"Her" and the Network Socialization of Relationships

We all have them...friends...and "friends."  We talk about them in present tense.  We laugh at their jokes.  We share silly memes with them.  We interact for the same interests, like sports teams, television shows or even social/political beliefs.

If you're an active person on Facebook, we all categorize friends in certain manners.  We have family, former schoolmates, next door neighbors, coworkers.  But we also have the exclusive "online friend," which is a growing subset of our population and a real relationship.

It's occurred to me that the next level of human interaction and relationships is online.  That's not necessarily groundbreaking, that thought.  But what's  fascinating to me is that when one has an "online friend," it's just as important and weighted in high value to the people involved in these interactions.

Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that one can't discount the "online friend" or "online relationship" phenomenon anymore.  The online friend is almost an exclusive category now to those as our networks expand ever so greatly and rapidly.

Yet, I can't help but wonder, if this is just systemic of the growing isolation that's pervasive in our lives.  

*******************************************

Anyone around here seen Her yet?

I saw it in the theaters last year, and the subject matter fascinated me (let alone the people story the movie followed).  I won't give away too many spoilers, but the general synopsis is well-known.  The story is about a relatively ordinary man who lives alone and strikes up a relationship with his operating system, who calls herself "Samantha."  We find out that the protoganist, Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix), has had intimacy and relationship issues in the past.

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder...with the advent and importance placed upon online relationships, how far off are we from having relationships with our operating systems?

Director Spike Jonze made the movie seem futuristic without being too deliberate in letting us know just how many years he predicted a relationship between a human and an operating system would occur.  Yet it seems as though it could be happening right under our very nose. A major plot topic was on how Samantha knew everything with which Theodore had interest, which is why I think exclusively online relationships are intriguing and most of all attractive to people.  By the same token, people with online relationships are free to be whoever they want to be in other forums.  Forums, which, one may not be aware of.

Without a face, body language or the pressure of vis-a-vis interaction, people can expand themselves to be who they want to be without the responsibility of a real living, breathing human relationship. 

As I watched the movie, however, I saw so many parallels between online relationships and mostly the emotional interaction between people.  To some, it's almost as if we're all having relationships with our operating systems.  We chat and send messages on our computers.  We text and Kik and WhatsApp others from our phones.  Some of these types of relationships have been going on for years.  The idea is nothing new. 

Last year, right around the time Her was in the theaters, Daniel Jones wrote about the very topic of online emotional relationships in the New York Times.  He claims that not only does technology alter "our romantic landscape," he has a term for these individuals who rely on these relationships: "Soul Mate in a Box" (or "Smiab" for short).

Prior to seeing this movie, I have seen technology play out as a third party for many "relationships," which I use as a term very loosely.  I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist in that I still think that the face-to-face interaction is weighted a heck of a lot more.  Yet I get the value of an online relationship.  I have a very good friend whom I've never met face-to-face but we've collaborated on podcasts and talked on the phone several times.  Of course, I'd feel our relationship would be more "legit" had we ever met in person, and that will come in due time.

Yet, at the same time, I know there is a certain subset of the online population that I interact with who are perfectly fine with never meeting in person.  It used to upset me, because you know, "how convenient" that I am going to be in your hometown and we've talked about meeting for over five years.  And you have a family emergency that has you out of town that same time.  Now, I really don't mind.  I guess I've come to the conclusion that there are people who will just be an exclusively online relationship for me.

Yet, I've seen so many people put so much stock in their virtual relationship, that they go through a true sense of loss if something happens to end it, as we see in Her. I'm quite sure anyone who reads this knows someone who has been in a virtual relationship like this, or at the very least has either been a party to one or participates in one.

I've had a few ideas as to why these seem so prevalent, as Mr. Jones elaborated on in his column.  One theory he had was the idea of a physical relationship being more "work" than an online relationship.  People don't have to put too much effort into being physically present (and yes, that does take a lot of work).  And while individuals are making themselves emotionally available, there's not a ton of maintenance going on there.  Say a few nice words, put the other on a pedestal and get to go home by yourself at night.

