You really should take a close look into his categorized #selfies : excellent collection and excellent statement. Excerpt.
"First of all: In order to be narcissistic, a selfie has to be an individual expression, a glorification of the ego. But as this website shows, selfies are as individualistic as slices of bread: they all look the same. The persons on the selfies are different, but instead of trying to enhance their individual qualities, they try to blend in. And blending in is not a narcissistic quality, on the contrary."
The third installment of a series of unfortunate selfies has arrived.
Pas très joyeux, cette nouvelle mode... Mais la collection de ces selfies avec les sans abris pourraient nous aider à dévoiler pourquoi les gens font certaines choses bizarres.
"One of my favorite things about social media is seeing so many people, without knowledge of each other, do or say the exact same thing. It's like a gigantic social experiment in odds-making—why do some ideas become so common? And I think it's even more fascinating when all these people have the same highly questionable idea. Selfies are just a perfect expression of our basest Internet urges: They can be meant seriously or a joke, they're both communicative and totally self-centered, are both meant to be private and public, and prominently feature the person taking the action.
So I gather these because I think it's useful to look at them as a group and wonder: Why is this happening over and over?
My stance? I guess I don’t really have one stance, because to me selfies are so varied, and serve so many purposes for so many different people, that it would be like saying what my stance on writing would be. Well, maybe not writing, but you get my point?
As a researcher, I’m so much more interested in all the values which people associate with selfies, and photography generally, than the images themselves. Like the way they make people so angry – I find that *fascinating*.
But if you ask me, people can photograph themselves however they like, selfies or no!
Replicating the small world of Stanley Milgram. Can you reach anyone through a chain of six people.
Interesting point of view on Stanley Milgram's study on a Small World Theory. Excerpt.
"There is also a difference between what we mean by a small-world experience and what mathematicians mean. We are not talking about the chances of connection between two people taken at random. We are talking about the chances of meeting a person who knows someone from our past. Over a lifetime, these chances are high, especially for educated people who travel in similar networks.
And when an especially unlikely connection occurs, the world does feel small, whether or not the scientific evidence agrees."
I first met Nilofer at a conference where she knocked me over with her observations about the changing world of business. And since then I have returned to her writings at the Harvard Business Review and other publications as a source of new ideas.
Nothing really new here, but an interesting interview, juxtaposing the current/new ideas about the future of work. A must read. Excerpt.
"As “work” is increasingly freed from “a job”, you need to build connections and community based on interests, capabilities, and of course your passions and NOT on a view to get to “the top”. The top of some big behemoth organization is not the only way to power; increasingly, power is a function of how you know to get things done."
In statistics, sampling bias is a bias in which a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others. It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected. If this is not accounted for, results can be erroneously attributed to the phenomenon under study rather than to the method of sampling.
Medical sources sometimes refer to sampling bias as ascertainment bias. Ascertainment bias has basically the same definition, but is still sometimes classified as a separate type of bias.
Sampling bias is mostly classified as a subtype of selection bias, sometimes specifically termed sample selection bias, but some classify it as a separate type of bias. A distinction, albeit not universally accepted, of sampling bias is that it undermines the external validity of a test (the ability of its results to be generalized to the rest of the population), while selection bias mainly addresses internal validity for differences or similarities found in the sample at hand. In this sense, errors occurring in the process of gathering the sample or cohort cause sampling bias, while errors in any process thereafter cause selection bias.
By Joachim Vogt Isaksen Do you sometimes experience that the mere presence of other people leads to feelings of discomfort and tension? When not knowing exactly what other people think of you it may lead to self-doubt and feelings of insecurity. According to the American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), the degree of personal insecurity…
Classical sociological theories. Excerpt.
"Cooley´s concept of the looking glass self, states that a person’s self grows out of a person´s social interactions with others. The view of ourselves comes from the contemplation of personal qualities and impressions of how others perceive us. Actually, how we see ourselves does not come from who we really are, but rather from how we believe others see us."
"Criticisms of body shape, of gender performance and of ‘oversharing’ dominate in this environment, where notions of propriety are enacted not just on the targets of assessment, but also on the viewer. I call this multi-directional and dissipated form of discipline The Carceral Net: a term I have borrowed from Michel Foucault (Discipline and Punish: 297).My PhD research considers the potential for enacting disciplinary discourses through photography on social media. Such discourses seek to regulate subjects as they enter the public sphere of the In...
"Criticisms of body shape, of gender performance and of ‘oversharing’ dominate in this environment, where notions of propriety are enacted not just on the targets of assessment, but also on the viewer. I call this multi-directional and dissipated form of discipline The Carceral Net: a term I have borrowed from Michel Foucault (Discipline and Punish: 297)."
Interesting panel discussion, and hopefully there will be a transcript to be found somewhere... For the moment, just a citation.
"Philosophers have often linked personal identity to memory: it is suggested that we continue to be the same person as long as our memory with past events persist. But are memories unchanging, or even objective accounts of our experience that are stored in a glass bell? Or can memories be curated to fit a desirable image of the self?"
Erving Goffman, a revered 20th century Canadian sociologist, is widely known for his capacity to unmask the comedic aspects of everyday life.
Focusing for a while already on the concept of online authenticity and authenticity in tourism, I stumbled upon the writings of Erving Goffman. His book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life has been reviewed in this article. If you are interested in the topic, read it. Excerpt.
"In this article, Erving Goffman tries to answer the question of "Why do we perform?" Are we expected to perform? Do we perform to be accepted into society? Do we not realize it, or is performing just embedded into our everyday life? My impression is that Goffman is right on, performing is an unavoidable side effect of society existing. Fronts are created for us by a stereotype, which are in turn created by society. In order for an individual live they must typically be involved in a society. Ultimately, to bring this topic to a basic level, performing is required to live in a society with others."
Qui n'a jamais croisé ce célèbre concept des 6 degrés de séparation, théorisant le fait qu'à l'heure de la mondialisation, de ses réseaux et interconnexions, il n'y aurait au maximum que cinq intermédiaires entre nous et n'importe qui dans le monde ? Et bien, avec Facebook, ce nombre a été presque divisé par deux : c'est ce qu'annoncent des chercheurs Taïwanais relayés par Fast Co.Exist. Une illustration concrète de la désintermédiation de la société par l'effet des outils numériques.
There are four measures of centrality that are widely used in network analysis: degree centrality, betweenness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality. For a review as well as generalizations to weighted networks, see Opsahl et al. (2010).
Historically first and conceptually simplest is degree centrality, which is defined as the number of links incident upon a node (i.e., the number of ties that a node has). The degree can be interpreted in terms of the immediate risk of a node for catching whatever is flowing through the network (such as a virus, or some information). In the case of a directed network (where ties have direction), we usually define two separate measures of degree centrality, namely indegree and outdegree. Accordingly, indegree is a count of the number of ties directed to the node and outdegree is the number of ties that the node directs to others. When ties are associated to some positive aspects such as friendship or collaboration, indegree is often interpreted as a form of popularity, and outdegree as gregariousness.
The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average. It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with greater numbers of friends have an increased likelihood of being observed among one's own friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.
The same observation can be applied more generally to social networks defined by other relations than friendship: for instance, most people's sexual partners have (on the average) a greater number of sexual partners than they have.