Reading Stephen Downes’ article today on Connective Knowledge I was struck by how strongly the following outline describing the distribution of knowledge across a network of connections reminded me of social proof:
Summary: Connective knowledge is both:
- knowledge OF networks in the world
- knowledge obtained BY networks
As I outlined earlier, Social Proof relies on the “awesome influence of the behavior of similar others” in a way that’s illustrated in this cartoon from Cialdini’s book Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion on page 120:
As shown above, knowledge is gained both of networks, and via networks, by way of the identification of the self as part of a group.
Here’s another example, by way of a conversation I overheard today at the campus coffee shop. In this shop the students choose the music which plays (loudly) over the stores PA. Today they were listening to Beirut with all of its horns, accordians, mandolins, etc. A girl behind the counter half-heartedly (but hopefully) remarked that it sounds like they are all getting ready to join the circus. The guy next to her says (a little breathlessly) “I know, isn’t it awesome!?”
There was a ton of information flowing in that little exchange. The girl was discovering a network of experience she wasn’t quite sure about, or at least was unfamiliar with. The social proof that appeared to be swaying her in the direction of acceptance was the existence of tacit and explicit endorsement by her peers around her. It was obvious that she was on the verge of endorsing the music herself, and therefore becoming privy to whatever knowledge was to be had by this new found connection. It was also obvious, from the detached standpoint I was in, that the music was instantly transformed by the endorsement of her peers. I could literally see the wheels click into place.
2 Comments
> As shown above, knowledge is gained both of networks, and via networks, by way of the identification of the self as part of a group.
No – belonging to a network is distinct from belonging to a group. Much more on this ahead in the course.
I’ll be curious why you see a distinction between groups and networks. Cory Doctorow talks about the change in “groups” that networked information affords us. The example he gives is a Flickr query he runs that searches for the keyword “decay”. Whenever someone tags a photo with that keyword he receives an update. The simple act of tagging an image “decay” sets up a network and grouping of people interested in some way in that topic. The way I see his point is that communities are subject to network effects, no need to actively join.
Post a Comment