Theory and Criticism 371 - Lisa, Jerad, Mark

Final Video

2008-09-05T00:55:00.001+12:00

hope that you like it!

http://blip.tv/file/1231633/

ok this is attempt 2

2008-09-04T03:46:00.002+12:00

http://blip.tv/file/1228823/

what colour would you like the background to be? text is smaller pictures will be made smaller in the final version.

the web version will be 320 by 240, the presentation version will be 720 by 576 and a much higher quality. so dont worry bout that.

i had a look at those links. im thinking that gradients will be used to make it better. do you want me 2 copy those links like the style?

there are spelling mistakes i do realise that, they will be cleaned up.

im gona mess around with the way the conversations are, have them earlier like when the person is shown then thelastest convo.

um other than thatplease let me no. if there are any problems i have class all day but if you need me i can come out for a chat...

sweet as please let me no.

Feedback

2008-09-03T09:36:00.004+12:00

Hey guys,

Mark- I can't pause the video while it is going, so I can't read anything. Its quite good, but of course a little fuzzy :P Its not supposed to be a conversation as such, but commenting, like you would comment on bebo? I'd like to hear what Jerad has to say. And where did the info come in? Or did I just not watch the video enough?

Jerad - The abstract talks a lot about our research, and not a lot about our issues and how we would like to overcome this. The first 1 1/2 pages is completely about defining the background of SNS, and although important, could definatly be refined and a lot can be edited out.

Under the heading "What is the problem", 2nd paragraph you mention "In addition, rarely do we name the nature of our relationship with other individuals, in fact, in many situations naming the nature of the relationship may insult the other party, so we exist often in an often amophous social relationship". I love this, as it is so true. However, this relates to our ideas because we are blantently showly these relationships so we can better understand where we stand with others. So I don't know if this is a positive or a negative? Do we realy want to define our realtionships through the bold use of colours? Or are we just happy to evolve our relationships, be privvy to more information as time goes on, without the bold definitions, which even though they change, might be detrimental to our connections with others. (I just mean that if the program picked up the someone is speaking down to me, do I want to know?)

In the last paragraph in that heading, I thought we might say something about privlidges being taken away if the relationship changes, so a fight would result in loss of information, as the relationship has changed.

On a side note, are there going to be fields of information? Once your circle is 'this' big (remembering that size is dependant on intimacy, and distance on frequency) you get this information about me, even if you have talked about it or not? (see diagram)

I will also do a diagram about the relationships under the TA theory, make it simple, so the different types of people that come under the heading, a simple description. What do you think?

Is the paragraph about the 'why don't you... yes, but' relavent, although it is interesting?

In general: I feel like you're not really explaining why its important that we be able to group people well; how the current issue with many SNS is that it is an all or nothing situation in terms of information. There is no current distinctions that allow people to have boundaries about their information sharing within a group of people (which may be a large mix). The development we are talking about really allows people to forge foundations before information is divulged. It builds up a trust, and information is shared at the rate that the itimacy is built, allowing you are only seeing the information on the person that is relavent to your personal realtionship with them. Will we find this information more special because it is earned and relavent, rather than a huge heap shoved at us (one and all).

We possibly should mention somehting about visualising our relationships gives us more control; eg. I can see freinds slipping away from me (literally).

Also, we need to look at how we describe what we are trying to do: how would it work - although this will be displayed in the video, I feel like we're not actually explaining what we are trying to develop at all, and only describing why we are doing it?

I also think that we need to review how our development is helping our situation, "review stage".

As I said before, the potential for change within a relationship needs to be talked about, to let them know that this is ever changing and updating. And we need to also talk about possible negatives within our design; eg. labelling.

Ok, I feel like I've written heaps, and I hope it's helpful. You're both doing awesome jobs, and now what I need from you is what you think I should be doing in terms of diagrams for the paper.

so far... starting point

2008-09-03T00:45:00.003+12:00

http://blip.tv/file/1224803/

the real video will be properly timed etc this is just so that it uploads faster so you 2 can view it...

it plays fast so just pause it to read each part.

the viewers will follow along with the cursor as the moves to explain the fuctions etc.

let me no if im on the right track. Ive been messing around ith it for hours and it will change from this but i thought that a few of the ideas i thought might work were the colors...maybe tried to explain it.

have a few questions like should i make up a conversation between the main guy one of the others? what info do you want me to put when one of the "friends" is clicked on?

Draft outline

2008-08-26T11:39:00.000+12:00

I was thinking that we may need to split up the research so that we can each independently work and then bring stuff back to the group.

I have put together a draft outline of my interpretation of how I see this paper coming together, but let me know if you don't see it the same way - more than happy to change to accomodate.

General Outline:
1. Introduction to Social Networking
a. Define what technologies we're talking about (just facebook etc, or are we including text, mobile phones, etc.)
b. Describe the social networking theory behind their use - ties & nodes.
c. Brief description of the interpersonal sociological aspect of this theory (this sets up the use of our problem and solution theories below)

2. Define the problem
a. Problem not that these new relationships don't accurately replicate real life, rather that there is vagueness in definition.
b. Introduce Bowen's triangle and relate to problem. Also review Transactional Analysis Drama Triangles.

