Am I the only one who isn't feeling Google+ ... ?

[blooz]

I am, of course, a regular at this forum and i also have a facebook account.
I'm not a big "friend" collector, 64 at last count, and that includes Bomb magazine and The Metropolitan Museum of Art—we're real close ;-\

While there are a few people among those facebook friends whose posts i look forward to, I spend more time looking at this forum. It's easy to find commonality with friends, however tenuous the connection, but there is something a little special, I find, about finding a community among people who are otherwise strangers.
It's probably a matter of perception and habit. We're used to our friends, we've already shared and to some extent grown with each other, and so we may take the closeness we share a little for granted. But in this forum, finding that strangers can agree with us, give us helpful advice, share problems and commiserate with our own, can add to our pleasure and even self esteem. We've made new friends and the level of our attractiveness or position or wealth does not come in to it. Even when we are disagreed with or excoriated for something we posted—hey we were noticed by other people, other people outside the usual circle of acquaintances.

Okay i rambled enough. There's a lot more could be said about this if anyone has the energy.

[Black]

I don't think we're going to learn PeteB's real objection to social networking sites, but it sure is fun to try :-)

[M A V I C]

PeterB wrote:
G+ seems to be feeding into the rampant narcissism that FB and twitter already fuel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwnJ5Bl4kLI&feature=player_embedded ... watching that clip, I thought to myself: just what we need in our society ... more "followers", fewer leaders (the guy who admits that he lacks internal confidence, that really scared me, and overall, I was struck by these people sounding very narcissistic and really self-involved)

I hadn't seen that video before so when I started watching it I was expecting to see something that aligned with what you said... but I didn't see the alignment at all.

I think the groups in G+ are great. Facebook has filters but they're not very strong. IMHO, they have absolutely nothing to do with anything you're referring to. If anything, they're exactly the opposite.

For example, a friend of mine mentioned to me that it really bugs him when a mutual friend's wife talks about menstruating. Apparently she does this quite often, and he says it's really awkward for him. If she would just post that stuff to her female friends that want to discuss that type off stuff, it would all be a lot less awkward.

Or another example is techie stuff. I've got a lot of friends that are techies, and a lot that aren't. Those who aren't, I don't want them to have to sift through the stuff I say that they can't understand..

How are either of those examples narcissistic? How is being able to more actively control who you say what to when you're doing so in their interest, at all narcissistic?

The example about the guy who "lacks internal confidence" scary to you? First I'd say take a note of how you worded it vs what he actually said. There's a HUGE difference. He didn't say what you think he said. He said there are people who are "driven by... kinda internal self confidence that let's them see their path from here to there." Yeah, there are people like that, Steve Jobs is probably one of them. He says he's not that guy. In context, what he's saying is he's not a loner, he likes community. Great for him and that's nothing to find scary.

There are people who can do everything themselves and do. For them social networks aren't something that's important. What the video is trying to say is, if you're not a loner, then this is a place for you.

And how is wanting to be part of a community "self-involed" - wouldn't the guy that's driven by internal-self confidence that doesn't need community... wouldn't that guy be more "self-involved"?

Again, I think you have it backwards.

dmann, I think there's a significant difference between an anonymous forum, and being part of a true community (which I think MRF is!); and intentionally putting yourself out there on display, and saying "I only want to associate with some people and not others", and "it's all about me, me, me".

Ironically, in certain ways, I think MRF is far more of a community than is anything on FB or twitter. I've seen outpourings of concern here (example, Grateful's recent post) that, in general, I don't see elsewhere. And this coming from (mostly) complete strangers, whereas people on FB or twitter are usually "friends".

This says a lot. I think if:
1) Your friends on FB are intentionally putting

[PeterB]

M A V I C, without repudiating every single point in your post, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this-- we see the nature of social networks, and probably even of social interactions, very differently.

I will say that the one guy in the video who makes the comment of that he's not "driven by... kinda internal self confidence that let's them see their path from here to there" ... I think that what he described himself not being, is something we should all be aspiring to. There's nothing wrong with wanting to feel/be a part of a community, but there's also something to be said for being able to stand on one's own, and having the self-confidence to do so. (That's why I found it scary.) I do NOT interpret what he said as meaning, "this is for you if you're not a loner", I think that watching that video, you take from it what you will. I obviously took it differently than you did.

