Posts Tagged ‘the Times’

In the wake of a truly ghastly series of articles on Twitter, I am beginning to think that journalists will never write well on any thing that involves online communities or social media.

Perhaps the problem is this simple: They just don’t have the time to spend on participating in these communities which a thorough understanding of these phenomena require. You can’t just sign up and click a few buttons. You’ve got to get involved. That’s time expensive when the deadlines are ticking.

This is why, I think, journalists continue to fall prey to the most outrageously ridiculous claims from those with titles within fields like psychology who claim to understand something about human interactions in the online world. Journalists just don’t know how to vet what’s being told to them from the “experts”.

Sweeping generalizations that misguide the public on the reality of what happens online is a big problem. Here’s what journalist Andy Pemberton of the Times Online learned via his informants about the stereotypical twitter user:

“The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. “Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.”

“We are the most narcissistic age ever,” agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. “Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.”

Are you on twitter? Is this how you feel?

I doubt it. How are Dr. Davis Lewis and Dr. James Oliver supporting their claims? I don’t see a study and I can’t glean from their web presence that they’ve got much background related to experiences in the online world. Obviously their descriptions will fit some people – but exactly how many? 1%? 20%? 87%? 100%?

Andy Pemberton seems to have sought the advice from all the wrong sources when he sat down to write this article. His next move is to find someone who likens Twitter to a giant baby monitor:

“For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety and the forthcoming The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, Twitter represents “a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It’s like when a parent goes into a child’s room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor.”

Alain de Botton is a writer. Of course he is going to use such metaphors.

Bizarrely, I’m actually not monitoring anybody when I use twitter. I’m not there to be permanently connected to anybody either. In fact, I don’t know who most of my followers or people I follow are and I’ve got no anxiety about this any more than than I do opening my front door to leave my house and walk out in the world in the morning.

Perhaps here’s where we are at the root of the problem. The terminology “following/follower” certainly suggests that you’re actively watching other people, and the “what are you doing” question followed by the tweet field suggest that whatever we type must be mundane. But the level of intensity in which we follow others is not quite at the level the doctors imagine.

Most people who use Twitter, also use additional third party tools like Tweet Deck which allows you to group the people you’re following. I have three groups in addition to replies, direct messages and all: Work, Friends, Twitter friends. When I’m on, I follow these groups. Then I have a quick glance at the “all” stream to see what’s going on elsewhere. When I tweet, I’m either asking questions, sharing links to stuff I find interesting or amusing, or just “chatting” to friends as the day go by. I fail to see why this need to cause the psychologist so much distress.

This use of third party tools points to another problem when it comes to understanding the Twitter service. If you’re just looking at the Twitter site, it’s really hard to get how this service can be useful at all. It’s just a never ending stream with random tweets which grows constantly.

Using tools like tweet deck to manage the tweets will help you filter the noise. This means the “mundane” type tweets the journalists go on about actually seldom pop into your stream.

“Mundane” is also a very relative term – if a friend of mine tweets “homeward bound” or “eating a carrot” they’re inviting to some social banter between friends or providing me with info I’d like to hear. Perhaps I’m meeting up with this friend and now I know they’re on time. Perhaps it tells me that I’ve lost track of time at work and should be heading home myself.

But according to Oliver James the psychologist, because this is being said on twitter and not by a person right in front of me, I’m fantasist:

“To ‘follow’ someone is to have a fantasy of who this person you’re following is, and you use it as a map reference or signpost to guide your own life because you are lost,” says James. “I would guess that the typical profile of a ‘follower’ is someone who is young and who feels marginalised, empty and pointless. They don’t have an inner life,” he says.

If I’m lost, it’s because I’m lost for words.

I honestly don’t understand how James is capable of even thinking this stuff. Has the emergence of the online world moved the whole field of psychology is into shambles?

13 Comments