I enjoyed the post and think it has some good observations. I laughed at this from one of the Geek Social Fallacies (GSF), "Friendship is Transitive": For anyone too young to remember it,...
I enjoyed the post and think it has some good observations. I laughed at this from one of the Geek Social Fallacies (GSF), "Friendship is Transitive":
Arguably, Friendster was designed by a GSF4 carrier.
For anyone too young to remember it, Friendster was an early social site that was probably coming close to its peak when the post was written. I don't recall it supporting lists or separation of groups of friends but that could be a false memory after reading this post.
I was also reminded of the term 'missing stair' while reading the whole post, but especially the first fallacy "Ostracizers are evil." Missing stair was coined about 9 years after this post was written and I think has existed probably for a lot of human history, especially in communities that are insular for one reason or another (according to Wikipedia 'missing stair' as a term came out of a BDSM/kink post in 2012).
And one last tidbit before I go meta-political, the author wrote an interesting reflection in 2005 on the reaction to this list being shared so widely and what it means to write for the Internet (in 2003, years before theFacebook would let you share a link to your parents accounts, because they couldn't make one until 2006).
General political comments below in case you'd rather just skip that.
I was recently asked by a family member how someone could support a political candidate on the assumption that the candidate was a poor fit for that someone's situation. Reading this quote resonated with me as a modern General Social Fallacy that is played out in (American anyway) politics:
Social fallacies are particularly insidious because they tend to be exaggerated versions of notions that are themselves entirely reasonable and unobjectionable.
I think this concept is played out with the starting points of many issues important to one side or the other becoming distorted in a 2 party system via winner-take-all/Duverger's Law. The adoption of a pathological, extreme, or at least unnuanced viewpoint becomes a rallying cry, often for both the proponents and opponents of a policy. This often leading to a fallacious view not only of the people involved but often even the core idea being discussed.
From that reflection article you posted: Prescient in many ways.
From that reflection article you posted:
It’s interesting how many of the most powerful forces on the net do not themselves create, but link to interesting material elsewhere. I’ve seen it noted (but forget where) that one reason for the power of the right-wing blogosphere is that there are several right-wing blogs who serve as link clearinghouses, while left-wing blogs tend to insist on extensive commentary. It makes for deeper analysis but less vibrant conversations. Clearly I need to link more.
I enjoyed the post and think it has some good observations. I laughed at this from one of the Geek Social Fallacies (GSF), "Friendship is Transitive":
For anyone too young to remember it, Friendster was an early social site that was probably coming close to its peak when the post was written. I don't recall it supporting lists or separation of groups of friends but that could be a false memory after reading this post.
I was also reminded of the term 'missing stair' while reading the whole post, but especially the first fallacy "Ostracizers are evil." Missing stair was coined about 9 years after this post was written and I think has existed probably for a lot of human history, especially in communities that are insular for one reason or another (according to Wikipedia 'missing stair' as a term came out of a BDSM/kink post in 2012).
And one last tidbit before I go meta-political, the author wrote an interesting reflection in 2005 on the reaction to this list being shared so widely and what it means to write for the Internet (in 2003, years before theFacebook would let you share a link to your parents accounts, because they couldn't make one until 2006).
General political comments below in case you'd rather just skip that.
I was recently asked by a family member how someone could support a political candidate on the assumption that the candidate was a poor fit for that someone's situation. Reading this quote resonated with me as a modern General Social Fallacy that is played out in (American anyway) politics:
I think this concept is played out with the starting points of many issues important to one side or the other becoming distorted in a 2 party system via winner-take-all/Duverger's Law. The adoption of a pathological, extreme, or at least unnuanced viewpoint becomes a rallying cry, often for both the proponents and opponents of a policy. This often leading to a fallacious view not only of the people involved but often even the core idea being discussed.
From that reflection article you posted:
Prescient in many ways.
I’ve definitely seen minor examples of all these in some of my high school and university circles! Thanks for sharing!
An oldie but goodie. Definitely worth a read, as we as a society have definitely not grown out of these habits in the last 21 years.