3. Criteria for resolution
a. Introduce concept and history of Transactional analysis and how it is pertinent to the discussion
b. More detailed discussion of fundamentals of TA - P/A/C states, strokes, games

4. How Transactional Analysis is manifested in a design.

As I know quite a bit about transactional analysis I am more than happy to take on this section specifically. Based on past interests perhaps Mark could take section 1 and Lisa section 2?

Just a suggestion- Let me know what you think?

Draft Survey

2008-08-26T11:33:00.002+12:00

I emailed this already, but thought I'd post it as well.
This is the draft of the survey we could send out to gain some data on how people use the social networking technology.
We're going to need to send this out ASAP in order for the data to get back to us and be useful.
Let me know if you have comments or what you think.
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB2286VVTXC49

so... where are we?

2008-08-25T12:02:00.004+12:00

I had said that I would post a summary of the discussion that Lisa and I had, and unfortunately have been derelict in my duties. So here goes...

First I'm just going to start with a basic summary of our position. I will flush out more pertinent aspects further down.

Our arguments:
1. Current technological trends such as social networking sites, blogs, and mobile phones, present a different mode of interpersonal connection, which is dramatically different than face to face connections.
2. In some cases, these new technologies allow us to remain in better contact with people we would otherwise not stay in contact with, but they also allow us to keep a distance from people we do not want to engage with further.
3. We are not arguing that this duality of intimacy and alienation is a problem - rather it is a personal preference.
4. The problem in the situation is knowing how to understand the relationship that we are engaging in.

That is my attempt for a short a simple summary. So to explain a little bit further:
in a face to face relationship there are two parties - you and me.

we are linked thus: You--------Me
that relationship at this point is undefined. But as we interact more and more, the link between us becomes more defined and understood by us the participants.

Using our new technological interfaces we are linked thus:

You- - - -Me
   \ /
   \ /
   \ /
   Interface

what is interesting in this connection is that the interface doesn't have an agenda but it critically impacts the relationship.
In the physical connection, the You-Me connection is strong and direct, where as in the second example, the you-me connection becomes weakened, with the relationship directed through the interface.

This phenomena mirrors a interpersonal psychological theory presented by a noted Washington, DC psychiatrist and family therapist, Dr. Murray Bowen. The triangle was one component of his family relations theory which indicated how people in a relationship may turn to a third party to diffuse or ignore a struggle between the two parties.

more about bowen:http://www.thebowencenter.org/index.html

What is interesting about Bowen's theory is that it has a strong similarity to the drama triangles developed by Stephen Karpman, as part of the psycho-social theory Transactional Anaylsis initially developed by Eric Berne. The three roles of the drama triangle are Persecutor, Rescuer,and victim.

Proposal
So what we are proposing to look at in our research is the extent to which transactional analysis and it's model of Parent/Adult/Child ego states and our interpersonal interactions can be used to better define the relationships that are developed through these new interfaces.

Hey guys

2008-08-20T20:11:00.002+12:00

Well, I am having issues making time, and I have no idea what we need to do over the next couple of weeks...... anyways.... I will be in about 8.30 tomorrow morning, but I have a meeting at 10, then have to be in Karori for work.

I will make time to meet up next week, please reply with times that you can make it, I need to organise next weeks timetable in terms of work.....

ARGHHHHH. If you are in tomorrow morning, come say hi

So what are the problems?

2008-08-17T22:59:00.007+12:00

Over the weekend I tried to reconsider some of the issues we had been discussing, and thinking about what are the exact problems.

Here are a few that I came up with.

Netbullying
This has been big in the news in the past few months.
Just a few of the recent articles:
stuff.co.nz
The article mentions the NZ government has an agency to help kids with cyberbullying

sfgate.com
the second also mentions the case in missouri of a myspace hoax that ended in a girl killing herself.
washingtonpost.com

From the last article I thought this paragraph was paralleling a thought that I was having about our "problem"

"The government, in its zeal to charge Lori Drew with something, anything, has tried to criminalize everyday, ordinary conduct: the wayward or misuse of a social-network website," defense attorney H. Dean Steward wrote in a motion to dismiss that was filed yesterday.

This to me is a potential problem that has evolved - that our ordinary social definitions of acceptability haven't kept up with our technology. We talked about this in class with bebostalking, texting people on your cell phone you don't know, etc.
It used to be much more difficult for us to create false identities for ourselves and speak publicly, but with the internet we can completely fabricate everything, and in fact, as the woman in the case in missouri is arguing, it is common place. Many people have email addresses that don't indicate our real names, or online identities for blogs or other social sites that are some form of nom de guerre.

So a fundamental problem could be that we don't have a way of agreeing on acceptable internet behaviour or rewarding it.

