From a political perspective, this diagram spells disaster. Anytime there is one or a few indidviduals with a monopoly on the wealth of knowledge held by a community, there is chance for tyranny, or stagnation. There must be a "gadfly to wake the sleeping horse" (Plato, Apology)! If at any time in a community relies upon one source and one source alone for its information, disaster and tyrrany are probably soon to follow.
What is more, from a stategic standpoint (military) this network diagram wreaks of disaster...
Everyone in a system (also called network) has to have some knowledge of all of the working parts or that organization. This is the logic behing the military hierarchical method of information dissemenation. In order to keep the working parts of any machine moving, everything and everyone has to work together. If for some reason, unbenounced to the network, Paul goes senile, should the machine break down, or should, Helen, Sue, John and Lisa be able to keep the machine moving???
Just a few thoughts...that's all for now.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Social Networkers vs. Social Butterflies
I think it is very important that social networkers not be confused with socialites. Mr. Rheingold seemed to put a great deal of value on the importance of raw numbers in a social network as opposed to the effectiveness of the prongs within an individual network. For example, lets compare someone like Paris Hilton to someone like Donald Trump. True, they both have a great number of associates in their social circles, but who has the most social capital??? I would argue that Donald Trump's power greatly surpasses that of Paris Hilton's, not because he does a better job with his money or because he even has a greater number of people in his circle. His ability to connect with people on a business level combined with his ability evaluate a person's future contributions to his social network prior to adding them to his network greatly increases his social capital. Although Paris has a great deal of associates in many different professional circles, her social capital is not nearly as great as Donald Trump's.
There were a few points Rheingold held that I disagreed on. Mainly...
In my past experience, I find that social networks are not always strengthened by technological advancements. In my short lifetime, I have moved a great deal of times. I remained very close to a great deal of friends from second and third grade by maintaining constant correspondence with them via mail--whenever one of the two of us was in the position of possibly moving we would notify the other. Upon the advent of the internet, I found it very easy to put off writing due to the fact that... "I have their e-mail address saved somewhere." I found it harder and harder to keep in contact with people because I had grown lazy and dependent upon the computer to tell me exactly where they were. In many instances, when I finally got around to writting these individuals, much to my dismay, I would recieve a "Mail Delivery Failure" notice in my INBOX.
I read, Democracy and Technology, by one, Richard Sclove for one of my other courses. I learned that the social life of the Ibiecan people of Spain all but collapsed as a result of the implementation of a new technology in the 1970's. As harmless as running water might seem now(because we know nothing else) and as advantageous it may have seemed then(possibly save time & money), the effects it had on the social life of the Ibiecan citizens were dubious at best. Prior to the implementation of running water in this Spanish village, waterholes and wash basins were a place for seemingly superfluous chatter between women and a time of bonding for sons and fathers. Upon the advent of this great technological advancement, the social happenings of the village dissapeared.
The internet allows you to network with many people, yes, but how many people is too many??? How many people do you think someone knows on their friends list of 3,000 people. The internet weakens social ties (or creates fallacious ones) on many levels:
1.) You have so many people to keep up with you can only leave brief notes to keep up with them.
2.) You don't really know the people you call "friends" online anyway, but your network is up to some outrageously large number and you are satisfied because you think you are a great networker.
3.) You become dependent upon technology and end up neglecting your responsibilities as a connector...You get pushed to the spot of that peripheral person and don't even realize it.
There were a few points Rheingold held that I disagreed on. Mainly...
In my past experience, I find that social networks are not always strengthened by technological advancements. In my short lifetime, I have moved a great deal of times. I remained very close to a great deal of friends from second and third grade by maintaining constant correspondence with them via mail--whenever one of the two of us was in the position of possibly moving we would notify the other. Upon the advent of the internet, I found it very easy to put off writing due to the fact that... "I have their e-mail address saved somewhere." I found it harder and harder to keep in contact with people because I had grown lazy and dependent upon the computer to tell me exactly where they were. In many instances, when I finally got around to writting these individuals, much to my dismay, I would recieve a "Mail Delivery Failure" notice in my INBOX.
I read, Democracy and Technology, by one, Richard Sclove for one of my other courses. I learned that the social life of the Ibiecan people of Spain all but collapsed as a result of the implementation of a new technology in the 1970's. As harmless as running water might seem now(because we know nothing else) and as advantageous it may have seemed then(possibly save time & money), the effects it had on the social life of the Ibiecan citizens were dubious at best. Prior to the implementation of running water in this Spanish village, waterholes and wash basins were a place for seemingly superfluous chatter between women and a time of bonding for sons and fathers. Upon the advent of this great technological advancement, the social happenings of the village dissapeared.
The internet allows you to network with many people, yes, but how many people is too many??? How many people do you think someone knows on their friends list of 3,000 people. The internet weakens social ties (or creates fallacious ones) on many levels:
1.) You have so many people to keep up with you can only leave brief notes to keep up with them.
2.) You don't really know the people you call "friends" online anyway, but your network is up to some outrageously large number and you are satisfied because you think you are a great networker.
3.) You become dependent upon technology and end up neglecting your responsibilities as a connector...You get pushed to the spot of that peripheral person and don't even realize it.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Intro
I, Talila Lewis, on my honor promise that my blog is true complete and acurrate to the best of my knowledge and ability. This blog is for course purposes only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
