https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=AChan&feedformat=atomP2P Foundation - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T09:17:23ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.40.1https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_P2P_Relationality&diff=7772Introduction to P2P Relationality2006-08-26T21:10:38Z<p>AChan: /* More Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>The P2P approach to relations models itself on a generous reading of cybernetics, a field dedicated to a particular type of machine communications network. But favored for its open-ness, P2P serves as an ideal model for voluntary, democratic, and distributed social networks also. What it lacks, in the relationships that bind cultural traditions, say, or that cement political power, is to its advantage. For P2P permits the selection of relations on a productive and creative basis. For example, in grassroots fundraising and social awareness movements, in collaborative software development, and in online communities. <br />
<br />
Given the remarkable popularity of sites like MySpace.com, it only makes sense that the P2P organization of so many networked phenomena would suggest itself as a means of going one step further: organization of society. To this end there have been a number of attempts made at articulating hive mind behaviors, collective intelligences, distributed and collaborative organizations and social movements. Many of which combine networked communication technologies with like-minded and progressive users—and for impressive results. Bloggers and MySpacers alike are today credited with unseating incumbent politicians in the United States, or with finding and rescuing missing classmates and preventing violence in schools. <br />
<br />
P2P's power here is in communication, the mode of reproduction to which cybernetics owed its initial insights. And because we humans, like our technical systems, communicate, and in communicating, reproduce our relationships, P2P offers a powerful model for organizing relations. The question at hand, then, becomes one of organization. <br />
<br />
As soon as we have take relations for granted, we can move on to matters of how relations are organized, for what purpose and to what end. We can ask who is organized, and on what basis are these relations maintained. We don't have to ask whether relations exist, but ask about their organization instead. <br />
<br />
P2P is a structural model, and as such captures spatial relations well. In fact network relations theory, which is a field close to P2P, often speaks of paths, trails, walks, and other spatial distances and routes across networks and among network nodes. But structuralism (once the preferred approach of many anthropologists and sociologists) has one deep shortcoming: its blind spot for time and history. The spatial bias of structuralism freezes relations in time. Though a structural analysis of a society's relations may be undertaken over time, the model's representation of relations does insufficient service to temporal representation. As a result, structures will appear stable when in fact they are not, or static when in fact they are dynamic and changing. <br />
<br />
As an alternative to structuralism, some have taken up systems theories, and most recently, auto-poetic systems theories. These have the advantage (for social systems) of being process oriented, and of drawing a distinction not between parts and whole but between system and environment. And this trend resonates with the P2P community's emphasis on production, and the organization of relations around productive and collaborative efforts (which are also process intensive). <br />
<br />
Still, there remains an issue of central importance: subjectivity. This was a problem faced by structuralists before us: if a structure is said to exist, how is it that its participants/members reproduce it? Are we, as individuals, aware of these structures and are we conscious participants in maintaining them? If so, would we not have to know these structures through and through? If, on the other hand, they work through us, if they organize our relations without our conscious participation, then how? Some have answered that it's in the normative binding of communication and interaction that we unwittingly commit ourselves to these invisible forces. Language, as a system of normative rules governing appropriate behavior and speech, speaking itself through us. And correspondingly, that our social practices, are as a set of codes, rules of the game, rituals and ceremonies, whose meaning we reproduce even in the simplest of gestures (a handshake or a nod of recognition).<br />
<br />
Much work lies ahead, but it promises to be interesting as well as challenging. We'll use this section to explore ideas related to how P2P can organize social relations of all kinds, and ask, too, how best to think about and conceptualize forceful connections between the organization of individuals and the subjective choices and relationships that make up the human experience. In particular, we'll focus on communication technologies and tools, and on new social arrangements. We'll examine conflict and cooperation, varieties of groups, communities, and publics. We'll ask about the organization of normative institutions and also practices that survive outside or in spite of established norms. P2P, given its support for a free, enjoyable, and just organization of life, has shown that social relations can just as well transform as preserve themselves. We do not yet know what life can do, but we our eyes are open.<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
Gravity7 maintains a blog on social software and social interaction design at http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_P2P_Relationality&diff=7771Introduction to P2P Relationality2006-08-26T21:10:06Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The P2P approach to relations models itself on a generous reading of cybernetics, a field dedicated to a particular type of machine communications network. But favored for its open-ness, P2P serves as an ideal model for voluntary, democratic, and distributed social networks also. What it lacks, in the relationships that bind cultural traditions, say, or that cement political power, is to its advantage. For P2P permits the selection of relations on a productive and creative basis. For example, in grassroots fundraising and social awareness movements, in collaborative software development, and in online communities. <br />
<br />
Given the remarkable popularity of sites like MySpace.com, it only makes sense that the P2P organization of so many networked phenomena would suggest itself as a means of going one step further: organization of society. To this end there have been a number of attempts made at articulating hive mind behaviors, collective intelligences, distributed and collaborative organizations and social movements. Many of which combine networked communication technologies with like-minded and progressive users—and for impressive results. Bloggers and MySpacers alike are today credited with unseating incumbent politicians in the United States, or with finding and rescuing missing classmates and preventing violence in schools. <br />
<br />
P2P's power here is in communication, the mode of reproduction to which cybernetics owed its initial insights. And because we humans, like our technical systems, communicate, and in communicating, reproduce our relationships, P2P offers a powerful model for organizing relations. The question at hand, then, becomes one of organization. <br />
<br />
As soon as we have take relations for granted, we can move on to matters of how relations are organized, for what purpose and to what end. We can ask who is organized, and on what basis are these relations maintained. We don't have to ask whether relations exist, but ask about their organization instead. <br />
<br />
