I've been checking out his work - inspired me to do some writing yesterday----------
We create culture - Facebook collects it
Facebook's social context ads collect data on our likes and scans our content for keywords. This information is used to generate the ads on the right hand side of the facebook page. Google has been showing us context sensitive ads for many years now.
The difference in Facebook is, that your context sensitive ads are being shown to your network with the intention of generating activity within your social group. Along with the ad, are the names of your friends who have clicked the like button or generated some sort of social action, demonstrating an engagement with the item being promoted. The Facebook equivalent of word of mouth advertising.
Social Networks are more valuable when there is activity along the nodes. Activity indicates emotional resonance, you have been moved to take some action. It is like participating in a conversation. If you are not activley engaged you will listen quietly, when something resonates with you, you will interject with a comment or ask a question.
Knowing what is able to trigger activity in a social network is valuable.
A friend connection indicates you have a relationship. The nature of that relationship can be determined by the information you have provided. The people in your network may be colleages, school chums or family. The aggregate of what you and your friends value along with all the other information you have shared paints a picture of your shared culture.
What facebook is collecting is our values. What do we value enough to like, follow a link, post on a wall or mention in our status messages. The information can be used to track the changes in our cultural value systems. As our culture changes so does our behavior. According to Peter Kruse, a German professor and psychologist, there is a time lag between our culture as expressed by our values and our behavior. So if my friends and I impulsively agree that an iced mocha looks yummy. We are likely to follow up with a purchase someday.
We know that social networks can have powerful effect. Valdis Krebs' case studies explore the role of our social networks in influencing smoking cessation, obesity and divorce. He has shown that Social Network Analysis can uncloak the connections in the 911 terrorist plot and analyze the relationship dynamics of large companies.
We create culture. Facebook collects it.
Imagine what we could do with it.
video doesn't embed in moodle - here's the link
Partial notes from the video:
The most interesting part of reducing complexity is culture. It is not the individual brain but it is already the sum of the individual brains. When I`m looking at the individual brain. I`m talking more or less abot the limbic system...
All these values ... are in the value system of the limbic system. This is absolutely unconscious more or less and gives me the ability to decide without rational analysis. I am in a very complex situation, I am doing something and I`m doing this on the basis of all the intuitive knowledge of my own life...
The cultural value system is stabilizing the decision making process, not of one person but of groups of persons. This is what the culture is all about. Culture has the task to stabilizing people enough to be able to interact, to be able to cooperate...
There are these underlying streams of value systems that are fare more stable. So when I'm ready to measure the changing value system in the culture. I'm two or three years ahead of behavior. If you can get access to this data you can reduce complexity in the sense of anticipation not just the moment you are looking at...
Measuring the dynamics of the value system of groups. Culture is nothing more than a word for this. So when we are sharing value systems - we are sharing the culture.We are able to understand each other.
"Kruse himself has not done much with the Web, on whose behalf he speaks. His software is not a web software, since 2002 he switched on the spot his networks made up of 500 laptops.
His network-resonance-ideas he projects to the Web only to retrieve them, where there remain unchanged. He is not a "resident": he lets videos be published and since one year and he has a Twitter account, witch he uses only for aphorisms and link recommendations. He follows the most important Enterprise 2.0-twitter, but I've never seen a trace of the entire extended enterprise 2.0-talk found on him.
It is not so much the what, it's the how. Above all else, Kruse is a brilliant orator. He is The Voice. What makes him so charismatic?
- He uses the cliché of "unconventional white-haired genius", which goes back to the tongue displaying Einstein in the 1950s. - He doubted as little in their own world view as any megachurch evangelist. He talks at any time ready for printing and also in the conversational tone. He is completely safe, but it never sounds papers or professorial. - He has never been vain about pushy way. He poses not, he is simply this: born a hog. This perfect blend of ego and understatement is very rare and impressive. He is enthusiastic. He means everything seriously, doubts what he says. - And he never says things uncomfortable.
Kruse sounds like the Web, such as the collective voice of the demanding part of the blogosphere. He needs above all openness, the withdrawal of conventional marketing, the real shift in thinking and communicating the Web. If he does, I'm happy to be once a guest in the Church of Kruse. As long as he does not do that, he is a ventriloquist."
I've read the article in english - the google translation is reasonably understandable.
I hadn't come across Kruse before, his video gave me a new way of looking what our online contributions say about us. Kruse is charismatic, a communicator. He explains complex ideas simply. I appreciate that.
In the blog post Martin Lindner characterizes Kruse's events as a dog and pony show for the uninformed. Using phrases like the `Church of Kruse' and `Professor Silver Tongue`. He calls Kruse a brilliant performer but Linder is an aspiring politico and media star in his own right.
Name calling and chest puffing aside, Linder's main argument is that Kruse may have an outdated or overly simplistic view of the limbic system. I wouldn't know. I appreciate him pointing that out.
Since he doesn't elaborate, I look to wikipedia, which for my purposes and despite it's faults, does indeed mention that our generally accepted ideas of the limbic system are evolving.
This thread probably belongs in the CCK11 course as it exemplifies, the challenge I have as an individual to sift through information for the purpose of drawing a reasonably accurate and useful conclusion. Much better accomplished I think, with polite suggestions and thoughtful replies.
Once again thanks for providing an alternative view.