Module #3 Part A Post - Social Media Matters

Social Media Matters

I loved the three videos for this week’s assignment.  The "so what" of this literature demonstrates that social media matters.  The video posted regarding the development and use of social media was a great introduction.  I thought the statistics on length of time for a source of information to reach 50 million users very interesting, as it ranged from 38 years for radio to Facebook gaining 200 million users in under a year (Social Media Revolution, 2010).  Most of the technologies noted in the clip were programs I was familiar with and use regularly.  Chris Anderson had a great discussion about technology allowing to people communicate through discussion and storytelling as was done before the printing press was developed (Anderson, 2010).  This was very refreshing to hear in the context of human society and technology.  Usually there are references to apathetic people only interested in easy entertainment- Mr. Anderson brought to light how technology spurs great innovation, creation, and communication- used the term crowd accelerated innovation, “the art of spreading ideas” (Anderson, 2010).  He also did not argue that people looking at images was damaging.  The positive aspects of this technological tool give great hope for how public agencies can share information and hopefully improve the practice of governance.  An example of this from my own work experience is the website Arizona Memory Project http://azmemory.lib.us.  On this site many government and cultural documents, including images are available to the public for free.  A new addition to the website is historic documents donated to the state library regarding the shootings at the OK Corral.  This allows for a dynamic view of government documents and history.   My favorite video was Jamie Heywood’s (2009) discussion of his social media site linking patient information.  The part that really struck me was when the results of polling on the site showed the same information as a clinical trial, only generated much faster than the trial itself could be concluded (Heywood, 2009).  Not only can sites like this serve as sources of emotional support and information for sick people, but research can be conducted with the data provided by the users.  I would argue that a site like this likely has less falsification than other sources of research since users are all in similar situations and would not gain anything through withholding information, there are no tests being conducted, there is nothing to gain but support and information.  This has many linkages for the first module’s discussion of government technology and increased transparency.  Not only can information be posted, but it can be formatted in ways that can be understood by the general populous.  If used correctly, technology can be an amazing resource and tool for increasing public comprehension and participation in government.

I signed up for World of Warcraft and had a great time exploring the world.  I was interested in World of Warcraft since many people I am acquainted with play and are very passionate about it.  It would be a great tool to harness the passion players have for the game and use it in public administration, though this may be more applicable for Second Life since WOW is so grounded in fantasy.  I enjoyed creating my avatar and could see how people can choose to identify themselves, from strengths and weapons to appearance.  I did not get to interact with other players as much as I would have liked during my time in the WOW universe- this may have been due to the gaming option I chose.  However, I did see other players completing the same task I was completing.  I have heard that in some areas of the game there are cities where commerce can take place, and battles occur in other areas of the game.  I kept thinking about dispute resolution, public participation, and commerce when using virtual worlds.  Clearly there is a group of individuals who thrive in virtual reality this could be an opportunity to take programs into the universe as an additional access point.  It would also be a great place to search for new ideas to difficult problems- if people feel powerful when acting through an avatar, they may be more willing to share innovative ideas that would be difficult in the context of the real world.

I also looked up activities on meetup.com.  it was great to see the range of activities available all in a local area.  I tend to do recreational activities during my free time and located a night hike in the South Mountain recreational activity.  Social media can connect people over the web and also in real life.  This is an example of social media translating to real connections and relationships among people.  Government agencies can use social media groups to link local, state and federal government activities to the attention of people living in the area.  The additional access points to government are helpful- the more access citizens can have for government increases the possibility of learning and participating.

Review of Four Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System

I found the video Four Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System by Phillip K. Howard fascinating for its intersections with Lessig’s (2006) work Code 2.0.  The discussion of the American legal system is to understand a change in societal architecture.  Lessig notes regarding law and society, “In each example, an architecture is changed so as to realize different behavior…Law can change social norms as well…” (Lessig, 2006, 129).  Howard (2010) concurs with this thesis through his discussion of American law, especially in the way that both societal structures and individual outlooks have shifted, “Our culture has changed.  People no longer feel free to act on their best judgment” (4:20).  He notes that the current legal system reflects the judgment of hindsight bias, when in actuality it may not be possible to correctly identify the reasons for actions taken or alternatives when run in real time without perfect knowledge. Individuals tend to act defensively due to the presence of lawsuits; this leads to paralysis in society.   This brings to mind the figure in Lessig (2006) where the law element skews the market, norms and architecture of society, thereby changing a citizen’s comprehension of the surrounding world and how to react and interact in society.  Howard said that to fix the legal system there must be trust.  “If you make people self conscious about their judgments, studies show they will make worse judgments” (Howard, 2010, 12:15).