P2P is a structural model, and as such captures spatial relations well. In fact network relations theory, which is a field close to P2P, often speaks of paths, trails, walks, and other spatial distances and routes across networks and among network nodes. But structuralism (once the preferred approach of many anthropologists and sociologists) has one deep shortcoming: its blind spot for time and history. The spatial bias of structuralism freezes relations in time. Though a structural analysis of a society's relations may be undertaken over time, the model's representation of relations does insufficient service to temporal representation. As a result, structures will appear stable when in fact they are not, or static when in fact they are dynamic and changing. <br />
<br />
As an alternative to structuralism, some have taken up systems theories, and most recently, auto-poetic systems theories. These have the advantage (for social systems) of being process oriented, and of drawing a distinction not between parts and whole but between system and environment. And this trend resonates with the P2P community's emphasis on production, and the organization of relations around productive and collaborative efforts (which are also process intensive). <br />
<br />
Still, there remains an issue of central importance: subjectivity. This was a problem faced by structuralists before us: if a structure is said to exist, how is it that its participants/members reproduce it? Are we, as individuals, aware of these structures and are we conscious participants in maintaining them? If so, would we not have to know these structures through and through? If, on the other hand, they work through us, if they organize our relations without our conscious participation, then how? Some have answered that it's in the normative binding of communication and interaction that we unwittingly commit ourselves to these invisible forces. Language, as a system of normative rules governing appropriate behavior and speech, speaking itself through us. And correspondingly, that our social practices, are as a set of codes, rules of the game, rituals and ceremonies, whose meaning we reproduce even in the simplest of gestures (a handshake or a nod of recognition).<br />
<br />
Much work lies ahead, but it promises to be interesting as well as challenging. We'll use this section to explore ideas related to how P2P can organize social relations of all kinds, and ask, too, how best to think about and conceptualize forceful connections between the organization of individuals and the subjective choices and relationships that make up the human experience. In particular, we'll focus on communication technologies and tools, and on new social arrangements. We'll examine conflict and cooperation, varieties of groups, communities, and publics. We'll ask about the organization of normative institutions and also practices that survive outside or in spite of established norms. P2P, given its support for a free, enjoyable, and just organization of life, has shown that social relations can just as well transform as preserve themselves. We do not yet know what life can do, but we our eyes are open.<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
George Siemens maintains a blog at http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_the_P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Material_about_Relational_Topics&diff=7770Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about Relational Topics2006-08-26T21:08:27Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''What kind of human relationships arise in a peer to peer context? What are their dynamics?''' <br />
<br />
This section examines topics related to p2p-oriented views of relations, which are, and true to the p2p tradition, inventive and exploratory. A great deal of interest is focused on markets, social relations, and production efforts (knowledge, research, products, even politics). --Adrian Chan<br />
This page and on-going investigation is maintained by Adrian Chan and Remi Sussan.<br />
<br />
Here's already an [[Introduction on Individuality, Relationality, and Collectivity]], by Michel Bauwens. And one from Adrian Chan: [[Introduction on P2P Relationality::Production, Socialilty, Relations, Subjects]].<br />
<br />
Only the P2P Encyclopedia concepts from A to D have been ported at this stage.</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_P2P_Relationality&diff=7769Introduction to P2P Relationality2006-08-26T21:07:24Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The P2P approach to relations models itself on a generous reading of cybernetics, a field dedicated to a particular type of machine communications network. But favored for its open-ness, P2P serves as an ideal model for voluntary, democratic, and distributed social networks also. What it lacks, in the relationships that bind cultural traditions, say, or that cement political power, is to its advantage. For P2P permits the selection of relations on a productive and creative basis. For example, in grassroots fundraising and social awareness movements, in collaborative software development, and in online communities. <br />
<br />
Given the remarkable popularity of sites like MySpace.com, it only makes sense that the P2P organization of so many networked phenomena would suggest itself as a means of going one step further: organization of society. To this end there have been a number of attempts made at articulating hive mind behaviors, collective intelligences, distributed and collaborative organizations and social movements. Many of which combine networked communication technologies with like-minded and progressive users—and for impressive results. Bloggers and MySpacers alike are today credited with unseating incumbent politicians in the United States, or with finding and rescuing missing classmates and preventing violence in schools. <br />
<br />
P2P's power here is in communication, the mode of reproduction to which cybernetics owed its initial insights. And because we humans, like our technical systems, communicate, and in communicating, reproduce our relationships, P2P offers a powerful model for organizing relations. The question at hand, then, becomes one of organization. <br />
<br />
As soon as we have take relations for granted, we can move on to matters of how relations are organized, for what purpose and to what end. We can ask who is organized, and on what basis are these relations maintained. We don't have to ask whether relations exist, but ask about their organization instead. <br />
<br />
P2P is a structural model, and as such captures spatial relations well. In fact network relations theory, which is a field close to P2P, often speaks of paths, trails, walks, and other spatial distances and routes across networks and among network nodes. But structuralism (once the preferred approach of many anthropologists and sociologists) has one deep shortcoming: its blind spot for time and history. The spatial bias of structuralism freezes relations in time. Though a structural analysis of a society's relations may be undertaken over time, the model's representation of relations does insufficient service to temporal representation. As a result, structures will appear stable when in fact they are not, or static when in fact they are dynamic and changing. <br />
<br />
As an alternative to structuralism, some have taken up systems theories, and most recently, auto-poetic systems theories. These have the advantage (for social systems) of being process oriented, and of drawing a distinction not between parts and whole but between system and environment. And this trend resonates with the P2P community's emphasis on production, and the organization of relations around productive and collaborative efforts (which are also process intensive). <br />
<br />
