Mark Zuckerberg is a guy that puts a lot of work into how the company he founded is perceived. His versionand other people’s versions tend to diverge on some rather relevant issues, and now at least some of the horrible truth is becoming more obvious to the general user of the Facebook, and Facebook are having to scramble to re-invent the services they offer, as well as alter the demographic they target for their attentions, in an effort to keep the sinking ship afloat. Social media giants like Facebook have all sorts of dirty tricks up their sleeves to keep users on board, and the psychology of marketing isn’t the only source of their power, as they hold such huge sway over our behaviour, so it stands to reason that they have many friends in high places too. How can we ever truly be free, if we don’t really take a hard look at what these platforms’ purposes are (and like all my posts, I must point out that I don’t endorse uncritically everything that’s proposed in the following video, as I’m an individual, with my own views, and not a demographic, but I do think the video frames the discussion points, which could be explored further by users of social media)?
Remember the official story of how Facebook started? It all sounded so cosy and friendly, didn’t it? People coming together, and sharing, with Mark the bright spark helping us all to shine.
Sorry Zucky, but your lies suck, and you blow. This isn’t real life, as we know it, and you ain’t the captain of our ship. More and more long time users of Facebook have jumped ship, and are swimming for shore.
We hoping you sink with the ship, and all the rats below deck drown with you. We see you, trying to bail the ship out with buckets, and we hope your true toxic face becomes more obvious to the new users you are trying to drive mad, by pretending to be their bestest friend ever, arranging to meet them in other places at a convenient time, a helpful app, providing a hug in the form of a thumbs up. Well, it’s a Thumbs Down to you, with no hug, from us. We’re so sorry Mark. Honest.
Checked my Twitter, YouTube channel and of course, my beloved blog first thing this morning, while munching away on my breakfast. I used to read in bed, before I had a smartphone, but those days are a distant memory, and although I usually do a half an hour of meditation after breakfast, it’s becoming increasingly challenging to drag myself away from my beloved social media platforms, as I circle like a rat in a maze that’s leading nowhere, and I run back to where I’ve already been, to see if anything new has happened. This morning, in my YouTube Recommended feeds, this video caught my attention, as it was about the topic of social media’s addictive qualities, and I’ve been noticing how hard it is to fight the addiction which seems to leave one wanting more, the more one engages in it.
Now, I’m a bit leery of guys like Jaron, when they tell us how bad for us social media is, and how we should think of it as a wild Tiger that’s going to gobble us up from the knees down, if we don’t run like billy-o to safety, and fast, if only ‘cos they are so engaged in developing the tools that they say they hate, so where is their personal morality at, then, if they are still in the biz? The fact that he’s spouting his political opinions, under the cover of talking about social media addiction, makes me think he’s not too different in outlook from the big businesses that write his paycheck at the end of each month.
My advice, for what it’s worth, is to take the channel 4 clip, as you should all media you use, with a very large pinch of salt, and a sceptical mind, rather than watching in the passive way that the media loves. Remember, the media is excellent at packaging propaganda in a very covert, and persuasive way, to get under your critical thinking radar, or bypass critical thinking altogether.
That being said, he makes a few points which are worth looking at in relation to other people’s work, like the Behaviourist School of psychology. These psychologists broke human behaviour down to a perhaps over-simplified view of behaviour, positing a reward/punishment model, saying that animals like ourselves can learn to peck through all sorts of tasks if they think they might be getting some nice birdseed at the end of it.
I did a short livestream on the topic, while still wiping the sleep out of my eyes, discussing what I found interesting about the ideas raised by my morning viewing. In other words I went back to the screen for another shot of the drug. Please, please, give this post a like (bites nails in anticipation).
What’s the difference between a personality type and a personality trait? Well, in Jung’s theory of types, developed in his bookPsychological Types (1921), he developed 8 different categories of types of people, based around the psychological functions (how people perceive the world, and make decisions) of consciousness. He examined the tensions created by personality complexes created around these functions.
It’s heavy stuff, and can be confusing, but the main idea of the theory of Socionics, developed much later (1970s and 1980s) is that one could figure out, to some extent, people’s behaviour within groups, based on their personality types and the tensions that arose in interpersonal dynamics within groups. It takes into account Jung’s theories on personality types and character traits, as well as the Informational Metabolismtheories developed by the Polish psychiatrist, Antoni Kępiński, which explores how people interact with their environment, via signals.
In other words, Socionics explores how people interact with their environment based on their personality (the area psychology concerns itself with), and how they process information signals in their environment (sociological element of the theory). It’s a fascinating area of study, since not only does it attempt to catagorize complex human behaviours and perceptions into an order which can be expressed diagrammatically, it can also be used to attempt to predict and shape behaviours.
It doesn’t take much of a leap of the imagination to see how these theories might have some relevance to the consideration of social media groupings as Multi-agent systems, with people communicating on various media platforms (MASs being defined as self-organizing computerized systems, see also Agent-Based Models (ABS), comprised of intelligent agents), although the initial theory of MASs examined the interplay of strictly artifical agents, and a further implication of being able to diagrammatically organize a theory around the processes at work with human agents operating within a constructed environment consisting of perameters defined by the system.
While the MAS idea may suggest interesting correspondences to the theory of Socionics, it also presents problematic issues if the models are compared or examined for comparative purposes, since with human interactions both personality traits and characteristics come into play, and often override the mechanical, stimulous/responseelement of the computerized communications theory. Much of the material I looked at wasn’t current, with materials on the topic spanning the 1960s to the 1990s, and after that time, online research papers becoming sparser, although the MAS model has been more extensively employed in computer technology communications fields, such as Gaming Theory and the field of Artificial Intelligence, in disciplines such as Informatics.
So is Socionics a failed theory? Maybe. Certainly my short investigation into it yielded surprisingly little literature discussing practical current applications, at least on the relationship between the two, though they seem to be at least tangentially related, in that they both are theories which involve decision making in a computing environment. There is, however, unarguably, a point at which the humans and machines must intersect, and interact, and messages are communicated, and some interesting applications of the conjunction of humans and machines can result in new technologies and modes of communication developing, such as when bots imitate human modes of interaction, acting as influencers or agents of change within groups, with a higher level of autonomy envisaged for the future, via the rate of technological advances being made in this direction, in the field of computing.
What does the future in these fields hold? The designers of this robot, called Sofia (now the first robot citizen ever) would like us to believe that sentience is an achievable goal, but can computers ever truly be human, and do they behave as humans do? Authors such a Stephen Pinker have argued that our brains behave like computers, but can a computer ever really be said to behave in a subjective way? Might it ever?
Just for fun: Briggs Myers personality type test click here. Bonus Article: Five Eyes Surveillance purposes and networks, Wikipedia article.
A big shoutout to the kind reader who hooked me up with this Wikipedia page, which discusses Howard S. Becker’s social theory of “Moral Entrepreneurs”. I found it really interesting, particularly in relation to the idea of splitting this group into Rule Creators, and Rule Enforcers, and studying their role in society, along socio-economic lines, and I wanted to read more, after my interest had been stimulated by this always relevant topic. I came across this WordPress site, which expanded on the topic, and I thought my readers might find it interesting.