I've been wondering about the following questions in the past couple of weeks: What makes conversation addictive to the people who are participating? Once that question is answered, then what makes the user experience through a platform encourage/discourage the addiction?
If we look at the current social networking platforms that encourage constant communication between participants, we tend to see a rise and fall of the number of people joining and leaving (or intermittently contributing). The question is why this happens? Why do people get bored or lose interest? And further, why is it a large group of people come and go, rather than one or two?
So I started thinking about two ways of understanding why this phenomenon exists and the ways to get around it in order to encourage addiction to the conversation: first, the size of the number of participants involved. Second, the (lack of) emergence in the platform that provides the conversation extension.
In a large social networking platform, the assumption is that it is for the general masses and must please everybody all the time as best as it can. If we observe the process of conversation between people, then we quickly realize you can't please everybody all the time. Whenever you have a large group of participants, it is difficult to maintain a single conversation that is of interest to the group, fully and completely. What ends up happening is that a large majority of the participants stop participating and leave the conversation.
Why do some of the participants leave the conversation? The most obviously reasons are likely the following:
- Topic(s) being discussed are not within the realm of the participant's "immediate interest radius". By this I refer to the area that the participant finds comfort and creativity in expressing/sharing their thoughts with others as a way to learn or validate their belief system(s).
- Repetitive revisitations of the same conversation topic(s) are now playing in the participant's mind like a broken record. When the point is made or the agreement is decided, the participant will not see any added value in staying with the same conversation for longer than what they deem necessary.
The two reasons above are definitely not the only reasons and there may be a number of other valid observations/experiences that we can take into account. But if we look at the ones above, then we can conclude that a conversation is effective only if a participant's "immediate interest radius" is satisfied and continues to be satisfied. This means that satisfaction is within the "immediate interest radius" only until an agreement between the participants has been fulfilled - after this peak point, then the conversation has to emerge and transcend to the next point that continues to the next "immediate interest radius" or it will not survive.
This leads to the analysis of the design of platforms that allow for conversation between participants. Applications generally are kept stable for a period of time before they are given slight upgrades in features and functionality in order to attempt and present a more "user-friendly interface". I see one problem with this approach - keeping a stable system for a period of time (it could be weeks, months or even years) encourages the participant to become accustomed to the way it works. If the platform is stable for any period of time and there is a point of familiarity and a comfort zone of usability (or lack thereof), then changing the platform at some future point causes "familiarity disruption". By disrupting the flow of the experience, it can be as traumatizing as a sudden paradigm shift of how one communicates or functions with others through conversation within the confines of the platform.
On the other hand, changing the features and functionality of the platform too frequently can be just as disruptive when the participants of it aren't necessarily "ready" for it, because they haven't become accustomed to the existing changes.
So what is the solution? What is the ultimate "killer platform" that encourages conversation addiction? I think there isn't one, because it really depends on the context for which the participants are interested in participating in. This means that an platform that is effective for conversation has to cater to a small group of participants that have similar interests and topics that they like to converse about, within a particular paradigm and within a particular flow of change and emergence.
Therefore, you cannot make the platform that works for everyone, because people don't work with everyone. This extends to the notion that people can't necessarily have efficient conversation with everyone. Niche platforms are the only way to bring a devoted group of participants together. With this small group of individuals, it is a lot easier to determine their tastes and preferences, their "immediate interest radius" intersections and when to change features and functionality.
After having 'conversations' with Paul Pangaro about conversations and the role of authenticity (how meta), I've arrived at an interesting fork in the road for thenonsequitur.
The original idea was to use a combination of experimental art-play to let the application design itself out, so to speak. My main problem with this first revision is that it is too random. The conversations and commentary are not visually connected but application- and database- dissected (if that makes any sense). Real, authentic conversations do not start and wait for a response at some point in the distant future - they have an almost immediate response (if not an interruption).
Another aspect about conversations is that they do not necessarily fall from the root of a direct parent. They can also have the ability to be associated with multiple conversations, where there are multiple parents - a multi-referential node.
An obviously familiar solution to this would be to formulate a message board structure on all the conversations, where the root node is at the top and the children follow, followed by the children's children, etc. This is also not sufficient. There is too much order, too much hierarchy at the level of the application framework. In real conversation, hierarchy is temporary and is not controlled by a moderator or a framework that applies to the public sphere constantly. Conversational hierarchy is temporary and is something agreed upon by the contributors, not by some outside source.
Additionally, message board threads contradict the idea of a multi-referential node, because it only ever can be referred to from a single node.
The ideal solution would be to 'design' something that is both not seemingly random and not absolutely predictable and also can have multi-referential capabilities. This is something I am still trying to determine and formulate, but it will significantly change various functional givens that the application currently implements. From my previous post on the first revision's goals, a few of the rules will still apply. This includes keeping posts 'identity-LESS' and 'category-LESS'. Tag rules will also stay but the functionality of resizing them will be removed.
This will likely take me a few days to flesh out into a proper second revision, but I will keep those interested in the loop.