Still, there remains an issue of central importance: subjectivity. This was a problem faced by structuralists before us: if a structure is said to exist, how is it that its participants/members reproduce it? Are we, as individuals, aware of these structures and are we conscious participants in maintaining them? If so, would we not have to know these structures through and through? If, on the other hand, they work through us, if they organize our relations without our conscious participation, then how? Some have answered that it's in the normative binding of communication and interaction that we unwittingly commit ourselves to these invisible forces. Language, as a system of normative rules governing appropriate behavior and speech, speaking itself through us. And correspondingly, that our social practices, are as a set of codes, rules of the game, rituals and ceremonies, whose meaning we reproduce even in the simplest of gestures (a handshake or a nod of recognition).<br />
<br />
Much work lies ahead, but it promises to be interesting as well as challenging. We'll use this section to explore ideas related to how P2P can organize social relations of all kinds, and ask, too, how best to think about and conceptualize forceful connections between the organization of individuals and the subjective choices and relationships that make up the human experience. In particular, we'll focus on communication technologies and tools, and on new social arrangements. We'll examine conflict and cooperation, varieties of groups, communities, and publics. We'll ask about the organization of normative institutions and also practices that survive outside or in spite of established norms. P2P, given its support for a free, enjoyable, and just organization of life, has shown that social relations can just as well transform as preserve themselves. We do not yet know what life can do, but we our eyes are open.</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_the_P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Material_about_Relational_Topics&diff=7768Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about Relational Topics2006-08-26T21:00:25Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''What kind of human relationships arise in a peer to peer context? What are their dynamics?''' <br />
<br />
This section examines topics related to p2p-oriented views of relations, which are, and true to the p2p tradition, inventive and exploratory. A great deal of interest is focused on markets, social relations, and production efforts (knowledge, research, products, even politics). --Adrian Chan<br />
This page and on-going investigation is maintained by Adrian Chan and Remi Sussan.<br />
<br />
Here's already an [[Introduction on Individuality, Relationality, and Collectivity]], by Michel Bauwens. And one [[Introduction on P2P Relationality::Production, Socialilty, Relations, Subjects]] from Adrian Chan.<br />
<br />
Only the P2P Encyclopedia concepts from A to D have been ported at this stage.</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Dialectic&diff=7755Dialectic2006-08-24T20:34:25Z<p>AChan: /* Description */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dialectic''' is a manner and form of rational communication between two or more points of view inside of a discussion. It is contrasted against grammar and rhetoric, one of the three liberal arts or trivium in Western Culture. <br />
<br />
See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic wikipedia entry on dialectic]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
Dialectic originates back to ancient Greece, most notably the Socratic Method, which is still used in legal debate to this very day. Hegel updated the understanding of dialectic and spoke of what he called 'The Historical Dialectic", or the exchange of thesis, anti-thesis resolving into synthesis that shapes historical movements. Hegel believed that the historical dialectic would eventually lead humanity to a place of ultimate liberation.<br />
<br />
"Dialectical reason," and the "dialectical movement" of thought and ideas flourished during the 20th century, as many European philosophers took up Hegel's accomplishments. The concept found its way into a great number of disciplines, and played a prominent role in Marxism, Socialism, Critical Theory, and many ideas of the Left. Dialectical thinking justified critique and opposition in thought, resistance and challenge in politics. <br />
<br />
Postmodern thinkers later abandoned the concept by and large, and the idea of a "meta-narrative" along with it. After the social movements of the late 60's, concepts of society, politics, literature, and art took a "linguistic turn," veering away from an over arching theme and globalizing vision to a more fragmented and fractured one instead. Society was now seen as messy, complex, and interconnected, but not towards a unified goal and purpose. Thinkers attended more to processes of society, leaving the grand philosophical themes behind to focus on daily, and local practices.<br />
<br />
FishBubble: ''"In relationship to P2P, dialectic can be appreciated in it's exalted form through online written discussion, allowing large groups to form synthesis and may stimulate [[Co-intelligence]]. Internet discussion allows the natural [[Tit for Tat]] strategy of dialogue to exalt into a win win in the conflict of ideas, allowing many global points of view to transform and align in profound ways. Indeed, the impact of direct peer to peer communications on the historical dialectic may be too overwhelming to currently model, as internet communication has increased this process exponentially in ways that were unfathomable in Hegel's day."''<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
[[OS 0 1 2]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Tit_for_tat&diff=7754Tit for tat2006-08-24T20:21:59Z<p>AChan: /* Description */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tit for tat''' is a highly effective strategy in game theory. <br />
<br />
See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat Wikipedia Entry on Tit for Tat]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation" ("tit for tat"), an 'agent' using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond in kind to a previous opponent's action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is equivalent to the concept of reciprocal altruism in the context of biology, hence the term 'evolutionary' theory. It leads to a non zero sum or win win strategy. Both biologist Richard Dawkins and Princeton Scholar Robert Wright note that in both animal and human behavior, this simple strategy led to cooperation amongst tribes or collectives.<br />
<br />
Tit for tat might also describe less sanguine strategies, such as that of "an eye for an eye." Because tit for tat rests on reciprocity, the tone of any response will echo the opening move. In contrast to a dialectical, or contradictory, progression, tit for tat involves a series of like-minded moves. Phenomena as different as an arms race and a negotiation for peace can each illustrate the reciprocal language of tit for tat game structure. Hence the tendency of an arms race to devolve into a "spiral." <br />
<br />
Tit for tat is a self-affirming communication system, and whether it functions as a trap or as progress depends on whether participants are in conflict or cooperation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Comment from editor BubbleFish:<br />
<br />
''"In relationship to P2P culture, this strategy can be found in written online dialogue or [[Dialectic]], leading users to co-intelligence or synthesis of idea."''<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[[OS 0 1 2]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Tit_for_tat&diff=7753Tit for tat2006-08-24T20:21:36Z<p>AChan: /* Description */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tit for tat''' is a highly effective strategy in game theory. <br />
<br />
See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat Wikipedia Entry on Tit for Tat]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation" ("tit for tat"), an 'agent' using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond in kind to a previous opponent's action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is equivalent to the concept of reciprocal altruism in the context of biology, hence the term 'evolutionary' theory. It leads to a non zero sum or win win strategy. Both biologist Richard Dawkins and Princeton Scholar Robert Wright note that in both animal and human behavior, this simple strategy led to cooperation amongst tribes or collectives.<br />
