Talking to TV-characters
I really believe that dialogue makes us understand things better. We have to construct our representation and understanding and test it by sharing. Very important part of gaining more information is that communication is not very accurate. We understand only 10% what others mean. These misunderstandings lead to testing our thinking and possible new solutions or points of views.
If the game on communication is dialogue, this experiment of building a presentation is not working. (And same problem is with most of blogs – everyone is writing, but not many are continuing the discussion. (It’s often about advertising ones own blog or expertise – kind of telling others that I know that or that I have done it all ready.)
When I started this presentation my aim was and still is, to play with an idea that – writer publishes what they want – and reader reads what they want to read. AND it might not be the same things, but how do we make both of them happy?
Well again the first presumption is that by tagging we can write “info cloud” – or make our message easier to be found. This might be a object for discussion. In a way this does not work. It is not enough to have an interesting subject as it is not enough for communication to have the right technology.
There has to be more motivation for dialogue than interesting subject and software that able communication. We have personal motives and we need to feel that those motives are fulfilled by our commitment to the discussion. (Most often it is our need to get attention and approval.) I also use term “social dominance game”. We like to take part in discussions with known, public figures or authorities – or people that we like to think that are experts in the field. (You can figure out why I call it “social dominance game:-)
BUT can we have a monologue and find our own feedback from other sources to make a dialogue? I think this has happened to me. I am writing, but finding related views from other’s blogs. So I am in dialogue with people with out getting any comments.
This gives a feeling of empowerment – writing so that no one reads is dull, but writing for your self, but having a “discussion” with a “television screen” is much more fun. (You know that some people talk with tv-characters- this is the similar, but it just has a minimal possibility that the famous TV-character might reply.)
socialcomputing citizen+journalism communication
If the game on communication is dialogue, this experiment of building a presentation is not working. (And same problem is with most of blogs – everyone is writing, but not many are continuing the discussion. (It’s often about advertising ones own blog or expertise – kind of telling others that I know that or that I have done it all ready.)
When I started this presentation my aim was and still is, to play with an idea that – writer publishes what they want – and reader reads what they want to read. AND it might not be the same things, but how do we make both of them happy?
Well again the first presumption is that by tagging we can write “info cloud” – or make our message easier to be found. This might be a object for discussion. In a way this does not work. It is not enough to have an interesting subject as it is not enough for communication to have the right technology.
There has to be more motivation for dialogue than interesting subject and software that able communication. We have personal motives and we need to feel that those motives are fulfilled by our commitment to the discussion. (Most often it is our need to get attention and approval.) I also use term “social dominance game”. We like to take part in discussions with known, public figures or authorities – or people that we like to think that are experts in the field. (You can figure out why I call it “social dominance game:-)
BUT can we have a monologue and find our own feedback from other sources to make a dialogue? I think this has happened to me. I am writing, but finding related views from other’s blogs. So I am in dialogue with people with out getting any comments.
This gives a feeling of empowerment – writing so that no one reads is dull, but writing for your self, but having a “discussion” with a “television screen” is much more fun. (You know that some people talk with tv-characters- this is the similar, but it just has a minimal possibility that the famous TV-character might reply.)
socialcomputing citizen+journalism communication
posted by Hannu at 8:46 AM
2 Comments:
As for the experiment failing and not getting feedback:
I think that a blog is a massively anti-democratic communication medium. There's the author(s) and then there's the audience. Sure, the audience can make comments and therefore can be active, but I think that's not "rewarded" properly.
To clarify some of that:
If a blog has lots of readers and an active commenting audience, it can be rewarding. Then it's kind of like any web forum, but even then only the author's can "start a new topic".
For a new blog the transition to the situation I just described is not so easy, I would imagine. With every "0 comments" tag and every "too long" rant from the author(s) the possibility of a forum emerging goes further away. The only thing motivating the first reader to comment on some things are his relationship to the author(s) and the hooks in the text of the blogs. If there's too much text, long passages and all, the burdain of scanning that all up before commenting (as not to get caught up "cheating") can be too much labor for the casual reader.
Just something that came up while reading...
One tool I have been thinking is "Trackback". It give other a possibility write longer comments and also leads readers to new blogs.
Second "tool" I call "summery paper". I think that blogger should write a monthly summery to sum up the discussion. It lets other know what the blogger has learnd. (Yes - not democratic if you look at it from point of view of one blogger, but gets better if you look at it from "blogosphere".
Post a Comment
<< Home