The Network Effect / Relational Decay
Last week I was periodically reviewing various aspects of my life and found quite an interesting statistical anomaly. In my mind, the number of people I’d consider friends can be represented by a single digit. According to FaceBook however, that number is closer to 119 and for some reason includes Niles Crane. Something strange is going on here.
The advent of online networking sites has altered the dynamics of human interaction, taken social prostitution to a whole new level, and spawned a generation of MySpace and FaceBook whores. Admittedly, I am a long-time FaceBook user, albeit one who rails against the commoditisation and relational decay that it is contributing to.
What began as a medium to share timely snippets about yourself with friends, social networking has morphed into immense web networks linking millions of people and their profiles. These ‘webs’ can be powerful and useful tools when used correctly and in moderation, but they maintain a characteristic of their namesake. Webs are designed to catch prey; and the bigger the networks get, the more people unwittingly become ensnared.
The Network Effect & Social Trends
As a society, we are very much at the mercy of the so called ‘network effect.’ A network effect is best defined as a self-perpetuating increase in the utility of something as its uptake spreads. The more people use it, the more valuable it becomes to its users. Language is one classic example. English is not unequivocally superior to any other language, but the fact it is the most commonly spoken (on basis of power, not population) means more people seek to learn the tongue; and so the diffusion effect snowballs.
The stellar success and growth of social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook can be attributed solely to this phenomenon. As often alluded to, we are slaves to the trend, and have an imperative to keep step with what everyone else is doing. The stronger a trend gets, the harder it becomes to resist – the proverbial mobile phone typifies this.Once something hits the mainstream, there isn’t really a choice. If you think for a moment that social trends can be resisted or evaded, you are either deluding yourself or are socially suicidal (the author is the latter).
As an Australian male aged early twenties, working in the finance industry, the author makes example of himself:
- Zero interest in AFL, cricket, golfing or any popular sport (unless you count lawn bowls)
- Aversion to ‘going out on the town’ and ‘picking up chicks’
- Unsuppressed right hemisphere
- Attitudes and behaviours inconsistent with being ‘one of the boys’
- Inability to credibly engage in surface ‘chit-chat’
When I contemplate what the above characteristics have cost me in a hedonistically utilitarian sense, it is off the charts. From experience, going against the grain is very costly – but the method to my madness delineates why I willingly bear such costs. Seven years ago, I lost a lot of money in the tech crash. I bought because everyone else was doing it (joining the mainstream); with a view to getting rich riding its coattails. As I learned back then, my way of thinking was fundamentally flawed. The more momentum a wave has, the harder it will crash.
Now I question everything, perhaps excessively so. Popularity, durability and momentum as they exist in anything mainstream are not enough. We must consider long run optimality. It is like standing on a platform looking at a brand new, very fast, safe, and technologically advanced train, with all your friends inside, waving you to come aboard. The central issue is that we are either oblivious to destination or don’t care where the train is going, and further, fail to recognise there’s a chance the tracks may well lead off a cliff.
So, the solution is to make a choice not to pursue something purely because it is the standard, but because we have evaluated it and believe it to be objectively right for us. Ipods objectively don’t have the best sound quality, Christianity might not have it right, more isn’t always better and Kevin Rudd – well, I’m not even going to go there. Why then should we blindly jump on the bandwagon and choose to subscribe to anything based on popularity?
Hidden complex outcomes, the ones that people ignore, are of crucial importance. Generally accepted convention augurs popular people make good friends – why else would they be so popular? We should be asking: how can a person be a decent friend if they’re dividing their energy among the 200 groupies in their ‘entourage?’ The rhetorical answer explains the notable absence of ‘shiny’/popular people among the ranks of those I count as friends.
The same story applies to social networking sites. Yes, whilst I acknowledge FaceBook and MySpace are extremely popular and have their advantages, they do not have the substance to maintain proper interaction between people unless the standard of that interaction is dropped to a point where it becomes almost impersonal. Sadly, this seems to be the trend with generation Y, a generation whose existence is defined by interconnectivity, instant gratification, subservience to trends and the network effect.
I have been around long enough to watch many of these ‘network effects’ evolve – a serial early-adopter. Microsoft Windows for Workgroups since age 5, the internet back in 1996 when it was a business tool and FaceBook over a year ago, before it was ‘pimped-out.’ All follow a common pattern: they start out relatively foreign and unknown, with a small contingent of early adopters. Then, the masses catch on, acceptance skyrockets and the pace of diffusion becomes akin to that of a runaway train.