Tit for tat might also describe less sanguine strategies, such as that of "an eye for an eye." Because tit for tat rests on reciprocity, the tone of any response will echo the opening move. In contrast to a dialectical, or contradictory, progression, tit for tat involves a series of like-minded moves. Phenomena as different as an arms race and a negotiation for peace can each illustrate the reciprocal language of tit for tat game structure. Hence the tendency of an arms race to devolve into a "spiral." <br />
Tit for tat is a self-affirming communication system, and whether it functions as a trap or as progress depends on whether participants are in conflict or cooperation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Comment from editor BubbleFish:<br />
<br />
''"In relationship to P2P culture, this strategy can be found in written online dialogue or [[Dialectic]], leading users to co-intelligence or synthesis of idea."''<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[[OS 0 1 2]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Talk:Introduction_to_the_P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Material_about_Relational_Topics&diff=7559Talk:Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about Relational Topics2006-08-19T19:40:09Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi Adrian,<br />
<br />
I'd like to discus some points in your intro. My comments start with <<<br />
<br />
Michel, my comments start with ;-)<br />
<br />
AC: What kind of human relationships arise in a peer to peer context? What are their dynamics? When we say that P2P takes a relational approach to the world, what do we mean? We mean that relations are paramount. In contrast to individuals or entities, for example. Relations among terms are given privilege over the terms themselves. Now this doesn't of course mean that the terms have no value for us. It means that we believe the terms will be given their value through the relations they take up. <br />
<br />
<<''I agree, but would put it that relations are what enrich and constitute individuals, so that in no way is peer to peer an obstacle to individualism''<br />
<br />
;-) "Of course. I'll reword it: I meant to convey that relational approaches treat nodes/terms as black boxes, and view relations as having organizing force."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The relational view, while dating far back in western thinking to debates on causality, identity, truth, predication, and so on, gripped philosophical traditions mid 20th century with what's known as the "linguistic turn." A product of European semiotics and structuralism, philosophies took up the pursuit of truth and value in the organization of relations rather than in terms themelves. Context of meaning took precedence. This view drew from linguistics, which ascribes meaning not to a single word but to its use.<br />
<br />
<<''I think that peer to peer and relationality should be seen as resulting from multiple traditions, including many pre-linguistic turn strands such as the cosmobiological tradition of the renaissance, the tradition of socialist individualism, etc.., including premodern and non-western traditions. I agree with you that the linguistic turn is important, but not exclusive.''<br />
<br />
;-) "Feel free to add; I'm not as versed in those."<br />
<br />
There are many ways of organizing relations. P2P has its roots in cybernetics and network relation theory, both of which have been used to model communication and production. Networks comprise of nodes (people, organizations, etc) and relations between them. They are visualized as dots connected by lines, and nothing more. For this and other reasons, p2p stands apart from social theories that examine the historical and traditional hierarchies and power relations that structure and organize society.<br />
<br />
<br />
<<''Does P2P really derive from cybernetics? Perhaps the part that inspired the internet engineers, but all of them? Networks relations theory, is a form of subtle reductionism (to use Wilber) or interactionism (to use Bhaskar), as you indicate. But peer to peer as I understand it, is not dots connecting, but subjects connecting, and peer to peer implies that we all treat each other as subjects, not objects. Thus it does not stands apart from theories of power and society, which study alienation and emancipation from it.''<br />
<br />
;-) "This is really interesting. My sense of P2P may be off. I've not understood it to take an intersubjective approach, say along the lines of hermeneuics and much of the philosophical traditions borne out of that. That was the gist of end of my editorial: that an intersubjective reading of how the dots connect could complement P2P. Addition of a communication theory that place emphasis on modes of connection, esp mediated modes (P2P technologies). I should reword the last sentence."<br />
<br />
It stands apart also from theories oriented to exchanges of meaning, interpersonal dynamics and communication, psychologically-oriented theories that take an interest in the individual. But p2p does have a view of the actor, and it is sensitive to the actor's position in a network of relations.<br />
<br />
Where p2p has compelled thinkers to consider its application to fields beyond cybernetics is in its flatness and equality as a form of organization. P2P is used, for example, as a model for new kinds of production. Or for the organization of grassroots movements. In many of these, p2p, or peer production, creates the communication that sustains the organization. Messages, not power, organize relations. We can see then how networking technologies make an easy fit, to wit, democratizing social arrangements, flattening or challenging traditional power, and embedding authority within communication rather than inherited social arrangements.<br />
<br />
<<''From the above comment, it results that I do not agree with a restrictive interpretation of p2p in those terms.'' <br />
<br />
;-) "I'm into expanding the view: could you suggest a rephrasing?"<br />
<br />
This section examines topics related to p2p-oriented views of relations, which are, and true to the p2p tradition, inventive and exploratory. A great deal of interest is focused on markets, social relations, and production efforts (knowledge, research, products, even politics). --Adrian Chan This page and on-going investigation is maintained by Adrian Chan and Remi Sussan. <br />
<br />
<<''I agree with the conclusion <g>. Mine is, after citing my questions and differences, that your approach is appropriate but partial, and should not exclude those that you say a p2p approach stand apart from.''<br />
<br />
;-) "No problem -- I don't need to constrain the definition. I'll rephrase and email you first."<br />
<br />
Michel</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_the_P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Material_about_Relational_Topics&diff=7313Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about Relational Topics2006-07-30T21:23:32Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''What kind of human relationships arise in a peer to peer context? What are their dynamics?''' <br />
When we say that P2P takes a relational approach to the world, what do we mean? We mean that relations are paramount. In contrast to individuals or entities, for example. Relations among terms are given privilege over the terms themselves. Now this doesn't of course mean that the terms have no value for us. It means that we believe the terms will be given their value through the relations they take up. The relational view, while dating far back in western thinking to debates on causality, identity, truth, predication, and so on, gripped philosophical traditions mid 20th century with what's known as the "linguistic turn." A product of European semiotics and structuralism, philosophies took up the pursuit of truth and value in the organization of relations rather than in terms themelves. Context of meaning took precedence. This view drew from linguistics, which ascribes meaning not to a single word but to its use. <br />
