I feel guilty that I’m not using facebook, something that might be pretty exclusive to our generations, where the next version may be less amenable to such gaming, to use it to do something BIG—like start the next arab spring, or push products to sell, or become a politician and advertise on it using my youthful savvy. Can anybody pass on some advice?
This whole subthread stinks of Dunning-Kruger. Youthful savvy? Cultish following? Guilt about not using Facebook? Putting internet sales on par with a revolutionary movement spanning several countries? That doesn’t sound like you know what you’re talking about.
I don’t know exactly who you’re supposed to persuade, but your track record so far on LessWrong shows that you barely manage to break even with your karma, and that you lack the level of self-awareness of a socially well-adapted person. Whoever you successfully persuade would have to be even more oblivious than you, which is saying something. Given what you said here you’d use Facebook for, I for one am glad neither I nor you are using it.
I don’t mean for this to be a pointless ad hominem attack; the reason I’m responding this way is for you to take this as a prompter that you need to get out of your own head and think more clearly about matters involving yourself, or how you come off as. Because the way you think about this whole business is a huge red flag. The fact that self-promoters, salesmen, and slacktivists on FB tend to piss off people more than anything else, and the fact that youth is basically never an indicator of “savvy” are two things that should be obvious to everyone who has even a modicum of experience with the internet or life in general.
and the fact that youth is basically never an indicator of “savvy”
In the area of computers, particularly things related to computers that appeared relatively recently and which youths are more inclined to use, it often is such an indicator.
Putting internet sales on par with a revolutionary movement spanning several countries?
You’re making a strawman. Internet mobilisers for the Arab Spring weren’t all George Washingtons. There are countless others who helped in whatever small way they could that was neither trivial nor grandiose at an individual level, as you’re implying with DK.
but your track record so far on LessWrong shows that you barely manage to break even with your karma, and that you lack the level of self-awareness of a socially well-adapted person.
I post on LessWrong that which I won’t post elsewhere. It’s not that I’m exceptionally deviant, it’s more that I can compartmentalise all that odd thinking in one place, here, as a testing ground. That which makes it into the realm of the world I wholeheartedly accept, and those that make it to bank of things I’ll signal is far more restrictive and mainstream.
I don’t mean for this to be a pointless ad hominem attack
It doesn’t seem ad hominem at all. It’s an insightful analysis which I appreciate.
prompter that you need to get out of your own head and think more clearly about matters involving yourself, or how you come off as.
Well the whole point of the thread is to do that. That’s why I posted it.
The fact that self-promoters, salesmen, and slacktivists on FB tend to piss off people more than anything else, and the fact that youth is basically never an indicator of “savvy” are two things that should be obvious to everyone who has even a modicum of experience with the internet or life in general.
I don’t agree with that generalisation. I suspect you’re just projecting your own feelings about those categories of people. Feel free to update me with a more generalisable fact that you can back up with evidence I’ll have reason to believe is transportable to my facebook audience, while noting how you found that evidence (i.e. don’t search for ‘facebook sales people piss people of’, search for ‘facebook sales peoples attitudes’.
… Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
See before you weren’t ad hominin, but I suspect now you’re going to stereotype, discriminate or vilify me based on my answer or whatever you expect it to be.
How would you like it if I asked you at the end of highly critical post:
Limited evidence suggests that people are more interested, almost cultish towards me in places that I am active (e.g. secret groups), limited periods when I’ve had a facebook wall. However, this may just be an artifact of people having limited opportunities to interact with me, and the secret groups being of special interests (e.g. people I work with, etc, who I’ve first gained traction with IRL already).
Do you already have a track record of getting sizable groups of strangers doing things they wouldn’t otherwise have done by influencing them on some other social media? Then it might be worth looking into how to game facebook.
If you don’t, then the first question is if you should try to get into the social media influence game to begin with. How many people are trying to do it compared to people who have any traction with a number of followers, and what sets the successful people apart? If most people who don’t bounce off right away are barely hanging by instead of becoming big and influential, how is life for them? How much is success driven by stuff like outrage clickbait, unrelenting smear jobs at whoever your opponent is, raising twitter lynch mobs and the like, and how comfortable would you be operating in an environment where those might be standard operating procedure?
I don’t at all. In fact, track evidence for any kind of online organising would suggest I’m worse than avergae.
However, I am very effective at mobilising people in real life and have a great track record for that. I can often sense the mood of a place and play off that. But, I’m not confident that I can accurately predict it online and do things.
Thank you for getting me to answer this. If I had just thought of the above answer, I wouldn’t have realised by that second point, my efficacy of mobilising people in real life, is non-transfferable to my online-mobilising, based on past evidence. And, therefore, my uncertainty about this topic, lending to the question, is now resolved.