What I find interesting about this as a problem is that it doesn't automatically lock us into a web interface change, but could actually be a problem, that requires a much more expansive thought about how we agree upon and value etiquette. It could result in a website, a device, a social system, etc.

what is the purpose of social networking sites

2008-08-15T17:07:00.003+12:00

Today in our tutorial session, we discussed what social networking sites provide, and we didn't come to any conclusion.
It does appear in some cases that they may help keep people in contact with others. However, we generally agreed that it only helps stay in contact with people who are marginal friendships anyway - that we maintain traditional contact with our more meaningful relationships.

One suggestion was that despite being very public, the sites actually allow us to be more private, not having to maintain the less meaningful relationships, instead allowing us to update these contacts via our virtual monologues.

So what do these sites advertise themselves for?
Facebook:
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.
Discover the people around you
Facebook is made up of many networks, each based around a company, region, or school. Join the networks that reflect your real-life communities to learn more about the people who work, live, or study around you.

MySpace
:
MySpace is an online community that lets you meet your friends' friends.

Create a community on MySpace and you can share photos, journals and interests with your growing network of mutual friends!

See who knows who, or how you are connected. Find out if you really are six people away from Kevin Bacon.

MySpace is for everyone:
• Friends who want to talk Online
• Single people who want to meet other Singles
• Matchmakers who want to connect their friends with other friends
• Families who want to keep in touch--map your Family Tree
• Business people and co-workers interested in networking
• Classmates and study partners
• Anyone looking for long lost friends!

Friendster:
With more than 75 million members worldwide, Friendster is a leading global online social network. Friendster is focused on helping people stay in touch with friends and discover new people and things that are important to them.

Unfortunately Bebo was down so I wasn't able to get their stated purpose.

So what is the advertised purpose?
1. Reconnect lost friendships
2. Stay in touch with family and friends
3. Find potential new contacts.
4. Visualise the invisible lines of connection that we normally do not see.

Of these reasons, 1 & 2 do not seem unique to the internet - that is that the same function could be done via email, telephone, or even traditional mail.

Based on our discussions, the third reason seemed fairly dubious, in that few new relationships seem to be forged through these websites, although our experience is not necessarily the same for everyone. It would be interesting to find some statistics regarding how effective these websites are in this category.

The fourth reason is actually the most interesting reason, which mandates the use of web 2.0 technologies. Occasionally we may find ourselves on a plane next to another passenger and if we decide to actually engage in conversation we may discover some connection with them. It is only through significant work that we start to reveal these relationship patterns. Sites such as facebook allow us to see the larger networks in which we are connect in a quick and easy way (for example, I keep getting a friend recommendation for a political figure in Washington, DC that was significant in unveiling the lies in the lead up to the Iraq war. I have never met this person, have only seen him on TV, but a friend of a friend worked with him and is friends with him.)

This visualisation of these unseen relationship networks is the one unique feature of social networking sites, which cannot be easily replicated in the physical world.

Is there a problem in the fact this very unique feature is not more notably featured?

Five types of intimacy

2008-08-12T17:54:00.000+12:00

Therefore, as a summary of the existing ideas regarding the components of intimacy, there are at least five types of intimacy.

There is an intellectual intimacy that includes mutual knowledge, interest and self disclosure.
There is a physical component involving touch, affection and sexuality.
There is an emotional component that includes feelings of love and fondness, emotional expression, responsiveness, safety, validation, trust and connection.
There is a behavioral intimacy or friendship in which partners spend time together, and interact with each other (i.e., companionship) in recreational pursuits.
Finally, there is a sense of support, shared history and shared friendships that could be considered social intimacy or common social support.

Each of these five types of intimacy (emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational) has been operationalized by Schaefer and Olson (1981) in their creation and validation of the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships or PAIR Inventory.

Bowen's Triangle Theory

2008-08-12T17:11:00.003+12:00

http://www.thebowencenter.org/concepttri.html

There is an interesting theory you might want to look at: The Bowen family system theory, and in particular, the Triangle theory. In a thesis I am reading at the mo (Technology use and intimacy development in commited relationships by Branden Henline - link somewhere down the page) he talks about this theory. The basic idea is that when things get stressful in a realtionship, we look outside ourselves or either something or someone to blame, or as another contact point. Some examples of this could be: a husband and wife have an arguement; wife calls her sister to vent about it. This makes a triangle. Or, another example, a husband and wife are having problems, and to avoid each other, one will stay up later than the other as to avoid the other person and actually working through the issues. One thing that Branden talks about is th idea of people using technology as the third point in the triangle; of using tv and chat rooms as a way to get away from their partners while in conflict.

I have read about 26 pages so far (of 151) but it is really interesting, I suggest maybe you guys just give it a little look over. It's really easy to read. It has made me think that we should look at relationships and the positive and negative effects technology has on them. So the idea that it can be good in introducing people, fostering the first connections, helping people stay in touch. It can also be negative, as it is hard to convey personality and feeling through technology, it can suck time away from the realtionship (eg tv and computer games) instead of spending quality time together, it can help people to convery themselves as something they are not. I don't know, I am quite interested in relationships, and how technology can create, maintain or disintegrate the intimacy between people. What do you think?