<br />
There are many ways of organizing relations. P2P has its roots in cybernetics and network relation theory, both of which have been used to model communication and production. Networks comprise of nodes (people, organizations, etc) and relations between them. They are visualized as dots connected by lines, and nothing more. For this and other reasons, p2p stands apart from social theories that examine the historical and traditional hierarchies and power relations that structure and organize society. It stands apart also from theories oriented to exchanges of meaning, interpersonal dynamics and communication, psychologically-oriented theories that take an interest in the individual. But p2p does have a view of the actor, and it is sensitive to the actor's position in a network of relations. <br />
<br />
Where p2p has compelled thinkers to consider its application to fields beyond cybernetics is in its flatness and equality as a form of organization. P2P is used, for example, as a model for new kinds of production. Or for the organization of grassroots movements. In many of these, p2p, or peer production, creates the communication that sustains the organization. Messages, not power, organize relations. We can see then how networking technologies make an easy fit, to wit, democratizing social arrangements, flattening or challenging traditional power, and embedding authority within communication rather than inherited social arrangements.<br />
<br />
This section examines topics related to p2p-oriented views of relations, which are, and true to the p2p tradition, inventive and exploratory. A great deal of interest is focused on markets, social relations, and production efforts (knowledge, research, products, even politics). --Adrian Chan<br />
This page and on-going investigation is maintained by Adrian Chan and Remi Sussan.<br />
<br />
Here's already an [[Introduction on Individuality, Relationality, and Collectivity]], by Michel Bauwens.<br />
<br />
Only the P2P Encyclopedia concepts from A to D have been ported at this stage.</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Introduction_to_the_P2P_Foundation_Wiki_Material_about_Relational_Topics&diff=7312Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about Relational Topics2006-07-30T21:13:21Z<p>AChan: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''What kind of human relationships arise in a peer to peer context? What are their dynamics?''' <br />
When we say that P2P takes a relational approach to the world, what do we mean? We mean that relations are paramount. In contrast to individuals or entities, for example. Relations among terms are given privilege over the terms themselves. Now this doesn't of course mean that the terms have no value for us. It means that we believe the terms will be given their value through the relations they take up. The relational view, while dating far back in western thinking to debates on causality, identity, truth, predication, and so on, gripped philosophical traditions mid 20th century with what's known as the "linguistic turn." A product of European semiotics and structuralism, philosophies took up the pursuit of truth and value in the organization of relations rather than in terms themelves. Context of meaning took precedence. This view drew from linguistics, which ascribes meaning not to a single word but to its use. <br />
There are many ways of organizing relations. P2P has its roots in cybernetics and network relation theory, both of which have been used to model communication and production. Networks comprise of nodes (people, organizations, etc) and relations between them. They are visualized as dots connected by lines, and nothing more. For this and other reasons, p2p stands apart from social theories that examine the historical and traditional hierarchies and power relations that structure and organize society. It stands apart also from theories oriented to exchanges of meaning, interpersonal dynamics and communication, psychologically-oriented theories that take an interest in the individual. But p2p does have a view of the actor, and it is sensitive to the actor's position in a network of relations. <br />
Where p2p has compelled thinkers to consider its application to fields beyond cybernetics is in its flatness and equality as a form of organization. P2P is used, for example, as a model for new kinds of production. Or for the organization of grassroots movements. In many of these, p2p, or peer production, creates the communication that sustains the organization. Messages, not power, organize relations. We can see then how networking technologies make an easy fit, to wit, democratizing social arrangements, flattening or challenging traditional power, and embedding authority within communication rather than inherited social arrangements.<br />
This section examines topics related to p2p-oriented views of relations, which are, and true to the p2p tradition, inventive and exploratory. A great deal of interest is focused on markets, social relations, and production efforts (knowledge, research, products, even politics). --Adrian Chan<br />
This page and on-going investigation is maintained by Adrian Chan and Remi Sussan.<br />
<br />
Here's already an [[Introduction on Individuality, Relationality, and Collectivity]], by Michel Bauwens.<br />
<br />
Only the P2P Encyclopedia concepts from A to D have been ported at this stage.</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Agonistic_Giving&diff=7121Agonistic Giving2006-07-10T21:00:45Z<p>AChan: /* Context */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
Agonistic Giving = "I give therefore I'm great." (Benkler)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Context=<br />
The agonistic view of society emphasizes competition, performance, and difference over consensus and understanding, if an abridged definition can suffice here. Agonistic giving, a term used by Yochai Benkler, describes the kind of giving that increases the giver's power and status. Giving accrues stature to the giver by elevating him or her above others through generosity. <br />
Any theory of the gift, of course, assumes a recipient. For a gift to be given, it has to be accepted. Here then is where social relations come into play. Viewed only in terms of the giver's indvidual performance, agonistic giving would be an act by which the giver can increase his or her stature just by giving. Have Bill Gates and Warren Buffet done just that? Or is that how our media report their act, and present it to us? <br />
In fact, the gift, to be a gift, must be accepted. The recipient must accept and acknowledge the giver's performance. Viewed from a social perspective, the giver is not simply free to create power by simply giving; recognition, visibility, and some measure of symbolic or meaningful (if not real) power and status must attach to the act. The performance would then mean nothing out of context, namely social context. A rose, given is just a flower handed by one person to another. But as a symbolic gesture, the rose is an expression of one's love, affection, perhaps even commitment. <br />
The recipient must accept the gift if it is to have the power invested in it. This binds the giver to the recipient. And to some social theorists and anthropologists, gift giving always involves the creation of a debt, a relation of obligation, an economy of reciprocity and circulation of debt. Debt being the future repayment and return of an obligation. In other words, debt being in fact not the object, nor its "objective" value, but the relationship it binds. One can go as far as to argue that debt is the preservation of tradition and the anchoring of social relations in time, for debt as an unresolved and "hanging" obligation projects social relations into the future.<br />
Whether agonistic giving is something we do to get power, respect, and status depends on whether we're talking about the giver's intent or the social and cultural context in which the performance takes place. One could say the same for pure giving.<br />
<br />