Interestingly, the network effect is not evolutionary by design and can therefore perpetuate inferiority. The layout of the QWERTY keyboard was intentionally counterintuitive because people were typing too fast (back in the typewriter days), causing mashing of the typebars which resulted in spoilt documents. But, lending to the network effect, the QWERTY keyboard became generally accepted as the de-facto standard, despite being ergonomically inferior.
Relational Decay
Social networking sites present a similar dilemma – they are a suboptimal medium of interaction. Suboptimal in the sense they replace substantive communication and interaction with the superficial and uni-dimensional. Interaction via low-quality methods such as text messaging and social networking sites are fine as a complement to a normal friendship, but where such methods supplant actual conversation and become a substitute, then we have a problem.
Quintessentially, that problem is the inversion of the quality/quantity continuum. For example, FaceBook recently opened the gates to 3rd party software developers, seeing thousands of APIs (effectively entertainment widgets) being offered to users. As a direct consequence, I receive daily emails from FaceBook, informing me that one of my ‘friends’ has:
- Invited me to join the ranks of the Vampires/Werewolves/Pirates/Ninjas/Juvenile Delinquents
- Thrown a sheep at/roundhouse kicked/filed an intellectual property class action against me
- Challenged me to Fight Club/Scrabble
Now, whilst I cannot speak for anyone else, my definition of interaction is a long conversation over coffee on the nuances of life, and does not involve giving people gifts of electronic fish for their digital aquariums. Yet I continue to be bombarded by the abovementioned nonsensical garbage.
On a more personal level, my issues with phenomena like MySpace and FaceBook run deep because I believe they are severely devaluing. For example, the friend count is actually a new social currency. The wealth of thumbnails appearing on one’s profile is now a status symbol, the more ‘friends’ and the more attractive they are, the better. But wait – there’s more. ‘Top friends’ – if personal relationships were not commoditised enough already, you can now even ‘rank’ your friends and have your top two dozen by position displayed for the world to see. I have enough training in psychology to know where I sit on people’s lists without needing to be told. Publicly ranking your friends is as much an insult to your intelligence as that of the people you’re ranking. Am I now supposed to compete to ensure I stay on enough people’s top 10 and not feel like my friendship isn’t good enough?
These devaluing effects perpetuate and compound into a mindset that contends you can text message someone three times a year and still be ‘friends,’ when in actual fact you have been distanced to less than casual acquaintances, no more friendly a customer/barista relationship.
It perpetuates as the indolent, blasé attitude toward interaction held by many members of Generation Y and the casualties commence. Animosity develops because many people treat interactions as scheduled activities and manage them like a portfolio of blocks of time. This is fundamentally wrong. Treat a person like an appointment and they will start to cancel – on you. We live in an era where the attribution of priorities is becoming increasingly twisted and selfishness is endemic.
It is not only the quality of interaction that is suffering. More to the point, we are now beginning to see structural effects. I am sure it is not just me, but it would appear by observation that each successive generation gets progressively dumber. Generation Y, quite possibly because they are spending increasing amounts of time on sites like FaceBook and MySpace, hence detracting from other productive activities and adding zero value in the process.
Unfortunately, unlike evolution via natural selection, where there are fail-safes to prevent the perpetuation of sub-optimality, there is no such self-correcting mechanism inherent in general civilisation to stop this gradual rot which is being accelerated by ‘innovations’ such as social networking sites.
Were nature allowed to take its course, intelligent people would have utilised the Gatling gun for a noble cause and culled idiots by now, and people wouldn’t engage in behaviours that were fundamentally detrimental or adverse to their existence. But this will never be, because the natural order was destroyed when we became aware of our own evolution and started manipulating it.
This is one of the pillars supporting the thesis that this world is going to hell. Perhaps I actually should devote my life to exploiting the opportunity for personal gain. Like Jim Cramer, I’m too old and I really don’t give a damn anymore. If people want to throw sheep at me instead of engage in conversation, all that’s left to do is pity the abject fools.
P. X. Waterstone
A lot of the negative changes in society are attributed to greed and the desire for money. You, working for a big firm and also being a shareholder is perpetuating the problem. Yes, you may not be in the boardroom making the decisions but you are still indirectky contributing to the negative effects of capitalism.