I found an old essay that I wrote back in 2003. Rereading it in 2009, it surprisingly isn't too outdated in terms of my thoughts on the philosophy of consciousness. The abstract and PDF link to the full paper are below:
Understanding Consciousness: Buddhism and Quantum Physics
The similarities between quantum physical theories and the Buddhist Centrist view analyses at first seem quite parallel – their relationship concerning relative experience and non-absolute premises as a form of measurement, differ with Newtonian physics in many aspects. Yet, as we delineate further into the specifics of quantum physics and its historically-dependent background, we see that it quickly diverges from the Centrist methods of understanding the nature of consciousness. Consciousness under the quantum physical framework relies on human-biased structures of measurement, while maintaining its ability to keep faithful to its scientific goals of seeking Truth – that is, there inherently exists the necessity to grasp onto an attachment of some ‘thing’ which can help solve the nature of the mind. On the other hand, the Centrist view clearly states its independence from any permanent ‘thing’ which resolves consciousness – rather, there is no ‘thing’ at all. There are only transitional moments of consciousness, conveniently simplified by three related parts: the gross consciousness, the subtle consciousness and the very subtle consciousness. Simply put, quantum physics falls into the trap of attaching to a human-biased perception and treating consciousness as absolute, while the Centrist view realizes the necessity of detachment and the transitory nature of human-biased perception, therefore treating consciousness as a truth but not a Truth.
I will defend this position by looking at three positions – that is, the historical association of consciousness in science, as related to the absolute ‘self’, how this creates an inductive problem, where science is flawed (therefore quantum physics can also be flawed), and how this consistent path towards defending a flawed mode of thought is troublesome when trying to realize consciousness. The Centrist view realizes the inconsistencies and issues concerning these three points, and thus, concludes the impermanence which is innately part of our perceptions, and the transcending nature of human thought. Thus, truth of consciousness is not an objectively inherent ‘thing’ which we must seek out to piece together with our empirical scientific experiments but instead, is built temporarily on whatever our current experiences (both bodily and non-bodily) of consciousness frame the situation as.
In attempting to visualize the concept and watch humans and emerging communication in action, I decided to create a simple web application that incorporates elements of micro-blogging, tagging and anonymity. This is Experiment #1.
In The Non Sequitur I wanted to test a few concepts and experiments in an attempt to disassociate with the legacy ideas of message boards, tagging, identity and categorization.
There are no threads that follow in the typical message board structure, where a parent sits at the top and the children follow recursively. Enforcing a linear order of 'conversation' is not really reflective of how actual group conversations work. Words, concepts, syntax and semantics are thrown left, right, up, down and sideways. Conversation is nonlinear. Therefore, how it is reflected in this application mirrors that process.
There is no ability to control your conversation to a select list of tags. Tags are created on words that you speak, not on concepts that you decide outside of the linguistic reality of your post. So if you talk with certain nouns or verbs, for instance, those will be automatically tagged for you. I always find that when people selectively enter in tags for their posts (and as a result, their 'conversations'), it doesn't necessarily apply or it ends up limiting perception from the reader. Instead, have the words tag themselves.
There is no identity. I specifically removed the ability to register an account and post as your virtual 'self'. Having a conversation under an identity enforces a subconscious filter of 'now they know who I am, therefore I must behave and speak as an inauthentic individual'. This may or may not necessarily apply to all participants, but the ability to post anonymously and have anonymous conversations allows for the freedom to be yourself. Not knowing who you are responding to also increases the mystery and confusion, which is always fun. People generally don't like to have too much predictability, so why should their online interaction be?
There is no categorization. Categorization of conversation is blasphemy. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but unless you are writing an essay specifically tailored to a particular field or concept, everything people 'normally' say can mean anything and nothing at the same time. Categorization assumes presupposed semantic and semiotic association, along with mutually agreed upon rules of phenomenological similarities involving identity, culture, class and ethics (to name a few). Categorization also presupposes not a conversation, but a hierarchical determination of structure. Conversation is not hierarchical, it is all at the same level - hence, auto tagging of memetic relationships between words is more effective in recognizing emerging patterns through random discourse.
This is my first experiment, and I will continually tinker with this, but will also apply similar concepts to other projects in order to try and understand what we all want to know - what it means to be human.
There are a lot of web frameworks out there but the real question is - are they all the same? Could it be that a framework created and marketed to certain developers caters to a certain culture or niche?
Regardless of how the framework was developed, maintained and provided, I notice similar patterns of structure, design and flow that stem directly from the people who support it and the projects that come out of it. Without naming specific frameworks in order to date this post, I think it is irrelevant in the greater umbrella of this topic. I think what is interesting here is that it brings up the question whether it is appropriate to use a particular framework that is marketed towards a specific 'type' of developer with a specific 'kind' of lifestyle for something that is in another realm of personalities and/or projects.
For example, take a framework that has been presented as hip, modern and 'agile'. Take a look at the sites being created in that framework and observe the type of developers that generally flock to it. Maybe there is a pattern of similarities on how they dress, what they enjoy watching, what they enjoy listening to, what their beliefs are. What kind of services and applications do they build using that framework? Are they all really that different? Or do they reflect elements of their similar lifestyles and personalities?
Conversely, compare it to a framework that has been presented as conservative and stable. Also take a look at the sites being created in said framework and observe those developers and their projects. Are these people generally the type to listen to the latest music and concern themselves with branding in current media in the same vein as the one above?
Could this be why there are 'framework wars' between the passionate die-hards that fully support a particular flavour?
Keep in mind that in this thought process, I am by no means insinuating that ALL developers using a particular framework suddenly fall into those stereotypes or create a certain type of project. But there seems to be a pattern of cultural consistency and social structure when associated with certain frameworks.
This is also not to say that you cannot create certain projects with particular 'isms' in a specific framework. But would it be ideal or would it be doing it just to say that you could do it? Should it be done in the framework that is most suitable based on idea, culture and intent? Further, can we ever make the 'perfect, catch-all' framework, without falling into the socio-political traps of pseudo-cultism and fanaticism?