![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kimberkitI am having a hard time writing. Clearly, we're all socially influenced, but I don't know precisely how writing on the internet is so much "social." When was the last time you wrote or read any entry on the internet that truly changed your worldview, even a little bit, about something?
Over and over again, it seems like the best way to actually effectuate what we believe in is to try to reach out to people in person, and engage in in-person dialogue or demonstration -- and even then, it's hard! The broadcast medium of the internet feels both silly and isolating right now.
People are indeed listening, of course -- but often only for things that already confirm their worldview, or add information to a point they already want to make. In business, that's called niche marketing -- people want to gravitate towards others that already agree with them. I guess that's the "Long Tail"? I'm pretty sure that this is doubly so for the internet, as opposed to real life interaction.
~ ~ ~
A year or two ago, Williams broke up the housing clusters, disallowing blocks of 4 people to live together. They argued that diversity in housing was necessary in order to create a group of people who were willing to have their social worldview challenged. It was a hugely controversial move, and it was overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of students on campus. They did it anyway. At the time, I thought, "Well, good luck with that... all you'll get is frustrated people who don't like living together."
Sometimes I wonder whether they were right, and whether that frustration is useful and good for us. I mean, it'd be pretty spiffy if you could get unlike groups to work, and you often do have some unlike worldviews when dealing with co-workers, for instance. It might be useful to have that level of frustration, with people who are 18 and still theoretically able to change how they interact.
But then my cynical side kicks in, and I'm sure that they were wrong, and just created more isolation on campus. Given a choice, I'm not sure I, or your average 18 year old, wouldn't rather chat on IM with someone I knew was like me, instead of talking to someone next door who wasn't like me. I wonder whether the social force of "be only with people who are like yourself" would outweigh everything else.
~ ~ ~
Coming back to my original point, I think that the clustering of alike-people does weird things to the internet -- that is, because you get such big groupings of people who agree on most things, it's hard to get a good voice for disagreement on that forum if you happen to be in the minority. So you splinter off and go with a group of the minority-dissenters, and then no one changes their mind, because your voice is primarily being heard amongst people who agree with you, not those who disagree with you. And who could blame you? Changing someone's mind is hard to do in person -- challenging their beliefs online seems impossible, especially not when you think that most people on that particular (insert: forum, blog, whatever) will disagree with you.
Over and over again, it seems like the best way to actually effectuate what we believe in is to try to reach out to people in person, and engage in in-person dialogue or demonstration -- and even then, it's hard! The broadcast medium of the internet feels both silly and isolating right now.
People are indeed listening, of course -- but often only for things that already confirm their worldview, or add information to a point they already want to make. In business, that's called niche marketing -- people want to gravitate towards others that already agree with them. I guess that's the "Long Tail"? I'm pretty sure that this is doubly so for the internet, as opposed to real life interaction.
A year or two ago, Williams broke up the housing clusters, disallowing blocks of 4 people to live together. They argued that diversity in housing was necessary in order to create a group of people who were willing to have their social worldview challenged. It was a hugely controversial move, and it was overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of students on campus. They did it anyway. At the time, I thought, "Well, good luck with that... all you'll get is frustrated people who don't like living together."
Sometimes I wonder whether they were right, and whether that frustration is useful and good for us. I mean, it'd be pretty spiffy if you could get unlike groups to work, and you often do have some unlike worldviews when dealing with co-workers, for instance. It might be useful to have that level of frustration, with people who are 18 and still theoretically able to change how they interact.
But then my cynical side kicks in, and I'm sure that they were wrong, and just created more isolation on campus. Given a choice, I'm not sure I, or your average 18 year old, wouldn't rather chat on IM with someone I knew was like me, instead of talking to someone next door who wasn't like me. I wonder whether the social force of "be only with people who are like yourself" would outweigh everything else.
Coming back to my original point, I think that the clustering of alike-people does weird things to the internet -- that is, because you get such big groupings of people who agree on most things, it's hard to get a good voice for disagreement on that forum if you happen to be in the minority. So you splinter off and go with a group of the minority-dissenters, and then no one changes their mind, because your voice is primarily being heard amongst people who agree with you, not those who disagree with you. And who could blame you? Changing someone's mind is hard to do in person -- challenging their beliefs online seems impossible, especially not when you think that most people on that particular (insert: forum, blog, whatever) will disagree with you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-01 08:40 pm (UTC)Actually, that happens rather regularly. I can't much compare it to the way things were in the pre-Internet age, since I was only a teenager when the Internet became very popular; but I imagine that I'd be much less exposed to a variety of viewpoints if I didn't have Internet access. I might be an exception, though, since I consider myself a very curious person.
Over and over again, it seems like the best way to actually effectuate what we believe in is to try to reach out to people in person, and engage in in-person dialogue or demonstration -- and even then, it's hard!
Very true. Very, very true...
I've not thought much about the housing changes that the Williams administration has implemented over the years. I see a certain value in it: having gone to UNIS, having lived in New York City, I've come to see it as a very ordinary thing to regularly interact with and be friends with people from a wide variety of backgrounds.
At the same time, there's something to be said for having one's home be a safe haven -- and it's ridiculous to think that most people would be willing to give that up in the name of some abstract notion of having their views challenged. Freshman year in the entry system is perfectly fine, even necessary to integrate into the Williams community. Your average student starts college not knowing anyone, with a relatively malleable mind -- s/he might as well be guided to try new things and meet people s/he wouldn't otherwise meet. After freshman year, though, once said average student has a better idea of what and whom you like and dislike, I can't see how restricting housing choice could create anything but resentment.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-02 06:08 pm (UTC)I also think you're totally right about the resentment of not having one's home be a safe haven -- I did value the sense of finding a "fit" at Williams, more than in high school or before, and not having it now must surely suck, the abstract and high-handed "views challenged" thing nonwithstanding.