I am keen reader of your blog and I have always wondered if what you write here reflects the way you live your life. Or is simply a channel for all your contradictory thoughts? Because from my experience, its incredibly easy to think one way and act the other.
Please reply. Thanks
This blog, when it isn’t being sardonic and philosophical, reflects my interpretation of the world. I never hold out that it is the correct interpretation and I hold these views because of situations and observations where they have held true. The vast majority of the time, the way I live my life is in step with my views, however for reasons I won’t enumerate, my actions will diverge where necessary to achieve an end. An unfortunate truth is that if any of us lived our lives in utter concordance with how we really felt and acted exactly how we thought, we would live in a dystopia.
For example, you could have written above that I’m a self-obsessed industrialist who is a hypocrite for taking what appears to be the moral high ground when writing, but who seemingly purveys the absolute opposite by working in finance, running a company and seeking to exploit opportunities for profit in the markets, all for the sole purpose of personal gain. Instead, the comment is posed more like an inquisitive challenge designed to evoke a measure of reflection on my part. By phrasing in such a way, there is a greater likelihood I will consider my reply more thoughtfully and avert the urge to ignore it or pen an overtly defensive response.
This censure of thought is important because it facilitates a great deal, and without it, there’s chaos (try telling your girlfriend the truth that the outfit she’s wearing looks despicable and see where that gets you.) Contradiction is part of being human.
As for the issues of capitalism, time and again (especially at university) there is a predilection to taking a very narrow and simplistic view of things. Last year, corporations paid $59.35 billion in tax and royalties to the Federal Government. This is over one quarter of the revenue in the budget. $56.47 billion was spent on health and education. The magnitude of how much they contribute to our society is self-evident.
Large corporations are the backbone of society, they employ millions of people, pay billions in taxation and it is their profit motive that pushes the innovations that improve standards of living. One could argue that they are soulless machines whose only function is to make money, but they’d be omitting the fact that in the process, they put in far more than they take out. Funnily enough, it is actually large corporations that are spearheading a lot of the social and environmental initiatives and policies we’re seeing currently.
How about we tax corporations more because they’re evil? If we put up the rates high enough, maybe it’ll even encourage them to move their reprehensible selves overseas a la News Corporation. Of course, if corporations leave, what happens to the odd $60 billion of Company tax isn’t rocket science.
I make no apology for being an agent for a corporation, nor for being a shareholder. I am contributing to the negative effects of capitalism because I have worked hard to get where I am and strive to beat the system. Notwithstanding, I am paying a marginal tax rate of 41.5% and will pay more tax this year than the average annual earnings of a graduate.
With respect to being a shareholder, it’s hard to see how that has any relevance to any negative impacts on society. The stock market is merely a mechanism that redistributes wealth from unlucky/unintelligent to the lucky/intelligent. I own shares in some 20 companies and see no conflict in terms of morality. Perhaps for exceptions such as armaments manufacturers this would be different, but there is generally no discord.
It is very easy to bash capitalism because of the poster child propaganda of poor oppressed minorities the socialist alliance will feed you, but if you do so you are missing the point. Admittedly, like any system it has its faults. True if capitalism were left to run true Laissez Faire, there would be distribution issues. That is why we have government intervention and a taxation system to redistribute wealth more equitably.
It would be interesting to understand what underpins your dislike of corporations. Is it the people who build them? The fact they are motivated by profit? It seems they are just an easy scapegoat when the real problem is that people themselves are inherently self-serving.
The vast majority of staunch left-wingers at University moderate in the years after they enter the real world. University life is very much a bubble which is shielded from many a harsh reality and is conducive to development of idealist perspective. It is all good and well to commit 20 hours a week to an exciting and intellectually stimulating environment, surrounded by like minded people and having eons of spare time to socialize and generally be carefree.
Once you set foot into the real world, life isn’t so simple. If you want to drift through life, living for the moment, then you get a retail job, go out and socialize every day, come home and microwave a dinner at your share house, and perhaps take an international trip whenever you can scrounge up enough cash to afford it after you’ve paid your share of the bills. For some people, this lifestyle is fine and they wouldn’t have it any other way.
On the other hand, having money facilitates a great deal. Were $10 million to hypothetically land in your lap, then you wouldn’t have to work, could afford to spend all your time doing the things you enjoy, and could accomplish almost any experiential pursuit (traveling, learning, etc).
If I have to devote considerable resources now by working for a corporation and operating in the stock markets, with the end goal that by age 30 I could leave the empire to take care of itself and sit on a park bench all day, the means are necessary and there is no question to it.
