Re:Convergence of Blogging Sites
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
I used to think the whole blogging phenom was kinda silly... I didn't relish the idea of reading up on strangers, nor having them reading up on me. Not to mention I'm not so arrogant to think that anything I might have to say would be the least be interesting or relevant to the public, ad hoc.
But Multiply is *totally* different and changed my mind about blogging.
On that site I can build a social network that mimics my "real" one with the added benefit of expanding my network to that of my friend's (ala friendster and tribe). What makes Multiply unique amongst friendster and bloggin wannabes is its messages facility.
When I post content to my blog it ends up in a mailbox of sorts for all the people in my network, by friend's friend's networks, etc; as far down the network or as far up it as I want. The really cool thing about this is I can share a recipe, or some photos or ask a question and people are more likely to respond to me becuase I am a friend of a friend, or a friend of a brother-in-law. Multiply shows the social CONTEXT of the post, which allows you to gauge its relevance to your life and facilitates feedback.
It's highly addictive and a deceptively simple concept; so much so that I have placed some nasty net filters in my office to make sure my employees don't waste all day on the site.
If you are at all intrested in blogging or social networking sites I highly encourage you to at least check it out.
Putnam's Research is based on false suppositions
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 1
Putnam's work on social capital is dated and at best a collection of spurious correlations.
He began working on his theory in the late 80s and his first book on the subject was published in 1993, called "Making Democrcy Work: Civic Traditions on Modern Italy." The "Bowling Alone" extension of this book first appeared in The Journal of Democracy (http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v00 6/putnam.html) in 1995. His theories were widely dismissed by serious political theorists, but to his credit, Putnam managed to gain some credence in the popular media.
Having said all that, one really should take a closer look at where his ideas of social captial come from; namely the resurgence of democratic poltical activity in Northern Italy during the 1980s. Putnam observed that Northen Italians felt a greater sense of efficacy, voter more oftern, felt better about their institutions, etc. etc. than their southern italian counterparts. Putnam attempts to reason that this is the result an democratic ethos in Nothern Italy, engendered by smaller social instiutions that tie citizens together. Southern Italy, in contrast, has vast patronage systems (not unlike the stereotipcal mafia stories in Anmerican pop culture, sans violence) and citizens there feel disconnected and powerless.
From this geographically and polically unique situation, Putnam draws the larger observation that it simply *must* be the presence of the smaller social units that gives Northen Italians their ethos.
This, ladies and gentleman, is bad social science (in fact, one can argue that ALL "social" scienece is unscientific, but that's another conversation). America is simply not Northern Italy. The Italian version of democracy includes such things as a true, albeit, cantakerous multi-party system. Putnam doesn't account for that in his stuides. During the 80s the Italian form of democracy was suppoted by a booming economy and a stable conservative/communist government. If Putnam were to go back now, I *seriously* doubt his studies would yield the same results; a bad economy and several scandals have undone many Italian's view of their influence in government. These are just a few of the numerous reasons' Putnam's observations are pure crap.
Finally, I would like to also point out that the work ethic in America has more and always had more to do with levels of participation than TV or the internet. Italians, as anyone who has visited Italy can tell you, are notoriously laid back in their approach to business. Americans spend more time getting to work, coming home from work, working at work, thining about work, taking work home, building home offices, than anythign else. You want to know why political instutions are being displaced in the US? They're called corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think the whole blogging phenom was kinda silly ... I didn't relish the idea of reading up on strangers, nor having them reading up on me. Not to mention I'm not so arrogant to think that anything I might have to say would be the least be interesting or relevant to the public, ad hoc.
But Multiply is *totally* different and changed my mind about blogging.
On that site I can build a social network that mimics my "real" one with the added benefit of expanding my network to that of my friend's (ala friendster and tribe). What makes Multiply unique amongst friendster and bloggin wannabes is its messages facility.
When I post content to my blog it ends up in a mailbox of sorts for all the people in my network, by friend's friend's networks, etc; as far down the network or as far up it as I want. The really cool thing about this is I can share a recipe, or some photos or ask a question and people are more likely to respond to me becuase I am a friend of a friend, or a friend of a brother-in-law. Multiply shows the social CONTEXT of the post, which allows you to gauge its relevance to your life and facilitates feedback.
It's highly addictive and a deceptively simple concept; so much so that I have placed some nasty net filters in my office to make sure my employees don't waste all day on the site.
If you are at all intrested in blogging or social networking sites I highly encourage you to at least check it out.
Putnam's work on social capital is dated and at best a collection of spurious correlations.
0 6/putnam.html) in 1995. His theories were widely dismissed by serious political theorists, but to his credit, Putnam managed to gain some credence in the popular media.
He began working on his theory in the late 80s and his first book on the subject was published in 1993, called "Making Democrcy Work: Civic Traditions on Modern Italy." The "Bowling Alone" extension of this book first appeared in The Journal of Democracy (http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v0
Having said all that, one really should take a closer look at where his ideas of social captial come from; namely the resurgence of democratic poltical activity in Northern Italy during the 1980s. Putnam observed that Northen Italians felt a greater sense of efficacy, voter more oftern, felt better about their institutions, etc. etc. than their southern italian counterparts. Putnam attempts to reason that this is the result an democratic ethos in Nothern Italy, engendered by smaller social instiutions that tie citizens together. Southern Italy, in contrast, has vast patronage systems (not unlike the stereotipcal mafia stories in Anmerican pop culture, sans violence) and citizens there feel disconnected and powerless.
From this geographically and polically unique situation, Putnam draws the larger observation that it simply *must* be the presence of the smaller social units that gives Northen Italians their ethos.
This, ladies and gentleman, is bad social science (in fact, one can argue that ALL "social" scienece is unscientific, but that's another conversation). America is simply not Northern Italy. The Italian version of democracy includes such things as a true, albeit, cantakerous multi-party system. Putnam doesn't account for that in his stuides. During the 80s the Italian form of democracy was suppoted by a booming economy and a stable conservative/communist government. If Putnam were to go back now, I *seriously* doubt his studies would yield the same results; a bad economy and several scandals have undone many Italian's view of their influence in government. These are just a few of the numerous reasons' Putnam's observations are pure crap.
Finally, I would like to also point out that the work ethic in America has more and always had more to do with levels of participation than TV or the internet. Italians, as anyone who has visited Italy can tell you, are notoriously laid back in their approach to business. Americans spend more time getting to work, coming home from work, working at work, thining about work, taking work home, building home offices, than anythign else. You want to know why political instutions are being displaced in the US? They're called corporations.
Go to Italy if you want to Bowl in a league.