Ha, ok, I just read back over Emily's feedback, and I think maybe it would be interesting to look at new relartionships, or how people try to connect with technology; wherther this be getting a crushs cellphone number off a freind and texting them, using a dating website etc. I don't know lol, I feel I'm going off track now, so I am going to stop posting my own through, and I'll post some research about Sociability (as suggested by Aukja) soon

And sorry I've been away, I've been sick... :(

I also put up the feedback, so we should have a look at that on friday I guess?

Aukje's Feedback

2008-08-12T13:26:00.000+12:00

Some feedback which we discussed:
- check the research of Jenny Preece on Sociability
- when talking about cybernetics really understand which aspects you're covering. As cybernetics is not science fiction!
- target your research towards your chosen phase of usage: engineering-professional-consumer

Emily's feedback

2008-08-11T22:40:00.001+12:00

I have however now read the postings on your blog, including the abstract that your group presented on Friday. You guys have worked your way towards a very interesting topic - one that is becoming more and more relevant as our relationship with digital technology grows. I'm not sure what feedback you had recieved in your review so I think that I will formulate my thoughts more carefully for our Friday class, so as not to confuse your situation.The first thing that did come to mind however, was that your scope of enquiry was really broad - perhaps by defining the type of intimacy and with whom, through which medium etc (eg. 20 year old with cell phones making friends, single middle aged men on dating sites...the list of possibilities is obviously pretty enormous)- you might get a more structured place to start your real design investigations.Social network theory is a good obvious choice as a start point, could you include an existing design theory eg. 'interaction', 'theory of things' or another, alongside this to drive your physical/virtual enquiries.Also what is your vehicle for the investigation? Ie. by what means will you try and discover the answers to some of your questions and from this how would you guys like to visualise the collected data?Will you build something digital to test your ideas then see if you can translate it to a physical demonstrator? or vice versa?Keep comimg back to how your group has defined intimacy as you work your way further in to this.Any specific questions or new ideas drop me a line.

Cheers,Emily

Absract: round 2

2008-08-08T09:18:00.003+12:00

We do not have to look far to find the changes that technology and their accompanying interfaces have made on our social activities. Web based socialising has become widespread, with marketing companies taking the lead on trying to capitalise on this untapped source of market influence and earnings, and Social Networking Theory has been adapted for modelling everything from web applications to corporate strategies.

In general, people eagerly engage in this activity; replicating their physical lives online and in many cases remaking themselves as they would prefer to be seen. The translation of communication within complicated interpersonal relationships into web based communication is currently problematic, poorly defining gradients of intimacy and undermining the value of ‘real life’ relationships through the potential for deception.

This study looks to investigate the effect technology has had on the intimacy within relationships, to look at how it can bring groups closer together, or create a barrier between normally very intimate pairings or groups. We will be looking to apply the Social Network theory as a device for redefining how our expectations of intimacy are interpreted through technological means.

Just changed the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, after looking at the first one again, I understood that you meant that it was about how the media portrays the extreme effects of technology to have led to a lack of intimacy? (or alienation...)

Anywho, I think we're all good, and its not meant to be perfect :P

Proposed Abstract

2008-08-07T22:10:00.004+12:00

Round One?

Comments? Edits? Have at it...

The contemporary human experience is heavily influenced by both the anticipation and the trepidation of technological advancement; most clearly identified in the genre of science-fiction, where cybernetics is often depicted as leading to the alienation of individuals from the environment, each other, and themselves.

We do not have to look far to find the changes that technology and their accompanying interfaces have made on our social activities. Web based socialising has become widespread, with marketing companies taking the lead on trying to capitalise on this untapped source of market influence and earnings, and Social Networking Theory has been adapted for modelling everything from web applications to corporate strategies.

In general, people eagerly engage in this activity; replicating their physical lives online and in many cases remaking themselves as they would prefer to be seen. The translation of complicated interpersonal relationships is currently problematic, poorly defining gradients of intimacy and undermining the value of relationship through the potential for deception.

This study re-examines social alienation in the context of internet based relationships, applying the Social Network Theory as a device for redefining how our expectations of intimacy are interpreted through technological means.

Intimacy Gradient

2008-08-07T16:13:00.003+12:00

One of the issues in Social Networking theory that I have come across, in blog readings, is Intimacy Gradient. It is a term borrowed from architecture and the writings of Christopher Alexander, but has great applicability in web design, and I believe social networking.

The basic premise is their is (or should be) a hierarchy of spaces in a building and their level of privacy. In a private home it typically would not be acceptable to open the front door and enter the bathroom. And while our contemporary homes have lost some of the formality that previously existed regarding which room could enter into another, we still maintain some sense of privacy in our spaces. Despite the growing popularity of the ensuite, most of us would not be comfortable with the concept of an open bathroom to the bedroom, as we are the kitchen to the living area.