What happens is that when you leave university, you are suddenly forced to grow up, and come to the realization that it may take you until you’re 50 to own your own home, (if you end up owning a home) and that it is going to take decades of working to support and raise a family.
I don’t seek to deny that there is a difference in opportunity but it is not a case of the rich elite subjugating a poor citizenry. I could be one of the latter, but the beauty of living in a capitalist society is that I don’t have to sit there helpless and have my life largely controlled by the state. Rather I have the freedom to pursue contentment within the bounds of a fairly moderate rule of law.
Differences of opportunity across the world are rampant and where a system does not exist to provide some base level of welfare and opportunity, then yes, you do get a massive skew in standard of living. But living in a capitalist society that provides as much as ours, there is no excuse to gripe about an oppressive rich elite. The most revolutionaries have been the ones that have come to the conclusion that standing atop a soapbox with a megaphone and pamphlets decrying the atrocities of this cruel capitalist world is utterly futile. If you want to effect change you need money, power or preferably both and so you turn the system against itself.
Accomplishing that without succumbing and forgetting why you’re doing it along the way – that’s the challenge.
I am very grateful for your lengthy and thorough reply. I hope I did not offend you in any manner with my comment, that was not my intention at all.
You are right about me being a university student, but probably not as left wing as you might think.
To be honest, I am lost in this world and I do not know what to do. It seems like everything in this world is contradictory. I have morals and values that I have always followed but it feels like they are eroding, lost to the temptations and distractions that loom before me, therefore making me highly hypocritical. For example, I strongly believe that capitalism has contributed to moral decay, but at the same time, I plan to graduate and work for a major firm for the sake of financial freedom.As you said, contradiction is part of being human, but where is the line drawn? The main intention of my original comment was to see whether your actions (on occasions) contradict your beliefs. Because, as you would be aware, knowing someone else who feels the same way makes one feel so much better.
No offence taken – even personal attack comments don’t bother me, it’s good to stop and question and I always learn things from other people’s perspectives.
I tentatively understand where you’re coming from and you are absolutely right. Everything is contradictory and there is something of an abyss between what we want to do in our lives and the way we are pushed to live them by the world.
You’ll probably find that the way a lot of people deal with this conflict is convince themselves that what they want is to be rich/successful/famous/beautiful/whatever, which replaces the feeling of emptiness and allows one to push those higher ‘values’ or desires into the background and ignore them.
At some point though, it catches up with all of us and we ask ourselves ‘is this the life I really want?’ and I think a lot of the depression we’re seeing these days comes from there being a horrible disconnect between who we are and the character we are forced to play.
I thought long and hard about this a long time ago and realised that indeed, aspects of my life were in massive conflict, but all those aspects reflect a part of who I am. Whilst I don’t quite lead a double life for example, I am different at work than I am outside of work. But, the core values that define me are the same across the board.
Contradiction is normal and one of the pieces of baggage that comes with the human condition. We lie by nature and our actions betray our values. You only need to worry where your ‘moral compass’ wavers to an extent that a third person who has known you for years would look at the action and say “this isn’t you.”
There’s nothing wrong with pursuing financial freedom and maintaining some measure of yearning for social justice – the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Many wealthy people have started up charitable foundations and this is one way the two can work in harmony.
Lastly, I guess where you draw the line is where you feel you’ve betrayed yourself. For example, this is one of the reasons I dropped law – I knew that if my living depended on other people’s real misfortune it would mess with my core values – what I do now depends on other people’s irrationality, and I can live with that.
This query may digress from the point you are trying to make with this entry, but simply out of curiosity:
You menionted Kevin Rudd somewhere up there. I take it that you are a supporter of John Howard and the Liberal Party? Aside from the fact that the party advocates economic rationalism, which I personally have nothing against, what other policies of this disillusioned, bigoted man do you support?
The fact that he welcomes the idea of a “White Australia Policy” and instills anti-terrorism laws that will allow police to be able to pre-emptively detain people for up to 14 days, without charge, makes me regard him as highly discriminatory.
L,
You really do not want to get me started on politics. 21 years living in the country where you’re an elector imbues you with perspective slightly beyond the astute observer.
Besides, I’m voting for Jeb.
I enjoyed your post a great deal.. and suddenly feel incredibly self-conscious of the fact that I apparently “roll” with an entourage of something like 136.