The Social Network

January 18th, 1848

~ The Social Network might just be just a movie.

Let’s look at the terms – Networking, Social Networking (also note “social capital”), the anti-social network*, the social contract – just for starters.

Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated.

Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power.

Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.[2]

Professionals who wish to leverage their presentation skills with the urgency of physically being present attend general and exclusive events. Many professionals tend to prefer face-to-face networking over online based networking because the potential for higher quality relationships are possible. Many individuals also prefer face-to-face because people tend to prefer actually knowing and meeting who they intend to do business with.

Face to face business networking is often facilitated by referral networking clubs.

Before online networking, there was and has always been, networking face-to-face. “Schmoozing” or “rubbing elbows” are expressions used among business professionals for introducing and meeting one another, and establishing rapport.

*Not predicated on “dislike”, Snubster “shared hates”, Ruduzu “unhappy people”.

From the above one can draw a distinction between Social Networking (whether or not face-to-face or on-line) and criticism of the individual components (whether they be groups, organizations, or nodes) of the base-line civil society.

Criticism is the judgement of the goods and faults of the work or actions of an individual or group by another (the critic). To criticize does not necessarily imply to find fault, but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of an objection against prejudice, or a disapproval.

Another meaning of criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature, social movements, film, arts, and similar objects and events. The goal of this type of criticism is to understand the work or event more thoroughly. Links to different types of criticism can be found at the bottom of this page.

Is criticism inherently anti-social?

A pause for a word about Obama.

In common English vernacular; anti-social is often used to describe those perceived to be excessively introverted, an incorrect though increasingly common usage. The correct term for an introverted person who is “not social” would be asocial.

Extroverts (also spelled extraverts[1]) tend to be gregarious, assertive, and interested in seeking out excitement.  Introverts, in contrast, tend to be more reserved, less outgoing, and less sociable.  They are not necessarily loners but they tend to be satisfied with having fewer friends.  Introversion does not describe social discomfort but rather social preference: an introvert may not be shy but may merely prefer less social activities.

Asociality is a symptom frequently observed in schizophrenia patients. It is characterised by an inability to ‘empathise‘, to feel intimacy with, or to form close relationships with others (Davidson & Neale 1994).

Asociality is not necessarily perceived as a totally negative trait by society, since expressing asociality has been used as a way to express independence of the mind from prevailing ideas (dissent). Expressing asociality can also be used as a form of humour to indicate an issue (e.g. used for pointing out the exaggerations of social network services (Kahney 2004)).

User profiles exist in contra-distinction to “users”.  Social structure, identity and networking is predicated upon the definition (or self-definition) of the user (the “natural person” of Hobbs, living in a “state of nature”).  But, what if one objects to Hobbs definition?  The person remains, but remains with just the name and not the Hobbsian profile.

It may therefore be seen that it is the profile that creates and defines the social contract and all the subdivisions possible in the social groupings that may be perceived as the noosphere of the social network.

For Teilhard, the noosphere emerges through and is constituted by the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.

This concept is an extension of Teilhard’s Law of Complexity/Consciousness, the law describing the nature of evolution in the universe. Teilhard argued the noosphere is growing towards an even greater integration and unification, culminating in the Omega Point, which he saw as the goal of history. The goal of history, then, is an apex of thought/consciousness.

Under this theory the (theoretical) location of the profile is progressively transferred from the “(web) site” to the collective consciousness of the people as a whole.  The manifestation (or perception) of connectedness is conditioned by a personal identity with an evolving (website enabled) manifest profile that is based on perceptions and not just facts (as traditional profiles are).

The Plan:

Perceptions (opinions regarding Noosphere reality, planetary mind-at-large) are focalized by a binary choice field of 20 questions in each of four fields (categories ranging from “bad” to “good”).  All 80 answers are tracked and arranged by greatest number of hits per choice to create a structured 20 statement list for each named entity – person, place, event.  There is no requirement that the named entity is “real” – fictional characters, fictional places, imaginary cities can co-exist with the real entities of space and time.

One begins (the perceptional experience) by entering the selected name into the database box (like the search box for Google).  If information exists the results come up.  If no information exists a screen comes up offering an opportunity to create a new field (node).  A “Yes” brings up the choice of the four fields.  The selection of a field brings up the appropriate 20 questions.

At the end of a “results” screen the question appears, “Would you like to add to the above perception information?”  A “Yes” brings up the choice of the four fields.  The selection of a field brings up the appropriate 20 questions.

Every named entry has an individual displayed counter.

Every new entry is identified by an indication of [ ] Person [ ] Place  [ ] Event and [ ] Real [ ] Imaginary.

Every new entry must have a link to an existing named reference (article, website, facebook, data-list type listing) on the web.  One purpose of this is to identify if the person named is a “public person”.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

Defamation is any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for “general damages” for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called “special damages.” “Libel per se” involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. (See: defamation, slander, libel per se, public figure)

Standards of good Journalism should govern answers.

The entire project/concept might be viewed as public image research polling – wherein everything and every one is considered part of the whole and so is part of the poll.

