Author Archives: Jon Woo

To follow up from the last class, food for thought.

 

So I was thinking about how we ended off last class, and figured it was worth exploring the idea reality mashups with MIPs. Basically, if MIPs work on social networking sites, how does that translate into how they work in actual interpersonal relationships, and furthermore how persuasive experiences really only work the same way online, because people dont communicate that way in real life.

There are many examples of these online, most of the satyric. But I was wondering if this makes sense to people, and if you agreed or disagreed with the disparity of the two.

The MIP distro

The articles, Mass Interpersonal Persuasion by BJ Fogg, and Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What by Danah Boyd, both explore the expansion of social networking sites, their societal acceptance, and the implications their future growth. However, each author takes a separate approach in their framing of social media and its uses. For Danah Boyd, this scaffolding revolves around the clash of public and private spheres especially as it relates to the relationship between today’s youth and educators. This lens is reflexive of Fogg’s asserting of the growth of Mass Interpersonal Persuasion within social networking sites, but it also juxtaposes the relationship between this growth and Boyd’s concept of the private space.

In Boyd’s article, the separation of physical and virtual spaces forms the precedence between the dissonance of utilization within social networks. While the use of social networking sites is pervasive in technologic-communication society there exists a tension within the perception of this space as a personal forum vs. a public forum. In particular, the youth of our society is confronted with the distribution of identity on social networking sites, but the separation of personal and public spheres of these sites is perceived differently by the young and old. Correspondingly, this difference in perception is a result of “mediated publics with a homogeneous audience are not nearly so well-received in a mediated public with variable audiences (Boyd 3).” I find that Boyd’s assertions of co-opting the public and private spheres provides only a limited understanding of the cross-sectioning of public and private spheres–by only focusing upon the disparity between youths and educators Boyd fails to encompass the gravity of distribution within mass publics.

In contrast, Fogg’s assertions of Mass Interpersonal Persuasion (MIP) is a holistic view of distribution in general. Fogg uses Facebook as the springboard for the development of MIP. Markedly, this platform allowed for 3-rd party application developers to distribute their apps over a social networking site, a level of access never seen before. These structures combined allowed for the persuasion experience of MIPs to be broadcasted to an mass public that no technology has allowed before. Singularly, it is enabled through the development of technology. However, more importantly it is through social networking platforms like Facebook that provide the social development of technology to matter. The technology also enables a high level of automation that dovetails into high levels of social distribution. These combinations ultimately contribute to the rapid distribution of apps on Facebook. Correlatively, the new form of persuasion that MIP creates through social networking also highlights the influence of persuasive experiences upon users. There is a reason why Facebook and these apps have had such success in their distribute, and this is a result of the simple psychological effects that developers impart upon the design of apps and the responses of users. Similarly, apps are designed with analytic metrics to measure the effectiveness of app programming. These are the main attributes of MIP, however I will list thing once again in the following:

1. Persuasive Experience: An experience that is created to change attitudes, behaviors, or both.

2. Automated Structure: Digital technology structures the persuasive experience.

3. Social Distribution: The persuasive experience is shared from one friend to the next

4. Rapid Cycle: The persuasive experience can be distributed quickly from one person to another.

5. Huge Social Graph: The persuasive experience can potentially reach millions of people connect through social ties or structured interactions.

6. Measured Impact: The effect of the persuasive experience is observable by users and creators.

 

 

WOW

In Descartes’ “Of The Things of Which We May Doubt”, he questions his understanding of reality from the standpoint that perception, through the body’s senses, is based on deception. Throughout his work he confronts reality as an illusion that is indiscernible from the state of dreaming—a reality that exists only within out minds. It is difficult to conceptualize his posits just from his writings. However, the 1999 movie “The Matrix” provides us with a lens to understand them.

“The Matrix” is a science fiction movie that depicts a world in which reality exists only within the consciousness of a computer program. It is a world where the human race lives only within their minds, and are subject to the laws of programming just as we are subject to the laws of physics. Only a small number of people are actually conscious outside of the program. It is through this movie that Descartes’ deceived perception of reality becomes evident.

Continue reading