I feel guilty that I’m not using facebook, something that might be pretty exclusive to our generations, where the next version may be less amenable to such gaming, to use it to do something BIG—like start the next arab spring, or push products to sell, or become a politician and advertise on it using my youthful savvy. Can anybody pass on some advice?
This whole subthread stinks of Dunning-Kruger. Youthful savvy? Cultish following? Guilt about not using Facebook? Putting internet sales on par with a revolutionary movement spanning several countries? That doesn’t sound like you know what you’re talking about.
I don’t know exactly who you’re supposed to persuade, but your track record so far on LessWrong shows that you barely manage to break even with your karma, and that you lack the level of self-awareness of a socially well-adapted person. Whoever you successfully persuade would have to be even more oblivious than you, which is saying something. Given what you said here you’d use Facebook for, I for one am glad neither I nor you are using it.
I don’t mean for this to be a pointless ad hominem attack; the reason I’m responding this way is for you to take this as a prompter that you need to get out of your own head and think more clearly about matters involving yourself, or how you come off as. Because the way you think about this whole business is a huge red flag. The fact that self-promoters, salesmen, and slacktivists on FB tend to piss off people more than anything else, and the fact that youth is basically never an indicator of “savvy” are two things that should be obvious to everyone who has even a modicum of experience with the internet or life in general.
… Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
In the area of computers, particularly things related to computers that appeared relatively recently and which youths are more inclined to use, it often is such an indicator.
Hence the qualifier “basically”. I’m aware of a few exceptions related to products marketed to the 18-25 (or even 18-35) age range.
That might have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.
I’m pretty sure that new computer-related things continued to be produced in the past 20 years and that older people are less likely to use them.
You’re making a strawman. Internet mobilisers for the Arab Spring weren’t all George Washingtons. There are countless others who helped in whatever small way they could that was neither trivial nor grandiose at an individual level, as you’re implying with DK.
I post on LessWrong that which I won’t post elsewhere. It’s not that I’m exceptionally deviant, it’s more that I can compartmentalise all that odd thinking in one place, here, as a testing ground. That which makes it into the realm of the world I wholeheartedly accept, and those that make it to bank of things I’ll signal is far more restrictive and mainstream.
It doesn’t seem ad hominem at all. It’s an insightful analysis which I appreciate.
Well the whole point of the thread is to do that. That’s why I posted it.
I don’t agree with that generalisation. I suspect you’re just projecting your own feelings about those categories of people. Feel free to update me with a more generalisable fact that you can back up with evidence I’ll have reason to believe is transportable to my facebook audience, while noting how you found that evidence (i.e. don’t search for ‘facebook sales people piss people of’, search for ‘facebook sales peoples attitudes’.
See before you weren’t ad hominin, but I suspect now you’re going to stereotype, discriminate or vilify me based on my answer or whatever you expect it to be.
How would you like it if I asked you at the end of highly critical post:
Why do you think you would be so good at influencing people on Facebook?
Limited evidence suggests that people are more interested, almost cultish towards me in places that I am active (e.g. secret groups), limited periods when I’ve had a facebook wall. However, this may just be an artifact of people having limited opportunities to interact with me, and the secret groups being of special interests (e.g. people I work with, etc, who I’ve first gained traction with IRL already).
Thank you for getting me to think about this.
Do you already have a track record of getting sizable groups of strangers doing things they wouldn’t otherwise have done by influencing them on some other social media? Then it might be worth looking into how to game facebook.
If you don’t, then the first question is if you should try to get into the social media influence game to begin with. How many people are trying to do it compared to people who have any traction with a number of followers, and what sets the successful people apart? If most people who don’t bounce off right away are barely hanging by instead of becoming big and influential, how is life for them? How much is success driven by stuff like outrage clickbait, unrelenting smear jobs at whoever your opponent is, raising twitter lynch mobs and the like, and how comfortable would you be operating in an environment where those might be standard operating procedure?
I don’t at all. In fact, track evidence for any kind of online organising would suggest I’m worse than avergae.
However, I am very effective at mobilising people in real life and have a great track record for that. I can often sense the mood of a place and play off that. But, I’m not confident that I can accurately predict it online and do things.
Thank you for getting me to answer this. If I had just thought of the above answer, I wouldn’t have realised by that second point, my efficacy of mobilising people in real life, is non-transfferable to my online-mobilising, based on past evidence. And, therefore, my uncertainty about this topic, lending to the question, is now resolved.
Thank you.
So, remind me, how did that turn out?