In a similar way, in our relationships with others, whether physical or virtual, follow a similar logic. There is some information we wish to guard and only privilege certain individuals with. So while I might feel comfortable introducing myself to a new person with a story of where I am from and how I came to NZ, I might not feel as comfortable telling them about the most embarrassing moment in my life, or a moment that I am shameful of. We have boundaries which determine the relationship we have with others.

In the physical environment we can evaluate on a millisecond by millisecond basis how a conversation is going with a person and judge our conversation accordingly. As discussed in several of the links provided earlier, web design is a little more difficult. Due to the nature of programming (I'm not going to pretend to have a particular knowledge here) one is either in or out. One can try to develop layers, but it is difficult to develop a layered information approach similar to the human mind.

The result is that we are given little choice regarding transparency when we are online. We may be provided with a static number of levels - for example in facebook if you are not a friend you cannot view someone's profile. But how do you separate the co-worker/friend from the friend from youth who knows you one way, from the college friend who knows you another way? So we tend to reveal to the level we think we're comfortable with, often thinking that we're only revealing for the audience that we want to address. If I'm on a dating site, I might want to appear a certain way, but if I knew my grandmother was going to see the same profile, I might not be so keen to portray myself that way.

I have a group of friends who I have known since for 15 years. We are mean and provocative towards each other on a daily basis via email. If anyone else were to intercept an email between us, the rebuke would be scathing. In the 15 years we have developed our own language of interaction, where what we write might not actually say what the casual observer may read. Part of this is based in our face to face interactions with each other. I think it is fair to say that we would never had developed such a relationship if we had not known each other in real life first. There are issues like sarcasm and layered meaning that computers and technology do not deal with well. They are nuances that humans don't have a 100% performance record on, so it would be hard for us to programme anything to interpret correctly.

So where does this leave us? Does the new generation of technology and interfaces provide us with the potential for new connections? Does it alienate us from each other? Does it strain existing relationships, or does is strengthen them? These are all issues of intimacy.

social network theory

2008-08-07T15:51:00.004+12:00

Unfortunately, I was not able to meet with Mark and Lisa yesterday, but adding my two cents here..

The idea of social alienation due to a technologically powered future is not specifically unique, it has birthed a whole genre of science fiction, including the likes of blade runner, the matrix, etc. What we are possibly discussing is the fact that we have created a false sense of intimacy through the use of our techno/interfaces. We have been raised with a cultural fear of the potential of alienation through technology, and so people have developed devices/interfaces to help defeat the alienation. We are encouraged to connect with people via facebook, myspace, use email, inhabit second life, blog, etc., yet we (the authors of this paper) seem to feel that these are still missing something. Some essence of face to face communication that we need to feel a true personal connection.

One can look around and see how pervasive this false sense of intimacy is within our virtual lives. Friends post stories and pictures of themselves that they may be shy to share in person, adapt alter egos to reflect something that would like to amplify about themselves, and we update our personal profiles on bebo or facebook, as if that will make us better known.

What does that mean to be better known? To be known by more? Personally, my use of social networking sites is merely to keep in touch with people I already know. In fact, in most cases, the people who I already have email addresses and phone numbers for. So what is it doing for me? In many cases I talk to these people less than I did before. I can see that they're still alive and doing well, why give them a call? Why try for personal interaction?

Is there an inherent aspect of the techno/interface that causes alienation? Or perhaps it is actually a secret yearning. We all want to exist in our own private bubble,and the further we can get from contact with others the better? It is a pretty horrific existence to contemplate, yet when you walk down the street, most people are plugged into their own private distractions, only willing to be interrupted by that which they already know and are comfortable.

There is a whole theory behind social networking, which is being adapted to many fields, but most aggressively marketing. Social Networking views the relationships (ties) between individuals (nodes) as the import context for interaction. Loose ties have less relevance than strong ties. One of the supposed futures of social networking is the concept of a "small world" where we are all connected. A recent study has confirmed that there is a truth behind the concept of 6 degrees of separation from any random individual on the earth (actually 6.6 according to the study). So if the world is so small, why does it still feel so big?

Ideas for phase 2 abstract

2008-08-06T16:33:00.001+12:00

CONSUMER PHASE
All technologies that we are looking at have been discovered, and are in use. We know use them, like them, without seeing the consequences. Are we looking at designing or adapting a technology or user interface that allows a more intimate and life like interaction. Are we connecting with the technology, or the person at the other end?

We are looking at the idea of person to technology to person, with the technology being the interface that allows the connection between people. How technology causes a lack of intimacy between people, or varies the level.

DEFINE INTIMACY IN OUR CONTEXT
Is intimacy knowing a lot about someone? We can talk to someone on MSN messenger for a year, know the in’s and out’s of their everyday lives, and still not actually “know” them. What makes us feel like we have an intimate relationship with someone? Is it knowing all the good and bad things about them? The little quirks that makes them who they are? Or is simply knowing facts enough?

