Conversation
Notices
-
Rose, who has over 88K followers on Twitter, presents: 10 ways to increase your Twitter followers; http://tr.im/cqei &#..
-
@eicker Now if the number of your followers would actually be a useful measure...
-
@ton I'm not sure if it's a useful (global) measure. In my opinion it's a question of your personal ambitions, isn't it?
-
@eicker ambition yes, and also characteristics of followers. 10 random ones are different from 10 good contacts, or matter experts etc.
-
@eicker but the tips seemed to aim at increasing followers as a goal in and by itself.
-
@eicker the 150 is a good rule of thumb for feeling comfortable, yes.
-
@ton Did you change your opinion here?
-
@eicker no I did not. for feeling comfortable we do trend towards group sizes like that.
-
@eicker Per context that is. I don't accept it as an upper limit.
-
@eicker Tools, and us living in a wider variety of contexts now make us reach 'escape velocity'
-
@ton But do your 'friends' accept this 'escape'? That's the core question in my opinion.
-
@eicker as far as they are aware of it.....everything is mostly neatly chopped into 'natural' group sizes.
-
@eicker I don't know many that actually count the total amount of people they are in contact with.
-
@eicker and things like studivz, reunion sites etc, make sure that contexts persist longer, silently increasing the number of ppl
-
@ton That's part of the question: Who is aware of it? I'm sure we're subconsciously counting some kind of 'awareness and attention share'.
-
@eicker I have a feeling that attention share (which is limited I agree) is between contexts and prioritizing contexts, not people
-
@ton Ask yourself: when would we automatically stop this conversation? And why?
-
@eicker when another context demands more attention
-
@eicker not when another person demands it
-
@eicker there is probably a limited list of relevant contexts for any individual.
-
@eicker Family, work, neighbourhood, professional peers, sports club, old fraternity etc.
-
@ton Come on. If E. would call now, you'd immediately stop it. ;)
-
@ton That's not context, but personal demand.
-
@eicker I'd say it is context. Any family member would override this conversation.
-
@eicker any client would too
-
@eicker within family context E would trump all others.
-
@ton You're redevining 'context'. ;)
-
@eicker am I? How so?
-
@ton In my opinion you're agitating personal and objective (context) demands.
-
@eicker ah! perhaps that's another diff. I think objectivity hardly exists, or at least cannot see it anyway.
-
@eicker so all contexts for me are people based, and ranked by me as individual.
-
@eicker me, family, work, friends, pro-peers, clubs, etc. I see and treat it like an onion.
-
@eicker energy levels dictate where attention goes. Like with electrons in diff energy bands around atom core
-
@ton It's true, someway. But I'm sure, your prioritisation reflects the subjectivity/objectivity difficulty somehow, doesn't it?
-
@eicker it reflects a certain level of negotiation. Not sure if that's objectivity, or other ppls subjectivity 'running interference'
-
@eicker like me asking E if I can call back in 5 mins.
-
@ton So when will the first onionskin fade? Why does it fade at all?
-
@ton Regardless if it's only one person or a whole 'context'?
-
@ton: BTW, Identi.ca seems to be a little bit too slow for our conversation. ;)
-
@eicker it fades when higher ranking onionskins use up more attention.
-
@eicker e.g. my old fraternity is a skin I hardly look at, unless unusual activity pattern takes place, or I have nothing better to do
-
@ton But that means there's a natural border. A border set by your and your friends' maximum of attention.
-
@eicker yes, there is, in terms of attention. I don't think I said it was otherwise.
-
@ton And there is a maximum (unlike money ;).
-
@eicker but that's not the same as '150'.
-
@ton But '150' might be close to it. ;)
-
@eicker increase comes from language (saves time),
-
@eicker tools for patternhunting (quicker focussing),
-
@eicker web20 tools (for faster and efficient exchange)
-
@ton At least if we're talking about "stable relationships".
-
@eicker 150' may be close to it, so might 12 or 1024.
-
@eicker I think Dunbar showed there is a reason certain sizes feel more natural than others. I use that all the time in facilitation e.g.
-
@eicker at the same time it does not mean a permanent cap.
-
@ton It might extend the number. But I'm sure that there'll always be some kind of border, defined by a more or less objective number.
-
@eicker there will be a border of course, based on available tools, channels, energy
-
@eicker my point is that it's not the number of people that sets the border.
