Here's a touching video on the subject of social media.

That scene with the people bowling happened to me.

That's what I am talking about haha, but tbh this was an issue BEFORE social networks, 6 years ago well before smartphones (or at least I think they were) I threw my phone in the Thames because of texting, now I was up for calling, I was also a personal assistant and it was text, text, text, text. Friends were highly focused on texting and a call would result in a "why are you calling?" as if I was anti social. Anyway going through texts were so stupid as hell, so I threw my phone in the Thames, it was some popular Nokia trash and ever since until recently I was without a phone. It's funny because that move (among other things) got me promoted but that's a different story

All those things mentioned in the video have been going on well before smartphones, the difference with smartphones is it is easier to do it at a global scale. Personally I don't see that 'anti-social' behaviour as much in cities as I do outside the city, it is kind of a career killer in a way

This quote sums it up.

The 3rd frame in that comic does a nice job of depicting how face to face communication is slowly becoming a dead art. But I digress, if talking poorly or being misunderstood means you're potentially decapitated by a stranger on the bus, introversion is much safer.

Personally I don't buy into the whole 'social networking' is for introverts or even extroverts for that matter, isn't the whole idea of introversion being reserved and quiet, always deep thinking and also being drained from socialising regardless of method? Oh and in big cities typical jobs for introverts are flooded with people who speak well and are not misunderstood, they just arent talking all the time but then neither are extroverts. They also attend many parties, but are more into listening than talking and more into tasks / jobs that require more thinking rather than public speaking, I think the whole introvert / extrovert psychology needs a massive review and needs to heavily look into city life AND take in all psychological problems in account, it has become so tiring hearing people who have issues branding them as introvert / extrovert, I bet that guy in the comic strip would refer to himself as a introvert just as a narcissist would brand himself as an extrovert.

Here's the shocking part, I find introverts MUCH better to talk to as it is more abstract, whereas extroverts, it is more casual conversations and open, in fact almost all political conversations I have had have been with introverts, extroverts "don't want to think deep on the issue". Sorry for going all anal on your comment, it wasn't a dig at you, I just find it offensive putting introverts / extroverts in the same category as attention seeking, reputation drooling 'social' networkers.

Lets be honest here, Jung wasn't exactly around in times when people could express their thoughts freely, not only that his theory on introversion / extroversion has supposedly changed enormously over the years.

I don't think there's any conflict here. We could use a fresh new look on Psychology each coming decade. The reference I made was the act of behaving introverted.

If we're worried about labels then I guess I might as well question that. One person can have limitless numbers of labels that describe what they do each day. A rather ambiguous one that comes to mind is 'technosexual.' I can't for the life of me think of anything more precise than to break down and explain that this is a person who can't stop touching and thinking about their electronic toys.

this was an issue BEFORE social networks

And texting isn't a form of social networking?

this was an issue BEFORE social networks

And texting isn't a form of social networking?

Texting is a form of personal communication between two people. If that is social networking, then so is talking to anyone.

this was an issue BEFORE social networks

And texting isn't a form of social networking?

Well you see the difference, or main difference was that it was more one on one, multimessaging was available but it cost per text, social networking made it increasingly easy to multi message texting, so I guess for me nothing really has changed. Sadly because I am very business oriented I will likely cash in on this market regardless of how I feel. Regardless this thread was very useful :evil:

The reference I made was the act of behaving introverted.

I kindda reacted too much to that, it's just I have seen and witnessed far too many cases where people have been branded something either by themselves or by others when really things are far more complex than arm chair psychology. Again this isn't a dig at you, it is simply people wrongly continue destructive behaviour because they or 'friends' label them as something or they did a test on FB, when it could be something else.

Personally and this is just my opinion, I don't think introverts or extroverts would use social networking at extreme levels or any level for that matter, I mean in the end introverts allegedly like one on one discussions better in a secure environment, it kindda kills the use of social networking seeing how everyone on the friendslist can see, unless they are going to PM people only. If we are going to take social networkers as introverts serious, introverts would never even tweet, there are not enough characters to share all that abstract thinking and it would be highly inefficient to talk about random crap, what a complete waste of energy.

Extroverts would likely be in a crowd, near people, lots of people, if they are meant to get energy from crowd like situations, how would a dynamic social life even work, unless everyone responds within a second of posting, tweeting etc they wont actually be in a rewarding environment. This is just my opinion though and I am sure people will disagree and that is fine, for me social networks are great for business, not great in any shape or form for socialising and if people want to record their life, they should make a v/blog on specific issues.

The thing I don't understand about mobile apps is the fact you still need to install them.

I suppose that's for the permanent storage, yet many apps would just be better on the web. Just point the browser here and you're go.

Ah. But I forgot we need to milk the users!

Friends were highly focused on texting and a call would result in a "why are you calling?" as if I was anti social.

To me, that sounds more like they thought you were hypersocial.

Texting is a form of personal communication between two people. If that is social networking, then so is talking to anyone.

Depends on what you're comunicating. If you're just texting what you had for breakfast, that's "chit-chat", or "small talk", which is just a form socializing - your audience, though just one person, is still part of your "network" of friends or acquiantances. Ergo, social networking. :)

Texting is a form of personal communication between two people. If that is social networking, then so is talking to anyone.

Well it depends. You can still talk to multiple people at the same time about completely different topics, which is unnatural if you compare it to just talking. Texting is also limited to 160 characters per text, so usually communication was kept short. At least, I don't think I've ever held a debate over SMS. :P

Well you see the difference, or main difference was that it was more one on one, multimessaging was available but it cost per text, social networking made it increasingly easy to multi message texting, so I guess for me nothing really has changed. Sadly because I am very business oriented I will likely cash in on this market regardless of how I feel. Regardless this thread was very useful :evil:

Yes that's true.

I consider texting to be kind of a "predecessor" to social networking, if you will. It's beyond talking, but behind social networking.

The thing I don't understand about mobile apps is the fact you still need to install them.

I suppose that's for the permanent storage, yet many apps would just be better on the web. Just point the browser here and you're go.

Ah. But I forgot we need to milk the users!

part of the problem is the phones themselves (especially older phones), system access from websites can be very limiting and users often expect certain functionality from the apps. (notifications, access to camera, etc, etc).

Krohm, on 21 Nov 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

The thing I don't understand about mobile apps is the fact you still need to install them.

I suppose that's for the permanent storage, yet many apps would just be better on the web. Just point the browser here and you're go.

Ah. But I forgot we need to milk the users!



part of the problem is the phones themselves (especially older phones), system access from websites can be very limiting and users often expect certain functionality from the apps. (notifications, access to camera, etc, etc).

The other problem is the percieved speed of the application. Using the web on a device that has a flakey connection is slow. So any percieved improvment by using native controls distracts the user from the fact that they are having a less than complete web experience. The mantra with mobile apps remains as (fake it till you make it).

Facebook and Linkedin in both tried to use web or hybrid applications and ended up giving up and returning to native applications. They now only use the web content for very static content or pages which a user very rarely navigates to.

I suppose you could also have the same argument as "The problem with PC apps is you need to download and install them". Modern web technology allows apps such as photoshop or office to run entirely in a web browser. If this is the case why has the chromebook been such a fail.