We have looked at the idea that we share a lot more personal information with others than normal on the internet. We blog things that we might never tell our friends etc. We can upload photos of ourselves sunbathing for everyone to see, yet they are not the kind of pictures you might necessarily have on your fridge or hanging up at work. What is it about technology which allows us to lower our guard, and yet feel safe abut doing so?

Dating websites host a lot of scantily clad people, who are trying to portray themselves in such ways that they think will entice others. But we are just seeing what they want us to see, and seeing only what they allow us to. In a way, people like this, because it lets us have a lot more control over how people view and perceive us that we would meeting person to person – also connecting back to the idea of non verbal communication.

OTHER THOUGHTS
Technology is impairing our ability to forge intimate connections with others

Technology gives us the opportunity to connect with a large range of people, in a large range of contexts, without physically connecting to them.

When communicating with others, a lot of what we understand comes from non verbal communication; tone of voice and body language. Without this, eg; blogging, emailing, texting etc, how do we know what we say is really being understood the way we are actually trying to portray it?

THEORY FOR USE:
Social network theory – the idea of a range of intimacy between people using technology as an interface

Eg:
Person to person: talking to someone face to face
Skype: seeing and hearing people – like physical interaction between people without the person being there. Can understand non verbal communication, but lack the ability to use the senses to create a significant personal bond with them
Talking on the phone: one to one, but also hear tone of voice (see call centre info http://www.surespeak.com/whitepapers/body-language/)
Texting/picting: can be one on one, can be personal conversation, no one else can read it
MSN chat: can talk to just one person, much like texting, but also gives us the ability to chat
to a large group of people at the same time.
Bebo/Facebook: Pre-defined groups of people can see photos and videos of the users choice. Can learn a lot about that persons life without ever really connecting. User can define who sees their life by accepting or denying others, or by inviting them to become a friend.
Blog: Although able to define the people that can see your postings, (eg member only) generally blogs are open to the public, and anyone can see anything that you post.

Email from Jerad

2008-08-06T15:35:00.000+12:00

Hey guys-
Unfortunately I've been sick...So i'm not going to make it at 2:30. Sorry for the late notice. I am available all day tomorrow, except from 11:40 -1:20.

I did find some interesting things in network theory and application to websites called intimacy gradient which might be interesting. http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/08/intimacy_gradie.html
http://www.headshift.com/blog/2004/09/intimacy-gradients-online.php

Emails from today :)

2008-08-05T23:48:00.000+12:00

Lisa:
Neither have I!!! I was talking with Mark about the Idea of marketing/advertising in general, and how the idea of truth is warped. They try to get is to see what they want, not nessessarily what is true. And also, I htought that the lack of intimacy within digital communitcation is interesting; email, msn, texting, quite cool?

Jerad:
". And also, I htought that the lack of intimacy within digital communitcation is interesting; email, msn, texting, quite cool?"hmm... One thing that I've been considering a lot lately is whether the anonymity offered by message boards, is contributing to the destruction of our society - it seems like people are nastier, meaner, etc when they know that they can speak without punishment. That not to say that it doesn't have it's benefits as well, but maybe there is a problem to be solved there?

Jerad:
interesting story about social networking and intimacy - read a page down where they talk about optimum group size.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20642550/

Jerad:
also-there is a whole theory behind social networking - look up "social networking" and you will see a lot of theories - we could use them.

Here are some good old links to social network theories
http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/socialnetworktheory.htm
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/perrolle/archive/Ethier-SocialNetworks.html
Defining Social Network Theory which is a powerpoint explaination

http://www.socialnetworktheory.com/ a blog spot

My research on technology: helps or hinders intimacy?

2008-08-05T23:18:00.000+12:00

Hey dudes, some of my research stuff over the course of the night; body language, non verbal communication (what do we understand, and how? How is technology depriving us of this?), technology and intimacy. Enjoy :)

http://www.surespeak.com/whitepapers/body-language/
"Synopsis
Though their work is verbal and vocal, telephone salespeople can benefit significantly from training in body language. A phone conversation consists of two parts: (1) words themselves, and (2) the manner in which the words are presented. The former is verbal, and can be recorded as a written transcript. The latter, which is nonverbal, is what behavioral scientists call voice quality, intonation, prosody, paralanguage, or tone of voice. Tone of voice carries the feelings and emotions we detect in words."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language
I know, Wiki.... but just as a general overview
"How prevalent is Non verbal Behaviour?
Some researchers put the level of nonverbal communication as high as 80 percent of all communication. More reasonably it could be at around 50-65 percent. That’s exactly what Mehrabian discovered in his communication study. He found that only 7 percent of communication comes from spoken words, 38 percent is from the tone of the voice, and 55 percent comes from body language. However, Mehrabian was only referring to cases of expressing feelings or attitudes, such as when a person says "I do not have a problem with you!" when people commonly focus on the tone of voice, and body language of the person, rather than the actual words said. It is a common misconception that these percentages apply to all communication.[1]"

Particular notice to the reference list at the bottom for further reading

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=78144
"These three elements account differently for the meaning of the message: - Words account for 7%- Tone of voice accounts for 38% and - Body language accounts for 55% of the message."