Among other possible rules:  “I certify and agree that no person, real or by law, has paid me (or granted to me any form of compensation) for the expression of the opinions that I have given.”  #2:  The owners of this website make no claim to the authorship or ownership of any information, opinion, or cumulative opinion that is not solidly based on fact.

The exercise of the [right to freedom of expression] carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by Act and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
public), or of public health or morals.

The four categories might be:

A Good PersonAn Average Jane or JoeNeeding SomethingJust basically a Jerk:

A Good Person is:

thoughtful, caring, likes animals, truthful, generous, avoids profanity, opposes greed, moderate, kind, loving, knowledgeable, has suffered hardship, patient, does not kill, honest,

An Average Jane or Joe is:

willing to compromise, loves ones country, votes in elections, follows orders, drinks wine or beer, obeys most laws, makes the right amount of money, knows at least one neighbor, pays taxes willingly, has credit cards, owns a car, can be found on social media,

The screen (actually searchable post) for the result might look like this:

Web site Screen #2 – varies according to (A) node identified, (B) latest user upload.
____________________________________________________________________

Britney Spears  (A) 

(B)
Thoughtful

Patient

Pays taxes

Drinks wine or beer

Can be found on social media

Is very rich

Likes animals

(total of top twenty (20) unnumbered answer perceptions)

This Noospace perception is based on a compilation of individual personal opinions for a Public figure who is believed to be alive based on further public information that exists here: Link:

The perceptions indicated above are based on the following number of hits:  Page Counter [counter]

Would you like to contribute your perceptions so that they can be included in the information expressed above?  [YES! GO.]. (C)

____________________________________________________________________

(A) The name entered is the node.

(B) When a “new post” is uploaded the new information is crunched, creating a new list.  This new list becomes the “edited” post.

(C) The [YES! GO.] button links the user to the write/edit screen (Screen #4).

Note:  There are 20 choices (40 perceptions) per field.  Therefore, there are a total of 80 choices and 160 perceptions for the Noospace as a whole.  The “perceptions” listed might essentially be regarded as feedback wherein a person can compare their perceptual reality with a larger data-base of perceptual reality.  The totality of diversity of the list is 160 x 20 = 3,200 due to the issue of ordering, i.e. any given perception can fall at any of the 20 points upon the list.  The 3,200 number should be sufficient variation to overcome the Google search engine propensity to weed out apparently repetitious information.  Assuming that this is so, even a modest popularity of the site should quickly elevate the latest perceptual update to page one of search hits.

Web site Screen #1 – This is the Website Entry Screen – one enters a name in the [Search] box and (A) an existing node comes up (a sample is Screen #2), (B) a screen (Screen #3) comes up offering the user the opportunity of creating a new node.
____________________________________________________________________

Welcome to Noospace, the perception based website that offers a hint/glimpse to how people, places, events and things are seen. We have no idea if anything presented is the facts, these are perceptions (a compilation of personal opinions) – a perceptual reality if you will.

To begin, you enter a name.

          [Britney Spears]  (E) 

          [YES! SEARCH.]. (F)

If no name comes up, you may search again with a different name, initial, or spelling or you can create a new entry (we call it a node) by clicking here:

          [YES! CREATE.]. (G)

____________________________________________________________________

(E) The search engine box is empty, the user types in any name. 

(F) The [YES! SEARCH.] button links the user to the appropriate post in the existing posts database.

(G) The [YES! CREATE.] button links the user to the write/create screen (Screen #3).  The exact name entered (node) is automatically carried (posted / entered) on Screen #3 (to avoid creating a new post data search or unintentional overlap).

Web site Screen #3 – This is the Write/Create Screen – the user first selects from one of four fields, then (depending upon the field /”Quiz” selected) one completes a 20 binary choice selection process.
____________________________________________________________________

To create a new entry (we call it a node) for the person (H) indicated below:

          [Britney Spears]  (I) 

     first choose the general category of person that in your personal opinion they are:

[A Good Person]  [An Average Jane or Joe]  [Needing Something]  [Just basically a Jerk]

      [YES! ASK ME THINGS.]. (J)

____________________________________________________________________

(H) A separate list/quiz compilation for the different categories: Persons, Places, Events, and other Entities, might be necessary if not just useful.  The site can begin with just people. 

(I) The search engine box has the name brought forward from the previous screen. 

(J) The [YES! ASK ME THINGS.] button links the user to the appropriate 1-20 binary choice screens.

Web site Screen #3 – 1 to 20 – This is the Write/Create Screen – after the user selects from one of four fields, then (depending upon the field /”Quiz” selected) one completes a 20 binary choice selection process.
____________________________________________________________________

This is the Noospace “Quiz”, an opportunity to express your personal opinions about the person, place, or entity indicated below.

Please choose which perception seems to best fit your impression of:

          [Britney Spears]  (I)

[A Good Person]  – [An Average Jane or Joe]  [Needing Something]  – [Just basically a Jerk]

continuing from 1 to 20.

  [YES! DONE.] (J)
I hope my opinion really counts.

____________________________________________________________________

(I) The search engine box has the name brought forward from the previous screen. 

(J) The [YES! DONE.] button uploads the information to become a new post in the existing posts database.. 

This intellectual property concept was originally posted on January 18, 2011 and this update originated on January 19, 2011 at approximately 2:00 PM.