Cited by Trebor Scholtz at http://collectivate.net/journalisms/2006/6/17/collective-action.html<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Relational]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Chan,_Adrian&diff=4517Chan, Adrian2006-04-12T22:42:22Z<p>AChan: /* Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Adrian Chan is a researcher specializing in social software and 'relations'.'''<br />
<br />
Information provided by the author.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Resources=<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Social software blog''' at<br />
http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/ <br />
<br />
'''Index to writings''' in pdf format, at http://www.gravity7.com/articles_investigations.html<br />
<br />
'''Index to social software postings''', at http://www.gravity7.com/articles_observations.html <br />
<br />
<br />
=Projects=<br />
<br />
<br />
Adrian Chan, a Web 2.0 consultant and user experience expert, is currently engaged in an effort to define and advance "social interaction design"--a mashup of UI, user experience, and interaction design with social interaction and communication theories. The field merges his expertise as a web developer for ten years with his ongoing passion for theoretical approaches to social interaction, media, language, psychology and anthropology. <br />
<br />
The web and its connected technologies and devices has become embedded in our daily routines. It is an integral part of corporate practices and organization. It is no longer just a means of searching for and obtaining information, but is a medium in which we contribute our own content, establish an online presence, and connect to others. Social interaction design provides the conceptual framework by which the builders of Web 2.0 can move from a focus on users to a focus on social practices. <br />
<br />
The coming Web 2.0, the "live web," as it is often called, will offer continuity where there was discontinuity, durability in place of disruption, persistence in place of closure, iteration in place of interruption. It will also offer social networks of varying depth and intensity, from thin networks of convenience to rich family and friendship circles.<br />
<br />
The driving assumption so far has been to cultivate these relations and connections around similarity. We create "trust circles" out of friends networks. We list our favorite movies, music, books and web sites, and are recommended others that are similar. We use online profiles to present a biographical summary of ourselves, and set our preferences for intearction and contact with others. <br />
<br />
All of these practices are fundamentally social in nature, not just individual (the user-centric approach must go!). To grasp the coming Web we need to think dynamics not static interests, relations not object and entities, conversation and talk in place of posts and messages, and ambiguity and meaning not information. When a mass communication and interaction medium like the internet is taken up by a society, it ceases to exist as a stand-alone technology or tool: it has become a practice, a production, and a means. Practices are fundamentally social, and as such accommodate the unique and secondary effects of individual and cultural behaviors, of paired and social exchanges, of what is said and what is accomplished or coordinated in the saying of it. <br />
<br />
Adrian's current projects include consulting to social software companies and Web 2.0 companies, blogging, theorizing, and UI design. <br />
<br />
Adrian has been a web developer since 1995. Prior to that he was a content producer for CDRom projects that included game and educational titles. He has written a number of curriculum units for use in social studies classrooms, and was the content designer for the laser disc teacher's edition of Ken Burns' Civil War. Adrian is a regular participant in the Philosophical Reading Group at Stanford (hosted by Sepp Gumbrecht and Robert Harrison). He lives in San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
Social Interaction Design and the Social Web:<br />
<br />
--'''Communication Technology and Web 2.0.''' Technologies of communication are, for me, the most interesting frontier of technical progress. Communication is the most profoundly human distinction. It is the glue that binds society, and at once the source of conflict and a means for its resolution. Communication, as well as the human relationships that are spun out of it, is fragile and worth our care, concern, and protection. And yet we know so little of how communication technologies might transform human relationships, social relations, and cultural practices. Surely all is not the same in the non face-to-face world? Surely the reproduction of ethical values, or social mores, of cultural perceptions, facts, and fictions is affected by their technical production, just as an image is magnified by a lens, a voice by the phone, a face by its absence from the IM window... There is a noble purpose to social interaction design: putting the human face on technology.<br />
<br />
--'''Proximities.''' If you want to know what a communication technology does for your life, turn it off. It's not the technical that's interesting; its the individual and social practices into which the technical becomes embedded. Communication technologies can only be understood in terms of these practices: messaging, talking, trading, dating, buying, selling, and so on all correspond to how we presence ourselves in the "virtual world." <br />
<br />
I believe technologies of communication fundamentally change our proximity to one another. We need a sociology of proximity based not on spatial co-presence but tuned instead to the frequencies of virtual presencing. Presence negotiation (access to people, obtaining their attention, whether a person is there, and there for us) instead of physical presence. Temporal continuity through discontinuous participation. Being with others who aren't there, projections of self and the other, ambiguities of intent, of timing, and of fact..<br />
<br />
Mediated proximity, proximity that is co-produced by these technologies of presence, produces a continuity in spite of our physical separation from on another. This continuity is a temporality. Proximity in the age of its technical production is not spatial, but temporal. Communication technologies connect us, spanning time and weaving a social fabric whose consistency obtains from us a "being there" for each other in time, but not space. <br />
<br />
The organization of lived time is well known to sociologists as routines, "open states of talk", and durations (the persistence of relations, norms, events, and communication over time).<br />
<br />
As individuals, we maintain our presence and proximity when we are not in the same place through communication. Not through images, or appearance, but by maintaining communication. TIME is the least understood dimension of any connective technology.<br />
<br />
What does all this mean? What can we know and understand? Are there implications for society? Do our relationships change? Are we losing trust? The questions driving an examination of communication technologies are serious. But it is not our purpose to answer them here. Rather, we want to find out what happens when we use these technologies. When we turn to our phones, when we log on, text and email. We can identify some principal themes:<br />
<br />
<br />
--'''Interaction dynamics.''' What happens when 2 or more people use a technology together? We get more than user-computer interaction; we get user-computer-user interaction.<br />
<br />
Issues of communication (information capture, archiving, access, search, persistence, privacy, public/private).<br />
<br />
Issues of interaction (gestural and paralinguistic handling, ambiguity, intimacies, timing, and of course self-presentation.<br />
<br />
<br />