[mrbigstuff]

blooz wrote:

While there are a few people among those facebook friends whose posts i look forward to, I spend more time looking at this forum. It's easy to find commonality with friends, however tenuous the connection, but there is something a little special, I find, about finding a community among people who are otherwise strangers.
It's probably a matter of perception and habit. We're used to our friends, we've already shared and to some extent grown with each other, and so we may take the closeness we share a little for granted. But in this forum, finding that strangers can agree with us, give us helpful advice, share problems and commiserate with our own, can add to our pleasure and even self esteem. We've made new friends and the level of our attractiveness or position or wealth does not come in to it. Even when we are disagreed with or excoriated for something we posted—hey we were noticed by other people, other people outside the usual circle of acquaintances.

I logged in just to say that someone should enshrine the above paragraph for future reference in the MRF time capsule. Thanks, blooz, for elucidating what some (many) of us feel about the MRF forums and why we use and peruse them.

[wurm]

And I just decided to pop in to agree with mrbigstuff, in that I believe blooz pretty much nailed it.

One other thing I find that makes me really like (and use) this place and not use Facebook very much, is the anonymity of MRF. Because I have friends and business acquaintances (and potential clients) who frequent Facebook, I'm much more concerned about having a reason to post anything there. I fear they might have the same reaction I do to half the stuff I read there. That is, who cares? Here, I don't mind looking like an idiot or asking a dumb question. At FB, there might be the illusion of a good reputation I might have to protect.

In a nutshell (at least for me), at MRF the important thing is what is being discussed. At Facebook, the important thing is who is discussing.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, and maybe I just have to give FB more of a chance.

Or not.

[Lux Interior]

PeterB wrote: "I only want to associate with some people and not others"

Don't we do that IRL, too?

PeterB wrote: "it's all about me, me, me"

Well, isn't it?

[haikuman]

Wurm said """Or not."""

:repost:

[Bernie]

I don't do Facebook. I have some friends that do. Google + has given my friends an option other than "post a message at my daughters Facebook".
Mac Resource is my barometer for what is important in my "cyber world". I may not post to the more emotionally charged posts, but I read them and feel the pain.

Whether we be city folk or county folk, east coast or west, left wing or right, we have found our way here and stayed. That is our commonality. "Of All The Gin Joints In All The World," we are here. We hang it out, air it out, and get to share a dimension that others never see in us. Unlike a Facebook or Google + I am a lot more guarded with whom I invite here.

[M A V I C]

PeterB wrote: I will say that the one guy in the video who makes the comment of that he's not "driven by... kinda internal self confidence that let's them see their path from here to there" ... I think that what he described himself not being, is something we should all be aspiring to.

First off, you really don't have enough information about the person to be making an accurate judgement on the person. He could very well be thinking of people like Steve Jobs and such, and think that for him to be successful he needs others around him. And he may not even be aware that Steve has a great support team.

Name one person who was driven by such a strong internal self confidence that they never had to rely on someone else? There isn't one. Why should we aspire to be someone who, IMHO, it isn't even possible to be?

The only thing close to that would be (a) "god"... so your goal is that we should each be our own gods? What's more narcissistic than that?

there's also something to be said for being able to stand on one's own, and having the self-confidence to do so. (That's why I found it scary.)

That's not what the guy said. He didn't say he couldn't stand on his own.

I do NOT interpret what he said as meaning, "this is for you if you're not a loner", I think that watching that video, you take from it what you will. I obviously took it differently than you did.

And just as he didn't say that he couldn't stand on his own, he didn't say he was a loaner either. (And I know I'm the one that used that word to contrast what you were saying.) It's a marketing video. Each word in there is scripted to convey exactly what the creators wanted to convey. So I look at it from that perspective. Then I ask myself, "who do social networks not work for?" What are you using to provide your context for that statement? It sounds like you're just using your dislike for social networks, and thus you can't see anything without that bias.