I started Twitter several months ago when I read that Chef Grant Achatz, of Alinea in Chicago, and Mike Ruhlman, the go-to food-writer of modern cuisine - gastronomy or otherwise - had Twitter. I really liked what they said, or did, in regards to cooking and was really excited to get to see the casual, unrehearsed, behind-the-music thoughts of these two figures in American cuisine. Then, I don't know how they found me, the people who actually know me, but I starting receiving these email notifications from Twitter. My friends and peers found me and, through them, I found other people I knew. That was cool and exciting and communal, except that everyone I was following turned out to be... extremely dull.
Edit: Everything they said turned out to be extremely dull.
Re-Edit: Everything they said, on Twitter, turned out to be extremely dull.
"Wooooo... I want some village pizza...... Yuuuum...."
"Kind of bored."
"has started to pack :D"
"hoping that the penguins force a game 7..."
"making stuff"
"Met with Dr. Veenstra this morning. I wonder what he thinks about me. 'What are you doing in my office?' probably."
OK. That last one was me, but the others are from people I love, respect and think are hilarious. And I could honestly care less about any of the above. If these people said these things to me, in person, out of the blue, I would be puzzled. "Bitch, I don't care!" and the like. You know how it goes. Then go get some pizza. Geez.
It turned out, though, that the celebrities were boring people as well. If they weren't peddling what they had already written about (in their blogs or whatever), then they actually used twitter to connect with the people in THEIR lives. This is a problem to me! I want my celebrities to stay on their pedestal! If Philip Seymour Hoffman were to come to town, I would love to have a drink with him and he would think I were hilarious and we would be friends but I wouldn't want to follow him on Twitter because that would make him boring. Twitter makes you boring. Twitter takes celebrities off their pedestal - where they should be - and makes them say stupid, insignificant, human things that let you down because you were expecting them to be groundbreaking with every breath.
We're not all living to such high expectations, of course. There should be some credit to an avenue that encourages contact and writing, of all things, from one person to the world. Says Sarah Milstein, who wrote a book on Twittering, "An individual post may not be interesting, but over the course of weeks you build a meaningful picture of somebody, you get a sense of the rhythms of someone's life." (Full Article - with tips on how to write interesting tweets) Instead of seeing a fact-by-fact feed for information, Milstein is actually claiming that Twitter is a way to get to know somebody.
Really?
It is satisfying, in some strange way, to send out a small piece of exposition or identity in the midst of a hectic week or late at night alone in a workspace. This isn't isolated to Twitter - blogs, facebook notes and journals hit on the same spot.
This site maintains that 10% of the users are responsible for more than 90% of the content. I bet 40% alone are from Rainn Wilson (Dwight, from the American Office - you'd think he was funny from his acting, and from that brief and eloquent letter to CNN. I mean, clearly, he's a complex and capable human being... but his tweets are hit-and-miss, and mostly dumb.) Regardless, it seems most people abandoned Twitter, having realized that they didn't have interesting things to say in 140 characters (or that they would be better said on facebook or, oh crap, their blogs) and quit, or they're quietly on but not contributing. This article titled "How Twitter Will Change the World" says that hearing what people had for breakfast is actually more interesting than one would think. "We don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask." Without our even having to ask... thereby exacerbating the lack of filter in our digital lives. Except that most answers to "How's it going?" are rendered insignificant when the conversation is reduced to one-sided, 140 character rants. All of a sudden, YOU become that one co-worker who won't let you idly exist and breaks the peaceful quiet with, "So my kid did the cutest thing the other day..." YOU become that guy we try to avoid walking down the hall with because he thinks you want to hear about every drink he had over the weekend. And when dozens of people are simultaneously telling you about their eating habits or hopes for the Lakers, that's when people stop caring and start drinking. The problem: few of us can manage to be interesting in 14o characters. We're filling up the servers with our shinfo.
But the kids are doing it because they still text during movies and their hormones drive them to care about when their friends are feeling sleepy or insecure. And who better to tap into the world's young, vulnerable and dim? The church. Apparently it's a good idea to allow caffeinated youths to feed their ADD by talking constantly through service instead of raising hands or breaking up into groups. I sent the article to my youth pastor brother and said that I would never join a church that regularly held their services this way. Crazy. He wasn't, if I remember correctly, ready to whip out the holy water, but he wasn't pulling out the projector in the sanctuary and asking the congregation to bring in their laptops either.
And there's a space for quick, digital communication in the business arena... somehow... I'm not really in the loop on that if someone wants to explain how Twitter is better than, or different to, emailing than please do so. For conference buzz?
And if the public won't read/watch/listen to the news, then politicians can keep their constituents updated on any policy updates... which, if it's intriguing or threatening enough, will to lead to their web site or a news source. All major news sources are Twittering as well and if some people find usefulness in their access to information, by all means.
But this "social interface," like any other, is about the people. Let's not forget that. And Twitter is currently best when we, as a collective group, come together to acknowledge our seemingly menial, daily culture. The existence of our voices, our expressed thoughts, is a celebration to our unified humanity. Our opinions, thoughts, desires, failures, triumphs and epiphanies are a product of the lives we lead and Twitter is best used to collect that and make fun of each other. (You can sign in to comment and bring other morons in for humiliation with your Twitter account.)