--'''Social systems.''' Social software sites, and now Web 2.0, can be categorized loosely as social systems. Culture, online community, groups, social networks, P2P phenomena--these and more are attributes of social systems. To understand them we have to think beyond the individual user experience and along lines of social practices instead. All of these involve: action coordination; in/formal communication; transactions; trust; boundaries; rhythms; speech as text. For this I use anthropology and sociology, mostly French, German, and British. Some ethno-methodology (as made famous by Xerox PARC). I'm big on applying Niklas Luhmann's systems theory here. Also Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, and Jurgen Habermas. A bit of Foucault and Bourdieu. Local thinkers like Kevin Kelly and Nicholas Negroponte. Some SNA (social network analysis) of course, though I find that its topological orientation describes portrays traces of relations, not their nature, and certainly not the experience of those having them.<br />
<br />
<br />
--'''Talk systems.''' I profoundly believe that much of mediated communication and interaction must be understood as "talk." It's linguistically-mediated exchange. As such, I believe it is useful to consider Habermas' three truth claims: facticity, sincerity, and normative rightfulness. How are each of these tested when face to face interaction is displaced by a technical medium? We need to understand the stretch of talk, span of activity, and sequencing and seriality of activity in a mediated talk. Here I separate communication tools and interaction tools, the former being about capturing/archiving/searching/presenting contributions; the latter being about handling meanings, implications, emotional expression, timing, context, theme, and interaction dynamics of interactions. Communication tool is a tribe discussion. Private message is an interaction tool. <br />
<br />
--'''Socially structured content.''' This is a new project, inspired by Marc Canter's structured blogging structured data formats. If Web 2.0 is going to be useful in the social sense, we need a framework of content types, their presentation modules, their sort by, filter by, link to organization. What happens when a site displays "Who's online now?" In contrast with other people content, such as "featured members," "most connected members" "friends of friends," and so on. It's important to distinguish contributors and contributions. Some Web 2.0 developments provide access to and flesh out the contributor, or person. Others, their contributions. We take an interest in people as well as in information, and each can provide a gateway to the tother. So if Web 2.0 is going to be more social, how can it best engage users in people and what they say. Designers should anticipate the phenomena they help to build. Architects understand light, space, mass, and volume. We need to do the same. All of this is based on idea that the designer can only influence participation, using first order design to steer second order effects. But any information onscreen informs what happens as populations grow, over time. In a word, we all know what would happen if LinkedIn were to allow member pictures.<br />
<br />
--'''Psychology of Mediated Interactions.''' We use our communication technologies alone. Our experience surfing the web is still an immediate experience of a device. It only makes sense, then, that we project the "other" (person) into this "world." So I have started a project that I would like to be an A-Z of psychological experiences and transformations. Using the DSM (psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual) and my own take on psychology, which is biased towards the British School of Object Relations, Transactional Analysis, and group dynamics, I'm interested in how SSNs, IM, chat, video chat, discussions, blogs, email, because they are asynchronous or near-synchronous, screen back our identities, defer confirmations and acknowledgments, permit the presence of "unratified participants" (e.g. lurkers), disrupt episodic talk, disturb turn-taking rules of conversation, undermine or inflate authority and position, etc. Do narcissists love SSN's for a reason?"<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Individuals]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Research]]</div>AChanhttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Chan,_Adrian&diff=4516Chan, Adrian2006-04-12T22:41:44Z<p>AChan: /* Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Adrian Chan is a researcher specializing in social software and 'relations'.'''<br />
<br />
Information provided by the author.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Resources=<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Social software blog''' at<br />
http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/ <br />
<br />
'''Index to writings''' in pdf format, at http://www.gravity7.com/articles_investigations.html<br />
<br />
'''Index to social software postings''', at http://www.gravity7.com/articles_observations.html <br />
<br />
<br />
=Projects=<br />
<br />
<br />
Adrian Chan, a Web 2.0 consultant and user experience expert, is currently engaged in an effort to define and advance "social interaction design"&emdash;a mashup of UI, user experience, and interaction design with social interaction and communication theories. The field merges his expertise as a web developer for ten years with his ongoing passion for theoretical approaches to social interaction, media, language, psychology and anthropology. <br />
<br />
The web and its connected technologies and devices has become embedded in our daily routines. It is an integral part of corporate practices and organization. It is no longer just a means of searching for and obtaining information, but is a medium in which we contribute our own content, establish an online presence, and connect to others. Social interaction design provides the conceptual framework by which the builders of Web 2.0 can move from a focus on users to a focus on social practices. <br />
<br />
The coming Web 2.0, the "live web," as it is often called, will offer continuity where there was discontinuity, durability in place of disruption, persistence in place of closure, iteration in place of interruption. It will also offer social networks of varying depth and intensity, from thin networks of convenience to rich family and friendship circles.<br />
<br />
The driving assumption so far has been to cultivate these relations and connections around similarity. We create "trust circles" out of friends networks. We list our favorite movies, music, books and web sites, and are recommended others that are similar. We use online profiles to present a biographical summary of ourselves, and set our preferences for intearction and contact with others. <br />
<br />
All of these practices are fundamentally social in nature, not just individual (the user-centric approach must go!). To grasp the coming Web we need to think dynamics not static interests, relations not object and entities, conversation and talk in place of posts and messages, and ambiguity and meaning not information. When a mass communication and interaction medium like the internet is taken up by a society, it ceases to exist as a stand-alone technology or tool: it has become a practice, a production, and a means. Practices are fundamentally social, and as such accommodate the unique and secondary effects of individual and cultural behaviors, of paired and social exchanges, of what is said and what is accomplished or coordinated in the saying of it. <br />
<br />
Adrian's current projects include consulting to social software companies and Web 2.0 companies, blogging, theorizing, and UI design. <br />
<br />
Adrian has been a web developer since 1995. Prior to that he was a content producer for CDRom projects that included game and educational titles. He has written a number of curriculum units for use in social studies classrooms, and was the content designer for the laser disc teacher's edition of Ken Burns' Civil War. Adrian is a regular participant in the Philosophical Reading Group at Stanford (hosted by Sepp Gumbrecht and Robert Harrison). He lives in San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
Social Interaction Design and the Social Web:<br />
<br />