-
@eicker so it's not the number that's the cause, it is a result.
-
@ton I'm sure, we'll see more empirical research in this field. And we'll the more probable numbers.
-
@eicker there is bound to be research on this on the way, yes. Eager to see it!
-
@eicker although I predict we will keep organizing things in units that feel comfortable. I.e. 150 here, 150 there etc. Like the army
-
@ton There'll be a wide array on a personal basis, but a census would show a close result.
-
@ton Just have a look at the average number of "friends" (in any social network) your friends have. It's already highly interesting.
-
@eicker yes, statistically everything can be smoothed out endlessly ;)
-
@eicker even more interesting if you plot that number against how long they've been in a social network
-
@eicker as well as the amount of attention/time spent in each social network
-
@eicker I've got about 500 in LinkedIn, not using it actively, but being there since 2 weeks after launch
-
@eicker I've got about 300 in Twitter, using it actively, being there since 2 years.
-
@eicker etc. Always by the way only people I actually know, only a handful of random ones to increase connectedness
-
@ton It highly depends on our focus. Our idea of relevance. Our attention. Our engagement.
-
@eicker exactly! which are all individual subjective factors. Values and belief systems come in as well.
-
@eicker and I've got other platforms with only a small number of people connected.
-
@ton We don't have any kind of dissent here. ;)
-
@ton The dissent starts in our perspectives, I think. The perspective on the relationship sender-receiver. I'm more on the receivers side.
-
@eicker I certainly take me/the individual as sender as starting point yes.
-
@eicker a fundamental philosophical choice...
-
@eicker am I certain the world exists, to contemplate my place in that world
-
@eicker or am I certain I exist, ton contemplate what I see around me
-
@ton And - beyond personal/technological borders - there's an absolute number of maximum attention. It's simply not expandable.
-
@eicker I'm of the latter group
-
@eicker we agree on the attention limit. (but perhaps not on the amount of 'preprocessing' that can be done before we need to pay attention
-
@ton It can't be saved or replicated in any form.
-
@eicker but it can be shifted (time, place, etc) and preprocessing can be out-sourced. (search agents)
-
@eicker management structures e.g. are attention shifting / outsourcing devices for managers
-
@ton That's where my question start: How much attention does a stable relationship demand?
-
@eicker I don't think there is one answer to that.
-
@eicker but it is a very good question
-
@eicker e.g. my most stable friendships had a very intensive attention investment at the start, and now hardly require 'maintenance'
-
@ton And - beyond stability - how much attention is demanded for an effective - not efficient - relationship?
-
@ton My feeling is, that you're talking about efficiency.
-
@eicker I think, it is about efficiency in communication (ie quantitative), and effectivity in relation (ie qualitative)
-
@eicker I treat effectiveness and efficiency not as opposites or equals, but as different dimensions.
-
@eicker which means a word like 'cost-effectiveness' means nothing to me.
-
@ton In my opinion it differs. But there's a basic demand for attention that needs to be fulfilled.
-
@ton And this demand borders the number of relationships.
-
@eicker for instance I can 'dupe' myself into believing having a 'close' connection to someone
-
@eicker Twitter serves that role for me. By exchanging 'having coffee' with J in Vancouver, we feel close.
-
@eicker because 'having coffee' you normally share only with people in close proximity.
-
@eicker it works only if we have had f2f contact of significance, but then it maintains the relationship
-
@eicker Twitter as a tool makes that kind of exchange cheap / efficient,
-
@eicker and the nature of the exchange which is small and trivial makes it effective, as it increases the feeling of closeness.
-
@eicker but I have a conf call coming up (switching to client context now.... :) ) Thanks for the exchange.
-
@eicker Logged the transcript, because good notions and questions in there. Very blogworthy
-
@ton Still: you've invested a (small) amount of your attention. It's gone. Forever. You can't invest it again.
-
@ton Someone else might miss this (small) amout of your attention. One of your onionskins fades.
-
@ton This is exactly what I mean when talking about 'borders'.
-
@eicker that is true. one of the onionskins fades......temporarily. there is likely a minimum energy level required to maintain an onionskin
-
@ton Good luck and an effective conversation. ;)
-
@eicker but that minimum energy level may go down with different techs and strats.
-
@eicker thanks, enjoy the afternoon... bye!
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the