Running Head: Technology and Intimacy
"Contemporary relationships now exist within the context of technology saturated homes and lifestyles. This is particularly true for current young adults and subsequent generations. Evidence exists to suggest that modern technology, including television, cellular phones, computers and the Internet, can be used in ways that cause and perpetuate problems in committed relationships. " Exert from abstract

http://www.selectassesstrain.com/hint6.asp
facts and tips on communication

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/eq6_nonverbal_communication.htm
Nonverbal Communication: The Hidden Language of Emotional Intelligence
This talks of the importance of understanding non verbal communication while in a relationship, quite interesting when I reflect on our conversation about online dating services earlier today

http://www.customercrossroads.com/customercrossroads/2007/02/technology_is_t.html
"Technology is the new intimacy" - Rasool Verjee

Technology: Helps or hinders intimacy?
Pretty much what we are asking.... Just comparing lon distance dating through time; thoughtfully written love letters to a quick text or email. Short and glossy.

http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/subjects/136-209.html
Course outline for the University of Melbourne... 136-209 Intimacy and Technology

http://jetpress.org/v17/tomasi.htm
The Role of Intimacy in the Evolution of Technology
Alessandro Tomasi
Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 17 Issue 1 – January 2008 - pgs 1-12
http://jetpress.org/v17/tomasi.html
"In this article, Georges Bataille’s notion of intimacy will be re-interpreted to show that it has a role to play in the evolution of technology. The specifically human form of intimacy can be experienced through the successful adoption of technological devices that have the qualities necessary to fit in and work out in our life context. If they manage to become part of our life, then we experience them as projections of our psychophysical personality, and, as such, they escape our positing, objectifying consciousness. Intimacy can be seen as the organizing principle that shapes the evolution of technology towards an ideal end that promises at least an approximation to the absolute intimacy that is unique to the gods."

Jerad's blog

2008-08-05T23:13:00.001+12:00

http://fearofintimacy.blogspot.com/

His view of our work, or on things to do with our project. Very interesting look at alienation

What exactly are we interested in exactly?

2008-08-05T23:07:00.000+12:00

You have invited nofear.design to this chat.
This is now a group chat. Add another person.
Jerad Tinninq has joined.
mark fearon has joined.
Jerad Tinninq: hi mark
me: can you copy what we had before for Mrk?
mark fearon: hi hows it going
Jerad Tinninq: it disappeared...
me: damn
Jerad Tinninq: nothing much to catch up on
we were discussing the possibility that aim,msn email is alienating and whether that is a problem to look at
and that we need to find a clear issue that needs addressing
mark fearon: so like social boundaries changing due to technology?
Jerad Tinninq: I was just thinking about social networking.. there are a lot of sits - facebook, myspace etc - all trying to do the same thing - eliminate the alienation, but what tends to happen is people just recreate their known relations online
mark fearon: like private conversations becoming not so private as they are posted on public sites
me: indeed
mark fearon: things that you wont say to someones face can be kept and lookd at by the talked about that person
Jerad Tinninq: I do find that interesting. I also find it interesting the pictures that people will put on dating sites. Like you'll see a classmate or worker in a very revealing pose and think, dude everyone can see that.
me: bebo is a perfect example of that
Jerad Tinninq: I think how it's kind of turned everyone into amateur porn stars... like we still have a sense of shame in person, but will post half naked pictures on dating sites.
maybe that's just my friends....
mark fearon: yeah and how people take photos of themselves to try and show them in a certain way when they arnt like that at all
me: also, I was suggesting that intimacy is lost through technology; eg texting and email etc. There is a good quote somewhere saying that we understand or connect with people 90% through body language
mark fearon: i think that that is a very interesting topic
me: I have a perfect emaqil about cropping for internet dating sites
mark fearon: yeah and how no emotion is realy shown through txt
me: indeed
mark fearon: except for
me: lol
Jerad Tinninq: I was just doing that ergo project where you have to document your body - I was thinking how funny/awful that would be to use those photos for profile pics
me: oh noes
mark fearon: and how language is changin
or is that another direction
Jerad Tinninq: I'm willing to discuss anything as long as we come up with something.
me: I was thinking about that, because I use predictive texting, I hate people who text "hy u, wot u up 2?"
mark fearon: but it means you can say more
me: ok, Technology - allowing connection without intimacy
Jerad Tinninq: i'm like lisa. but i do see how annoying it is when you have to send two messages because you don't want to use "wot u up 2"?
me: indeed
mark fearon: yeah thats fair enough
i do like Technology - allowing connection without intimacy
Jerad Tinninq: so is there a problem to be solved?
me: how can we connect intimatly through technology?
or maybe we are just investigating technology and intimacy
Sent at 7:22 PM on Tuesday
mark fearon: the problem is that these technologies were created to bring us together but the way they are being used is ripping people apart
need a form of control
boundaries
Jerad Tinninq: do you think they might be changing how we define intimacy? Thinking about what people will put on bebo etc. That what we considered intimate 15 years ago is know public knowledge, so intimacy is discovery that new layer?..
If everyone knows what I look like naked, knows what I did last weekend, how much I drank, who I slept with etc., than what do my closest friends get to know that is priveleged?
me: we connect with a lot of people using technologies, a lot of people that we wouldn't be able to otherwise, but what kind of relationships are we forging? We only allow them to know or see what we want them to, not how it actually is
indeed
and true Mark
Jerad Tinninq: so is the question not how to build an open social network, but one that allows for complication of relationships, growth, etc?
Sent at 7:29 PM on Tuesday
me: we're writing a paper, does it mean that we are investigating a problem, or trying to come up with new solutions?
Jerad Tinninq: first, defining the problem
me: go mark go lol
mark fearon: find a problem then, use theories.
we dont have any theories do we
Jerad Tinninq: so what I just said would be - the problem is that social networking doesn't have hiearchies like life
me: yes
mark fearon: we should use psychology theories to do whatever we need
yeah?
Sent at 7:31 PM on Tuesday
me: yes, and I think that we probably will
I need to go back over my notes about theories
Jerad Tinninq: okay. so I think we have defined a problem that we can all think about and do a bit of reading about for tomorrow then talk about theories?
me: excellent
so we need to read about relationships with technologies, and limitations they propose etc
mark fearon: yeah and have a copy of those questions we need to answer
me: how connection is limited
mark fearon: are we righting one 200 word statement thing each or one as a group
Jerad Tinninq: as a group.
mark fearon: ok sweet.
me: tomorow
Jerad Tinninq: what time?
mark fearon: so just get it done 2moro??
130 was it?
Jerad Tinninq: I just remembered that tomorrow my class on the hill goes until 2. Can we say 2:30?
me: can I get back to you in 1 min
hold on
ok, I have to see someone in Karori at about 1
so I will try be back at 2.30
Jerad Tinninq: ok. Mark?
mark fearon: 230 is fine
i have no class
Jerad Tinninq: great. Thanks guys.
mark fearon: sweet we got our problem
Jerad Tinninq: c u 2moro....