--'''Communication Technology and Web 2.0.''' Technologies of communication are, for me, the most interesting frontier of technical progress. Communication is the most profoundly human distinction. It is the glue that binds society, and at once the source of conflict and a means for its resolution. Communication, as well as the human relationships that are spun out of it, is fragile and worth our care, concern, and protection. And yet we know so little of how communication technologies might transform human relationships, social relations, and cultural practices. Surely all is not the same in the non face-to-face world? Surely the reproduction of ethical values, or social mores, of cultural perceptions, facts, and fictions is affected by their technical production, just as an image is magnified by a lens, a voice by the phone, a face by its absence from the IM window... There is a noble purpose to social interaction design: putting the human face on technology.<br />
<br />
--'''Proximities.''' If you want to know what a communication technology does for your life, turn it off. It's not the technical that's interesting; its the individual and social practices into which the technical becomes embedded. Communication technologies can only be understood in terms of these practices: messaging, talking, trading, dating, buying, selling, and so on all correspond to how we presence ourselves in the "virtual world." <br />
<br />
I believe technologies of communication fundamentally change our proximity to one another. We need a sociology of proximity based not on spatial co-presence but tuned instead to the frequencies of virtual presencing. Presence negotiation (access to people, obtaining their attention, whether a person is there, and there for us) instead of physical presence. Temporal continuity through discontinuous participation. Being with others who aren't there, projections of self and the other, ambiguities of intent, of timing, and of fact..<br />
<br />
Mediated proximity, proximity that is co-produced by these technologies of presence, produces a continuity in spite of our physical separation from on another. This continuity is a temporality. Proximity in the age of its technical production is not spatial, but temporal. Communication technologies connect us, spanning time and weaving a social fabric whose consistency obtains from us a "being there" for each other in time, but not space. <br />
<br />
The organization of lived time is well known to sociologists as routines, "open states of talk", and durations (the persistence of relations, norms, events, and communication over time).<br />
<br />
As individuals, we maintain our presence and proximity when we are not in the same place through communication. Not through images, or appearance, but by maintaining communication. TIME is the least understood dimension of any connective technology.<br />
<br />
What does all this mean? What can we know and understand? Are there implications for society? Do our relationships change? Are we losing trust? The questions driving an examination of communication technologies are serious. But it is not our purpose to answer them here. Rather, we want to find out what happens when we use these technologies. When we turn to our phones, when we log on, text and email. We can identify some principal themes:<br />
<br />
<br />
--'''Interaction dynamics.''' What happens when 2 or more people use a technology together? We get more than user-computer interaction; we get user-computer-user interaction.<br />
<br />
Issues of communication (information capture, archiving, access, search, persistence, privacy, public/private).<br />
<br />
Issues of interaction (gestural and paralinguistic handling, ambiguity, intimacies, timing, and of course self-presentation.<br />
<br />
<br />
--'''Social systems.''' Social software sites, and now Web 2.0, can be categorized loosely as social systems. Culture, online community, groups, social networks, P2P phenomena--these and more are attributes of social systems. To understand them we have to think beyond the individual user experience and along lines of social practices instead. All of these involve: action coordination; in/formal communication; transactions; trust; boundaries; rhythms; speech as text. For this I use anthropology and sociology, mostly French, German, and British. Some ethno-methodology (as made famous by Xerox PARC). I'm big on applying Niklas Luhmann's systems theory here. Also Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, and Jurgen Habermas. A bit of Foucault and Bourdieu. Local thinkers like Kevin Kelly and Nicholas Negroponte. Some SNA (social network analysis) of course, though I find that its topological orientation describes portrays traces of relations, not their nature, and certainly not the experience of those having them.<br />
<br />
<br />
--'''Talk systems.''' I profoundly believe that much of mediated communication and interaction must be understood as "talk." It's linguistically-mediated exchange. As such, I believe it is useful to consider Habermas' three truth claims: facticity, sincerity, and normative rightfulness. How are each of these tested when face to face interaction is displaced by a technical medium? We need to understand the stretch of talk, span of activity, and sequencing and seriality of activity in a mediated talk. Here I separate communication tools and interaction tools, the former being about capturing/archiving/searching/presenting contributions; the latter being about handling meanings, implications, emotional expression, timing, context, theme, and interaction dynamics of interactions. Communication tool is a tribe discussion. Private message is an interaction tool. <br />
<br />
--'''Socially structured content.''' This is a new project, inspired by Marc Canter's structured blogging structured data formats. If Web 2.0 is going to be useful in the social sense, we need a framework of content types, their presentation modules, their sort by, filter by, link to organization. What happens when a site displays "Who's online now?" In contrast with other people content, such as "featured members," "most connected members" "friends of friends," and so on. It's important to distinguish contributors and contributions. Some Web 2.0 developments provide access to and flesh out the contributor, or person. Others, their contributions. We take an interest in people as well as in information, and each can provide a gateway to the tother. So if Web 2.0 is going to be more social, how can it best engage users in people and what they say. Designers should anticipate the phenomena they help to build. Architects understand light, space, mass, and volume. We need to do the same. All of this is based on idea that the designer can only influence participation, using first order design to steer second order effects. But any information onscreen informs what happens as populations grow, over time. In a word, we all know what would happen if LinkedIn were to allow member pictures.<br />
<br />
--'''Psychology of Mediated Interactions.''' We use our communication technologies alone. Our experience surfing the web is still an immediate experience of a device. It only makes sense, then, that we project the "other" (person) into this "world." So I have started a project that I would like to be an A-Z of psychological experiences and transformations. Using the DSM (psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual) and my own take on psychology, which is biased towards the British School of Object Relations, Transactional Analysis, and group dynamics, I'm interested in how SSNs, IM, chat, video chat, discussions, blogs, email, because they are asynchronous or near-synchronous, screen back our identities, defer confirmations and acknowledgments, permit the presence of "unratified participants" (e.g. lurkers), disrupt episodic talk, disturb turn-taking rules of conversation, undermine or inflate authority and position, etc. Do narcissists love SSN's for a reason?"<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Individuals]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Research]]</div>AChan