PseudorealityPrevails

Old-Skool Social Networking

Ham radio and CB radio were both early forms of "social networking" technology.  In both cases the idea that "we" could talk to "each other," without mediation by the powers-that-be, was inclusive and exciting.  But despite a vibrant subculture for each, neither caught on in the larger population to the extent that Facebook and Twitter have.

I think Ham and CB were held back by their reliance on speaking rather than writing: you talk, and are listened to, now, in the present.  And while immediacy brings more reality to a connection, it also carries with it a lot of pressure.  What if you don't have something to say right this minute?  What if you don't feel clever, or if you speak slowly, or struggle with getting your thoughts in order?  Too bad, time's up!  So the reaction is to avoid it until you do have something to say.  But, since topics in the medium are often provoked by participation in the medium, non-participation cuts you off from the flow of the space. And then avoidance becomes the default and the radio is parked, unused, on top of the fridge or down in the basement.

Current forms of social networking are asynchronous and written, and I think this is key to their success.  Facebook, Twitter, texting and other SN technologies are all typing.  They are posted when you are satisfied with your phrasing, and they are read by others at their leisure, some time later. Performance anxiety is lessened enough by this so that people find all sorts of things to say, and even clever ways to say them.  And the more they participate, the more they have to talk about, as the conversations gain momentum.  The asynchronous buffer is so powerful that people even shrink it to so-called "real-time," typed chats.  But significantly these are still typed, and they are still asynchronous, even if fast; they're not really real-time in the sense that spoken conversation is.  You may have an exchange with others where the responses are separated by only a few seconds; you may go right up to the real event horizon, but you don't cross the written boundary.

Until you decide to stop social networking for the moment and attempt to be actually social.  But that's a different technology entirely.

Superstructing

I've been playing/reading superstructgame.org, Jane McGonigal's latest 'alternate reality' game.  The idea is that it's 2019, and major threats are destabilizing civilization (disease, refugees, political unrest, violence, environmental collapse) and their combined effect will result in the extinction of humans in 40 years.  Point of the game - figure out how to not go extinct, by coming up with ideas to fight these threats and build new sustainable infrastructures. 

This past week I realized the game ends Monday (it's only 6 weeks long), and I'd better start posting (I always think I have about twice the time I actually do, 6 weeks = 3 months in my mind).  So I created a blog with my futuristic ideas with pics and links, and also references to what existing structures might be extended into future-crisis-solving ones, and I was ready to start copying things into the text field forms that comprise half the game UI (the other half being endless scrolling lists) and start linking other superstruct ideas with each other to make mega-ones - when I paused.

World without bees.  World without oil.  World without humans.  World without - ideas?  Because Superstruct is nothing if not an idea aggregator.  The unbelievably lengthy pages and pages and pages of description and instructions full of new kewl buzzwords (mobbability!  stigmergy!  mesh2mesh identity!) seem a little too slick, predesigned to be conference-friendly, lacking only some concrete examples to undergird their lovely theoretical flow. 

There's basically no game UI.  Game instructions are way too lengthy, game-play itself just text-field forms, game-display is text-heavy narrow-width scrolling columns of text and links, game-function shows a lack of basic AJAX-y type features like a dynamic ratings system, Google map modal story mashups, integrated photo galleries.  These features, or lack thereof, combine to make the whole experience feel less like a game than a wiki. 

What there is, discoverable after considerable time spent wading through the text and posts, are some interesting ideas.  And some nice stories.  And a few photos and videos as well.  But it's not a game,it's an aggregator with a theme. 

And suddenly I became not that thrilled with the prospect of posting my ideas to an aggregator.  Because after the game is over, someone is going to aggregate them.  Someone is going to draw larger conclusions.  Someone is going to make predictions for the future.  And then someone is going to present this at conferences. 

And that someone is not going to be me. 

But then I thought - why not?  Maybe that someone could be me if I stopped giving my ideas away, stopped undervaluing them, and started packaging them.  With 10 years of design work under my belt, I think I could come up with a reasonable package.  So I decided not to post to the text field forms, after all. 

I suppose in a way this game has been a good experience for me!  Just not in the way the game designer intended.  But she has aggregated enough ideas that she should be able to come up with a new game, eventually.  Maybe Peter Gabriel can help.