accurate would be to say that real-time content is an individual activity. Following the real-time reactions that unfold from news has little-to-no bearing on the actual cause of news itself. This is particularly evident in political punditry, where there are many opinions that are largely ignored by the elected establishment because the fickle masses carry no concrete consequences as the result of their knowledge. It is a generation obsessed with absorption for absorption’s sake. Carr cited Microsoft and Google’s deals to index Twitter precisely because of the fundamentally self-gratuitous appeal to said masses.
3. “Those who are motivated by ego to post content will always be motivated by ego.”
This should really be a secondary to your first point, because it falls under the same context. And my initial point stands — everything we do inpublic is motivated by ego. It is inherent to our sociological design, regardless of the virtues we extoll while doing so. While it may be unreasonable to expect a generation of humility, it is certainly prudent to detail how we are completely off-course and missing the real point. A “Zen awareness in the here and now” is not necessarily a good thing.
Thanks, Devon. I’ll continue to push back on these points.
RE: #1) Metaphor is important in how people perceive content or are motivated into action. If Sage on a Stage is the metaphor, then content becomes a performance and those consuming it are audience. If a different metaphor is used, like a Coffee House, then the motivation and context of consumption is no longer audience (or at worst, not the same kind of audience). It’s the same content, but the experience is completely different. Your argument equates performing for an audience and interpersonal sharing, and that isn’t necessarily the same thing.
When you argue ego motivates everything, you are referring to a theory that says as much. Relational-Cultural Theory, on the other hand, puts our relationships with others as dominant. It is another way of looking at and understanding the world. And in that context, the posts we contribute are actions that seek connection with others. My contention with Paul’s critique was not that he is wrong that there are people who post for sake of ego-audience, but that his dismissal of real-time seems to be based only on that perspective. There are other views to consider.
RE: #2) Paul’s critique specifically complained about how attending a Weezer concert was not like the day Kennedy was shot. This not only implies that only a handful of certain events are worthy of individual coverage, but also everyone will agree that those events are the most important. To the contrary, not only are noteworthy events based on shared experience (either as witnesses or collective impact), but the range of experiences individuals choose to report is what gives real-time search its value. The integration with MS and Google is a good thing in that it enhances the context of a search by polling this stream of unrelated individual sharing to provide an aggregate understanding not apparent without it. Again, the value is not necessarily in polling reaction to the day Kennedy was shot (to keep with Paul’s analogy) but in better understand the long tail in context.
RE: #3) Humans are hardwired to connect with others. Sharing online may be a way to massage ego for some, but for many it is a means to maintaining and enhancing (or occasionally deteriorating) relationships. You are right: this is tied to #1 above. I continue to argue that we don’t reflect enough, and that real-time content does facilitate that important part of learning and communicating.
Thanks for your comments.