What phase are we interested in?

2008-08-05T23:02:00.000+12:00

Enthusiast Phase

"Exploit me"
Inventors
Adopting technology

innovative, futuristic thinking

Proffesional phase

"Help me work"
Able to market design
Practical use
Reliable, consistent
Useable, affordable

business world

Consumer phase

"Enjoy me"
Easy to use
Likeable
Necessity

iPod, marketing campaigns

Tips on collabritive work

2008-08-05T23:00:00.000+12:00

Assign sections to people based on skill set
Internal deadlines
Dealines for rewriting, rereading work
let tutors know who does what

Our first group talk; Lack of Intimacy

2008-08-05T22:18:00.000+12:00

Propaganda

I was interested in the advertising side of political propaganda, and how people feel a lack of intimacy.

It got brought up that a lack of intimacy can cause intimacy...
Eg. Nazi government ostracises the Jewish people, causing a lack of intimacy and a lack of a feeling of belonging. The Jewish people then band together, casuing intimacy within the outcast group.

We then decided that perhaps that we were interested in alienation as lack of intimacy, and started to make a list about the differences between intimacy and alienation:

Advertising

We then began to talk about advertising, and how we believe what we are told, because it is written word. What do we believe and why? How do they make us believe this?

Trying to advertise, trying to connect with us on a "deeper" level

Because someone tells us, is it true?
What kind of person do we believe? A friend? Our superiors? Our parents? Tutors?

Do published works carry an unspoken guarantee of truth?

What is truth?

Subliminal messages

Advertising tries to portray ideal situations and prey on our emotions; our need to belong, and our deep set insecurities

What is sucessful adverstising? iPod? Why is it successful?

Advertising is an object, or a connection point that tries to create a feeling of intimacy within the viewers.... are we interecting with people? or an object? something disgusing itself? Unknown?

Sorry Jerad, I have forgotten what you had been saying about your definitions etc, could you comment for this post?

Some writing rules for the working paper

2008-08-05T22:06:00.000+12:00

Working paper abstract: (200words)

key words
theme
contribution - what you get out of it
evidence (points)
structure
evidence + arguement = contribution
REFERENCE LIST

SEXI structure:

Statement (intro)
example (body - each paragraph)
explanation (body - each paragraph)
implication (conclusion)

One idea per paragraph
Link paragraphs with related ideas
DO introduce and define terms

Define sources

- Websters
- Oxford

Do cite direct quotes, cite indirect quotes
Use intext citatins MLA APA

Don't use jargon, or use language you don't understand. If you use a technical term, you need to define and contextualise.

Direct link to MediaZone blog

2008-08-05T22:04:00.000+12:00

http://www.mediazone.co.nz/blogs08/DMDN371/

This has all the lectures, presentations and theories from class, good reference