NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just curious about how INDIVIDUALS benefit from today's unprecedented level of social networking. Although it makes sense that everyone can be happier as part of the masses who have access to a much wider audience and availability of information, doesn't this just generate a new survival of the fittest environment from how everyone is trying to one-up each other?

Also, isn't it ironic that the urbanites and yuppies who proclaim their social and cultural awareness are the ones who get involved the most in this new social Darwinist exercise? I don't mean to mock anyone, but isn't there a whole degree of hypocrisy which is being overlooked here?
-----------------
Sorry if you thought this was an attack against NS or an accusation of a hive mind.

The focus here isn't against forums or collaboration, but against using social networking in accordance with hypocritical cosmopolitan ideals. I'll start a new thead to clarify.

Here's the clarification:
Today's world provides us with an unsurpassed amount of communication capacity. With it though comes an unsurpassed amount of competition from the natural benefits of being the center of attention.

On top of the sheer technological wave, we now have social networking abilities which act as directories containing the profiles of everyone who wants to get involved. Before, it was the telephone, computer, and internet. Now we have websites which act as profile directories such as MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, Yahoo! 360, and Windows Live.

Although most individuals admit to social networking only as a way to stay in touch, networking is concept which lends itself to getting business done and meeting new people; in order to optimize one's opportunity at social networking, attention has to be allocated towards refining one's profiles to the point that it becomes just as important as preparing a 24/7 resume.

These directories also act as libraries in the sense that not only can you look up the fundamentals of someone's background, but you can also research the particulars of what an individual has done and how that individual is viewed (and approved) by others. Unlike libraries though which simply offer you information to be handled at your leisure, these profiles focus (and demand upon) opportunistic connections like references for work or your High School reputation.

So although the masses can benefit from social networking due to how seemingly EVERYONE'S information is out there, one's sense of individuality becomes tarnished. When everyone is expected to be open to new opportunities in order to utilize and implement every opportunity that comes their way in an fair and equal fashion, individuals become burdened with the chore of constantly staying up with the times and keeping up with the Joneses.

Ironically, the urbanites and yuppies who get involved with this the most are the ones who proclaim that individuality must be preserved. Ironically, it's those who submit to cosmopolitanism that argue against cultural imperialism, YET they support the usage of free flow of information to form an exclusive narcissistic class motivated by naive half-hearted charity and community service.

So why bother being unique if what you do or accomplish one day is forgotten the next? How does being unique benefit the individual when today's world revolves around (and depends upon) being able to connect and provide innovation rather than to simply innovate?

There were a lot of words in that OP, but their juxtaposition failed to convey any sort of meaningful message. Care to try again?

I was just curious about how INDIVIDUALS benefit from today's unprecedented level of social networking.

Human beings are social creatures, we crave social interactions. If our social needs can be satisfied easily then we can concentrate on something more important. See:
http://www.union.umd.edu/GH/basic_needs/images/maslows_hierarchy2.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_needs)

going with my guess on what you were saying...


the great benefit of the net is that the locally unique can find a group of similarly unique people online.

There were a lot of words in that OP, but their juxtaposition failed to convey any sort of meaningful message. Care to try again?

Yeah, I don't understand it either...but I think the original poster is calling all of us members of a hive social mind or something...which I definitely disagree with, as it's simply a generalization that ignores how people are, in fact, unique even if in public they might often seem quite similiar.

There were a lot of words in that OP, but their juxtaposition failed to convey any sort of meaningful message. Care to try again?I have to agree with Fass - I have no idea what you're trying to say. It reads a bit like it's been mulled over in your head for a long time and then tumbled onto the page. Maybe you could spell it out for the audience?

I was just curious about how INDIVIDUALS benefit from today's unprecedented level of social networking. Although it makes sense that everyone can be happier as part of the masses who have access to a much wider audience and availability of information, doesn't this just generate a new survival of the fittest environment from how everyone is trying to one-up each other?


Individuals benefit from a new platform, in the same way they have always benefitted from platforms of interaction. We have always been 'individuals' in 'social groups'. The big difference now isn't about scope or magnitude, so much as choice.

Uisng NSG as an example, this is a fairly large social platform, as such, and yet there are clearly 'individuals' within the collective... each of us can probably name a dozen or more clear 'individuals' that stand out as especially memorable to us.

And this NSG format is our 'community' - but a community which is literally spread all over the entire (geographical) world.

'Choice' comes in, in as much as this is the community we have 'chosen' to belong to. And, if we decide we don't want to 'belong', we can - with greater ease than any social construct that existed previously) - release ourselves from our current 'community', and join another.


Also, isn't it ironic that the urbanites and yuppies who proclaim their social and cultural awareness are the ones who get involved the most in this new social Darwinist exercise? I don't mean to mock anyone, but isn't there a whole degree of hypocrisy which is being overlooked here?