Otherwise, you should just check The Onion regularly and not have to depend on Twitter to let The Onion tell you when it has new stuff up. If we're going to fill it up with redundant updates for higher ad counts and our mundane details of - holy crap! - how difficult finals are, then we might as well use it as a shooting range. Maybe each social/professional group will have to have a computer geek (Travis, pay attention) to set up a private Twitter for certain individuals, and maintain keeping the unpopular kids out. WITH a shinfo foul option... or, you know, we could just not spew shinfo down each other's throats. We could take 140 blank characters as a challenge. Accountability, coupled with ruthless elitism, is our hope for productivity. And... go!
It is satisfying, in some strange way, to send out a small piece of exposition or identity in the midst of a hectic week or late at night alone in a workspace. This isn't isolated to Twitter - blogs, facebook notes and journals hit on the same spot.
This site maintains that 10% of the users are responsible for more than 90% of the content. I bet 40% alone are from Rainn Wilson (Dwight, from the American Office - you'd think he was funny from his acting, and from that brief and eloquent letter to CNN. I mean, clearly, he's a complex and capable human being... but his tweets are hit-and-miss, and mostly dumb.) Regardless, it seems most people abandoned Twitter, having realized that they didn't have interesting things to say in 140 characters (or that they would be better said on facebook or, oh crap, their blogs) and quit, or they're quietly on but not contributing. This article titled "How Twitter Will Change the World" says that hearing what people had for breakfast is actually more interesting than one would think. "We don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask." Without our even having to ask... thereby exacerbating the lack of filter in our digital lives. Except that most answers to "How's it going?" are rendered insignificant when the conversation is reduced to one-sided, 140 character rants. All of a sudden, YOU become that one co-worker who won't let you idly exist and breaks the peaceful quiet with, "So my kid did the cutest thing the other day..." YOU become that guy we try to avoid walking down the hall with because he thinks you want to hear about every drink he had over the weekend. And when dozens of people are simultaneously telling you about their eating habits or hopes for the Lakers, that's when people stop caring and start drinking. The problem: few of us can manage to be interesting in 14o characters. We're filling up the servers with our shinfo.
But the kids are doing it because they still text during movies and their hormones drive them to care about when their friends are feeling sleepy or insecure. And who better to tap into the world's young, vulnerable and dim? The church. Apparently it's a good idea to allow caffeinated youths to feed their ADD by talking constantly through service instead of raising hands or breaking up into groups. I sent the article to my youth pastor brother and said that I would never join a church that regularly held their services this way. Crazy. He wasn't, if I remember correctly, ready to whip out the holy water, but he wasn't pulling out the projector in the sanctuary and asking the congregation to bring in their laptops either.
And there's a space for quick, digital communication in the business arena... somehow... I'm not really in the loop on that if someone wants to explain how Twitter is better than, or different to, emailing than please do so. For conference buzz?
And if the public won't read/watch/listen to the news, then politicians can keep their constituents updated on any policy updates... which, if it's intriguing or threatening enough, will to lead to their web site or a news source. All major news sources are Twittering as well and if some people find usefulness in their access to information, by all means.
But this "social interface," like any other, is about the people. Let's not forget that. And Twitter is currently best when we, as a collective group, come together to acknowledge our seemingly menial, daily culture. The existence of our voices, our expressed thoughts, is a celebration to our unified humanity. Our opinions, thoughts, desires, failures, triumphs and epiphanies are a product of the lives we lead and Twitter is best used to collect that and make fun of each other. (You can sign in to comment and bring other morons in for humiliation with your Twitter account.)
Otherwise, you should just check The Onion regularly and not have to depend on Twitter to let The Onion tell you when it has new stuff up. If we're going to fill it up with redundant updates for higher ad counts and our mundane details of - holy crap! - how difficult finals are, then we might as well use it as a shooting range. Maybe each social/professional group will have to have a computer geek (Travis, pay attention) to set up a private Twitter for certain individuals, and maintain keeping the unpopular kids out. WITH a shinfo foul option... or, you know, we could just not spew shinfo down each other's throats. We could take 140 blank characters as a challenge. Accountability, coupled with ruthless elitism, is our hope for productivity. And... go!
Posts
"that's when people stop caring and start drinking"->nicely put
ReplyDeleteThe question is if all this digital "connection" really driving us apart sometimes. I mean, does being inundated with the trivial take away opportunities for deeper conversations?
Maybe I'm out of the loop but if I hear/read "twitter" or "tweet" more than a couple times a week I'm going to go crazy. I think your blog just met that quota.
SHINFO!
I read that church article. It's absolutely repulsive. Things like twitter, facebook, and even blogs don't in any way take the place of true community. They may be informative, too informative even, but they cannot take the place of actual relationships. And the church should be concerned with relationships, not an internet page. If my pastor were to send me a facebook note asking how things are going I would not be convinced he cared. Only if he actually talked to me in person, would I feel like I mattered to him.
ReplyDeleteBut that's just me, right? hmmm.
*token sensationalist*...
ReplyDeletei obscenity in the milk of twitter.
every new technology such as this pushes me further to the fringes of society.
***
anyway, one can find justification for almost any worthless bit of electronic buzzing or codification. any one of them may actually have at least one positive quality. but if someone needs to spew endless words defending or explaining their use of something, probably it shouldn't exist. of course, "my hypocrisy knows no bounds." turn back on me what you will and i will offer a full confession. regardless, anyone may use whatever they want however they want, as long as they don't ask me to sweep their conscience clean for them. i've got enough of that to do for myself.
A couple of people told me I should get on Twitter because generating buzz or 'social networking' will help me professionally. I think that's crap.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post. I agree.
Hi Matty!
ReplyDelete