Cum reusesti sa cunosti mai bine pe cineva: face to face sau intrand pe pagina lui de Facebook
Dupa cum stiti, astazi a fost Webstock09. Printre vorbitori a fost si Bogdana Butnar, a carei prezentare eu am asteptat-o (a fost singura pe care am vazut-o in intregime). Mi-a zis mai multa lume ca tine prezentari cool si chiar eram curios. Nu speram chiar sa am un satori, dar macar as fi vrut sa invat ceva nou. Fiind un fan al Bogdanei, am fost insa total dezamagit de prezentare. Bogdana este o persoana care comunica foarte bine, amuzanta, are charisma. Partea de “cum spune” e mai mult decat ok ( sunt convins ca daca ar tine o prezentare despre Mos Craciun, lumea ar pleca acasa convinsa ca de fapt Mos Craciun exista). Problemele apar la partea de “ce spune”. Continutul prezentarii. Sunt atatea baloane de sapun in prezentarea ei incat nu stiu de unde sa incep.
In primul rand, desi titlul prezentarii a fost “Social Networks and Private Life”, in fapt, majoritatea exemplelor au acoperit doar Facebook, care este un caz particular. De ce este Facebook un caz particular? Pentru ca toata lumea stie ca Facebook sta cel mai prost la protejarea datelor utilizatorilor dintre toate retelele sociale din lume.
Joseph Bonneau and Soeren Preibusch of Cambridge University have been studying privacy on 45 popular social networking sites around the world. (You may not have realised that there are 45 popular social networking sites around the world.) They found that privacy settings were often confusing and hard to access; Facebook, with its 61 privacy settings, is the worst.
Deja exista de mult timp ghiduri despre cum sa-ti protejezi datele pe Facebook.
Sa judecam impreuna Facebook si Twitter din punct de vedere al protectiei datelor utilizatorilor este gresit.
In al doilea rand, piatra unghiulara pe care este construit rationamentul prezentarii si anume asa-zisul citat din Malcolm Gladwell:
(app) “one can tell more about a person from fumbling through his things for 10 minutes than from a 1 hour conversation Malcolm Gladwell, Tipping Point”
Citatul este 100 % eronat. Gladwell nu spune asa ceva.
Exista un sambure de adevar in ce a retinut Bogdana. In Blink! Gladwell descrie un experiment facut de psihologul Samuel Gosling(1). Dar concluziile au fost urmatoarele:
“Cei care au studiat camerele de camin nu au fost la fel de buni ca prietenii in masurarea extroversiunii. Prietenii au fost un pic mai buni si la estimarea cu acuratete a agreabilitatii. Dar in celelalte trei puncte din cinci, strainii au fost in top.”
Pe de alta parte, Gosling spune ca dormitorul cuiva ne da 3 feluri de indicii despre personalitatea sa.
-cele de revendicare a identitatii (cum vrem sa fim vazuti de lume-diplome, trofee etc);
-reziduu comportamental ( sosete pe podea etc);
- regulatori de sentimente si ganduri (lumanari parfumate, perne etc).
Acum eu nu stiu cati dintre voi surfati paginile de Facebook ale cunoscutilor cu cate un chestionar in fata, notand date despre personalitatea sa 
. Un chestionar ofera un avantaj celor care il folosesc pentru ca stii dupa ce indicii sa te uiti (glumet, rezervat, increzator, suspicios etc.). E ca la testele grila. E mai usor un test grila decat un test cu intrebari fara variante. In lumea reala, utilizatorul obisnuit de Facebook nu stie ce date sa caute.
Acelasi Gosling recunoaste aici ca paginile personale sunt alta mancare de peste decat camerele din punct de vedere al informatiilor care se pot obtine:
Unlike other contexts that have been examined (e.g., bedrooms), personal websites are a highly controlled context for selfexpression selfexpression consisting almost entirely of identity claims. In fact, nearly every detail of a personal website is the result of a conscious decision on the part of the author. This allows website authors to create their online identity in a much more deliberate and calculated way than is permitted in other aspects of everyday life, where the inadvertent effects of behavioral residue can impinge on the impression one broadcasts. Of course, no real-world environment can be completely free of behavioral residue. Even websites may contain spelling and grammatical errors, broken links, and other unintentional cues. However, an environment such as a website, where the only behavioral traces are from construction of the website itself, comes very close to eliminating such cues.
In sfarsit, in aceeasi carte, dar vreo 20 de pagini mai incolo, Gladwell descrie un serviciu de “intalniri la minut” din N.Y(2). Concret, oameni care nu se cunosteau discutau face-to-face cate 6 minute unul cu altul (in cupluri de sex opus) si apoi luau decizia daca sa se intalneasca mai departe sau nu. Concluzia formulata de Gladwell:
“Cand vine vorba de feliat subtire potentiale date, aproape toti ne pricepem.”
Mai sunt si alte greseli de rationament in prezentare, dar ma opresc aici.
Mehrabian a aratat de mult ca vorbele nu reprezinta decat 7 % din mesajele noastre. 55% din informatiile despre o persoana ne vin din comunicarea nonverbala, iar 38% din exprimarea vocala (ton, timbru, intonatie). De-aia contactul “face-to-face” va ramane intotdeauna cel mai bun mod de a cunoaste pe cineva.
P.S. : By the way, as vrea si eu sa stiu cum isi da seama Bogdana “Who you have had sex with” si “Who you want to have sex with” uitandu-se pe pagina cuiva de Facebook. La barbati recunosc, e simplu raspunsul (cu toata lumea 
).
UPDATE:
Cititi si ce scrie Refresh (lui Costin se pare ca i-a placut prezentarea Bogdanei) si Succes Dublu (Adrian prezinta o alta perspectiva).
(1) “Gosling began his experiment by doing a personality workup on eighty college students. For this, he used what is called the Big Five Inventory, a highly respected, multi-item questionnaire that measures people across five dimensions. When our friends rank us on the Big Five, Gosling wanted to know, how closely do they come to the truth?
The answer is, not surprisingly, that our friends can describe us fairly accurately. They have a thick slice of
experience with us, and that translates to a real sense of who we are. Then Gosling repeated the process, but this
time he didn’t call on close friends. He used total strangers who had never even met the students they were
judging. All they saw were their dorm rooms. He gave his raters clipboards and told them they had fifteen
minutes to look around and answer a series of very basic questions about the occupant of the room: On a scale
of 1 to 5, does the inhabitant of this room seem to be the kind of person who is talkative?”
(2)”Each man would have, she said, six minutes of conversation with each woman. The women would sit for the duration of the evening against the wall on the long, low couches that ringed the room, and the men would rotate from woman to woman, moving to the next woman whenever Kailynn rang a bell, signaling that the six minutes were over. The daters were all given a badge, a number, and a short form to complete, with the instruction that if they liked someone after six minutes, they should check the box next to his or her number.
“You know, girls are really smart,” Jon, a medical student in a blue suit, said at the end of the evening. “They know in the first minute, Do I like this guy, can I take him home to my parents, or is he just a wham-bam kind of jerk?” Jon is quite right, except it isn’t just girls who are smart. When it comes to thin-slicing potential dates, pretty much everyone is smart.”
Comments
Trackbacks