There is no irony, here. Urbanites dwell in communities that have lost much of the 'communal' value. I can't recall the name of the network system - something like 'wholivesnearme.com' - but there have been several examples of 'social networking experiments' that have created 'virtual' communities within tight geographical parameters, and actually increased (rather than the doomsayer predicitions of a decrease) social interactions and communal harmony.

Large masses of people are faceless. We need to be able to choose how we limit our exposure to actually gain a social awareness of our surroundings.

There is nothing (implicitly) in here about hypocrisy, or survival of the fittest - any more than the fences that divide gardens are 'social darwinism'. We are simply talking about a new 'door' of social interaction - only, this door looks further than the next room. It can look all around the world, and can be shared by more than just two rooms.

With a few exceptions, the internet has not created people who are becoming less unique, but rather quite the opposite. It's not until you've joined the hordes of Anonymous that you lose your uniqueness. (and Anonymous has quite the hive mind. It's an amazing phenomena that's just begging to be researched)

I have to agree with Fass - I have no idea what you're trying to say. It reads a bit like it's been mulled over in your head for a long time and then tumbled onto the page. Maybe you could spell it out for the audience?

*agrees*

Individuals benefit from a new platform, in the same way they have always benefitted from platforms of interaction. We have always been 'individuals' in 'social groups'. The big difference now isn't about scope or magnitude, so much as choice.

Uisng NSG as an example, this is a fairly large social platform, as such, and yet there are clearly 'individuals' within the collective... each of us can probably name a dozen or more clear 'individuals' that stand out as especially memorable to us.

And this NSG format is our 'community' - but a community which is literally spread all over the entire (geographical) world.

'Choice' comes in, in as much as this is the community we have 'chosen' to belong to. And, if we decide we don't want to 'belong', we can - with greater ease than any social construct that existed previously) - release ourselves from our current 'community', and join another.



There is no irony, here. Urbanites dwell in communities that have lost much of the 'communal' value. I can't recall the name of the network system - something like 'wholivesnearme.com' - but there have been several examples of 'social networking experiments' that have created 'virtual' communities within tight geographical parameters, and actually increased (rather than the doomsayer predicitions of a decrease) social interactions and communal harmony.

Large masses of people are faceless. We need to be able to choose how we limit our exposure to actually gain a social awareness of our surroundings.

There is nothing (implicitly) in here about hypocrisy, or survival of the fittest - any more than the fences that divide gardens are 'social darwinism'. We are simply talking about a new 'door' of social interaction - only, this door looks further than the next room. It can look all around the world, and can be shared by more than just two rooms.

I was going to do a bit about campfires, but your way's good...

Here's my clarification from the other thread:
Today's world provides us with an unsurpassed amount of communication capacity. With it though comes an unsurpassed amount of competition from the natural benefits of being the center of attention.

On top of the sheer technological wave, we now have social networking abilities which act as directories containing the profiles of everyone who wants to get involved. Before, it was the telephone, computer, and internet. Now we have websites which act as profile directories such as MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, Yahoo! 360, and Windows Live.

Although most individuals admit to social networking only as a way to stay in touch, networking is concept which lends itself to getting business done and meeting new people; in order to optimize one's opportunity at social networking, attention has to be allocated towards refining one's profiles to the point that it becomes just as important as preparing a 24/7 resume.

These directories also act as libraries in the sense that not only can you look up the fundamentals of someone's background, but you can also research the particulars of what an individual has done and how that individual is viewed (and approved) by others. Unlike libraries though which simply offer you information to be handled at your leisure, these profiles focus (and demand upon) opportunistic connections like references for work or your High School reputation.

So although the masses can benefit from social networking due to how seemingly EVERYONE'S information is out there, one's sense of individuality becomes tarnished. When everyone is expected to be open to new opportunities in order to utilize and implement every opportunity that comes their way in an fair and equal fashion, individuals become burdened with the chore of constantly staying up with the times and keeping up with the Joneses.

Ironically, the urbanites and yuppies who get involved with this the most are the ones who proclaim that individuality must be preserved. Ironically, it's those who submit to cosmopolitanism that argue against cultural imperialism, YET they support the usage of free flow of information to form an exclusive narcissistic class motivated by naive half-hearted charity and community service.

So why bother being unique if what you do or accomplish one day is forgotten the next? How does being unique benefit the individual when today's world revolves around (and depends upon) being able to connect and provide innovation rather than to simply innovate?

Freedom of information and improvements in technology enable us to develop communities far beyond anything that existed in the past. The internet has enabled us to connect with people around the world, exposing us to new ideas, new cultures, and new lines of thought we would

If anything, the internet represents the next step inhuman altruism; it is a network that has been built and developed with the express intent of linking humanity together in as many ways as possible, and with it people who would have once been isolated or marginalized for any number of reasons can achieve the same kind of community as anyone else. It's far better than the artificial elites and ignorance of other places and cultures that dominated prior eras; the internet allows us all to be something, and to build a community not just of those near us but from around the world.

Quite frankly, the communications revolution is one of the greatest innovations in human history, and its continually accelerating progress promises to bring further benefits.