The combination of Howard and Lessig’s discussion was very powerful.  A question of mine through the course of my studies has been how to actually make changes when it is clear the existing structure is not working.  Some may claim that society “is the way it is” and that making large structural changes is too difficult.  I concur that change is extremely difficult, especially when people are comfortable with current operations.  However, I personally have a difficult time accepting this perspective.  To believe that society cannot change and adapt, that any big changes will ruin the country, feels like giving up.  I appreciated Howard’s prescription for change in that he tried to identify changes in structure that may improve the legal system, therefore improving American society. 

Analysis of Generosity is Contagious, Study Shows-But Selfishness is Too Article

Analysis of Generosity is Contagious, Study Shows-But Selfishness is Too Article

The article Generosity is Contagious, Study Shows-But Selfishness is Too by Andrew Moseman (2010) discusses that James Fowler and Nicholas Christakis ran an experiment to see how individuals react in a game simulation.  The researchers were interested to see how individuals reacted when given a choice between community contributions.  In the game simulation, participants were given credits and could contribute to a communal pot or not; there were several rounds included in the study.  If all participated then everyone would end with more credits; however participants were unaware of the amount contributed by others in the group.  The study found that both generosity and selfishness in the game scenario had a ripple effect throughout the study; participants tended to continue the behavior they experienced in a previous round of the game.

Some of the values tested in this experiment were the sense of shared community versus individual wellbeing or preservation.  This is also combined with the presence of imperfect information.  It was interesting to see that the effect of an individual’s action could not have an impact during the current round of play, but rather in subsequent rounds with new group members.  I feel that this simulation reflects Lessig’s (2006) constructs of norms and the market.  Specifically, I would state that the game tests norms which affect market behavior.  Lessig (2006) said of norms, “… (norms are) a set of understandings constrain behavior” (124).  In the simulation, participants reacted to what they observed from others during a simulation in subsequent interactions.  If generosity was the value demonstrated in a given round, the study found that that train tended to be used in other rounds, the same for selfish interactions.  This was done in the sphere of a market setting where resources existed as credits and individuals could choose to operate on their own or to invest in the community pot.  Lessig (2006) discusses how markets can be constrained- in this example he refers to law, but social norms can similarly alter market choices, especially in a limited market simulation as described, “The law uses taxes to increase the market’s constraint on others.  We tax cigarettes in part to reduce their consumption, but we subsidize tobacco production to increase its supply.” (127). The driving motivator in the simulation is personal wellbeing and reaction to the “community” of the game simulation group.

There are always changes of behavior when conducting social experiments since participants are aware their behavior is under scrutiny.  This knowledge in itself modifies behavior.  People are more likely to do what they think the researcher is looking for, even if they do not know what that is.  However, there were strengths in their research structure.  Participants could only increase their credits when everyone participated yet this information was not given to them, nor was the actions of their group members.  This reflects the world well; individuals can only be responsible for themselves at the end of the day.  Rather that come up with a completely different scenario, I would like to add an additional component.  I would be interested to see if the game simulation outcome would be altered if the location was put on the internet so that participants would not have to leave their homes or places of work.  A face to face interaction may have a differing impact on a participant than an individual on the web.  This is important because for the most part individuals do not have to leave their comfortable environment in real world interactions.  However, the sense of community in a web based environment may not change the way people can be influenced the choice of others.  An additional component to the simulation could be a small tax at the beginning of each iteration- let’s say 2 credits.  This would include the law component of Lessig’s construct.  It also may impact how generous individuals are willing to be.  Lessig (2006) discussed how the presence of a law can impact the norms of participating individuals; a great example was how liberals and conservatives perceive and react to sex education in public schools (129).  If a mandatory contribution was included, there may be more polarization than in the simulation where any contribution was completely optional.

The great part about this particular article was that it discussed an experiment rather than an actual action taken, as with some of the other experiments.  This changes the intent of alterations- the study looks to observe phenomena as opposed to observing the actual outcome of a public program or policy.  This study can be used as background for other researchers when designing their own experiments of individual choices in a community setting.  Lessig’s discussion of the constraints on individuals would be helpful for the validity of this study.  He argues that four constraints simultaneously have an impact on an individual’s outcome; architecture, market, law and norms (123).  For the study to match the real world, elements the four constraints need to be included.  I feel that my addition of the mandatory contribution, Lessig’s law component, would increase the external validity of the study since especially in America taxes are a very real part of a citizen’s interaction with the government, which can have drastic changes on how generous they choose to be with other individuals or community causes.