The irony of the identical double thread is funny. :)

So why bother being unique if what you do or accomplish one day is forgotten the next? How does being unique benefit the individual when today's world revolves around (and depends upon) being able to connect and provide innovation rather than to simply innovate?


you cant make yourself unique. you ARE unique.

what is the difference between providing innovation and innovating?

anyway, part of the challenge of the net world is to find your home and make enough of an impression that you are not forgotten the next day.

there are, for example, legendary people at NSG who have not been members for years but people still talk about them.

thats what makes it worth the bother.

I'm not so sure that the search for truth is entirely assisted by new forms of social networking.

New communites are certainly formed, but just because more possibilities can be realized doesn't mean we are any closer to finding a truth or coming close to perfection. If anything, having so many new ideas and possibilities seems to be more of a distraction than a benefit especially when so much of our cultural growth is influenced by politics and peer pressure.

Yea, that sounds sorta immature, but the argument made against cultural imperialism by globalization, MNCs, "McDonaldization", or any other form of western culture being imposed on the rest of the world is made by the same people who engage in this new agressive form of sharing (and collaborating) upon new ideas.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that "urbanites" are a sociological result of democratic growth and discipline rather than an individual one, but if that's the case, then there is no individual benefit social networking beyond that of having power and being able to influence others.

Unfortunately for altruists, this means the masses can't realize what's going on because of some form of manipulation which means the most objective approach available isn't being applied which means any realization of an absolute truth would be a byproduct of our efforts, not an intended result.
----------------
Oh, and the difference between providing innovation and actually innovating is the same as the difference between a merchant who sells goods and a artisan who makes goods. Just because you provide innovation doesn't mean you actually made what you're providing although it's certainly possible that a merchant and artisan are the same person or entity.

I'm not so sure that the search for truth is entirely assisted by new forms of social networking.

New communites are certainly formed, but just because more possibilities can be realized doesn't mean we are any closer to finding a truth or coming close to perfection. If anything, having so many new ideas and possibilities seems to be more of a distraction than a benefit especially when so much of our cultural growth is influenced by politics and peer pressure.

Yea, that sounds sorta immature, but the argument made against cultural imperialism by globalization, MNCs, "McDonaldization", or any other form of western culture being imposed on the rest of the world is made by the same people who engage in this new agressive form of sharing (and collaborating) upon new ideas.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that "urbanites" are a sociological result of democratic growth and discipline rather than an individual one, but if that's the case, then there is no individual benefit social networking beyond that of having power and being able to influence others.

Unfortunately for altruists, this means the masses can't realize what's going on because of some form of manipulation which means the most objective approach available isn't being applied which means any realization of an absolute truth would be a byproduct of our efforts, not an intended result.
----------------
Oh, and the difference between providing innovation and actually innovating is the same as the difference between a merchant who sells goods and a artisan who makes goods. Just because you provide innovation doesn't mean you actually made what you're providing although it's certainly possible that a merchant and artisan are the same person or entity.

You establish a criterion that I'm not sure is required.... maybe this social-global-phenomenon isn't about finding 'truth' or 'coming close to perfection'?

As far as I can tell, 'truth' is something we can only approach as individuals. While we might find our inspirations in our communities (or we might not), the journey itself is always individual... no?

I'm inclined to think that - most of the time, for most people - being part of the community is a self-completing activity - it requires nothing more, and it offers nothing more. Epiphany is the exception, not the rule.

But, just maybe, this bigger 'view', this more 'open' world, this greater facility for finding communities that are not limited by geography, culture or creed... maybe all of it gives us an easier - or earlier? - window to illumination?

Truth was established as an ability of social networking here, not in the original question.

Freedom of information and improvements in technology enable us to develop communities far beyond anything that existed in the past. The internet has enabled us to connect with people around the world, exposing us to new ideas, new cultures, and new lines of thought we would

If anything, the internet represents the next step in human altruism; it is a network that has been built and developed with the express intent of linking humanity together in as many ways as possible, and with it people who would have once been isolated or marginalized for any number of reasons can achieve the same kind of community as anyone else. It's far better than the artificial elites and ignorance of other places and cultures that dominated prior eras; the internet allows us all to be something, and to build a community not just of those near us but from around the world.

Quite frankly, the communications revolution is one of the greatest innovations in human history, and its continually accelerating progress promises to bring further benefits.

Still, if truth is what we discover in our own lives rather than through networking, this phenomenon is still a distraction since it deters attention away from discovering that truth towards our networking ability. It's like information overload; when you have so much opportunity and a limited ability to handle it all, the only way it can all be managed is if you don't pay as much attention towards efficiency and error.

The third line that you wrote does make sense though because I think you're saying that at some point, we all have to surrender our sentience or will to a greater power in order to find our niche. Communities provide individuals with the opportunity to expand upon what we are already comfortable with, and the only way to do that is to not be so concerned about individual benefits as much as we are concerned with individual or group prosperity (be it success or happiness).