I feel like technology has allowed those of us who prefer or don't mind being alone (I'm a proud introvert) stay that way.  As an example, women tend to be emotionally available and can be more vulnerable or receptive to an emotional online relationship.  Remember, folks, the biggest erogenous zone is the brain (thank you Jackie Treehorn).  This was evident in the scene in Her where Theodore and Samantha "consummate" the relationship.  Though when presented with an opportunity to use a surrogate proxy to have a physical relationship, Theodore couldn't do it.

It makes me wonder how many of these relationships wouldn't go the distance.  Sure, we've heard of online relationships being very successful.  There are just some relationships that serve to be just "online."

Like the catfish.  Remember a few years ago the story about football player Manti Te'o? He was involved in a scheme that an online personality lured him and made him believe that his online counterpart was involved in a fatal car accident, and it made the news because his grandmother had passed away as well that same week.  It was found to be a farcical relationship that he went public with later.

Why does something like catfishing occur?  You'd think in this day and age, we'd be less trusting and even more questioning of an online presence's motives.  I guess at the root of it, we try to believe the best in people, and those stories happen to "other people."  Plus, it's easy to believe you know the "real person" behind the curtain.  When the reality is, we don't even know if this person who may present themselves to be female is EVEN a female...because they've never met.  And how convenient they do not like posting pictures of themselves?

Then there's the "emotional cheat," as I like to call it.  I think the disconnect happens once again because of gender perceptions.  Women are seen as emotional beings, men physical.  If there's a man who is not getting his emotional needs fulfilled by his significant other, guess what?  There's a woman he's never met and doesn't need to service on a physical level willing to meet those needs.  Women have been seen as more apt to "fall" for the other in an emotional relationship, while it may be seen as collateral damage to the male in the relationship.  There's no actual physical interaction...who exactly is being harmed?

The complicated layer of technology and relationships is a prevalent theme here at CDV.  It's something that is not going away, but it needs to have the respect of something as important, destructive but also character building and enhancing as a real life face-to-face meeting.

I can't discount the fact that I have met some of the most important people in my life online, even my husband.  I can say with an absolute certainty that I am not sure if I could have met other people whom I consider friends without the social networking level.  It's important to me, and certainly something I have a healthy appreciation for.

But when people rely on technology too much for forming their relationships, then it becomes a real life problem, like it did in Her.

Ill Communication

When I worked in data management, there were terms such as "dynamic" and "static" to explain data sets.  We can almost use the terms to discuss friendships or any sort of relationship.  Heck, even personality types!

But let me ask a question: would you rather be a "dynamic" person?  Or a "static" person?  Meaning, would you like to adapt and change to the times...or would you just rather stay the same?

I guess on some levels, we can keep some of key qualities but adapt to the times.  Or constantly rethink a position.  However you want to look at things, we can look at things as being "active" or "passive."

Do you take an "active" approach or a "passive" approach to life?

Which leads me to my ultimate point.  I've noticed that since the "good ol' days" (which basically our only forms of media were of the mass approach like television, radio and movies...not the "social" media layer), people have been convenienced out of being personal.

Remember when you could go to the supermarket and ask your check out girl/guy or courtesy desk professional how their families were?  Even then, there were "lifers" in that industry, so you could build relationships and trust.  Nowadays, how many of us even chat with the people at the registers of a supermarket...let alone GO to one, since many stores are outfitted with "self" checkouts.  Even my coblogger and I were talking about how she uses a "gun" to scan her items, then just needs to bag her items and pay when she's all set (think of it as killing two birds with one stone).

Yet I think these conveniences for our busy lifestyles have infiltrated our personal lives.  We have seemingly dozens of ways to communicate.  Besides Ma Bell, there are even seemingly antiquated methods like "chat" or "messenger," but if you own a smartphone, there's texting, Kik'ing, Tweeting, and even emailing.

And there's Facebook. 

I've been on a Facebook cleanse since February.  There was no "over the edge" kind of moment.  In fact, I had just responded to someone in a message.  There wasn't an event or any major argument that set me off.  It just...felt like I needed to do it.

But I also had a revelation as I went off, and people started to ask me when I would return.

I'm not sure if I need to.  I feel as though I have a clear idea of what's going on with the people I care about.  I have kept my Twitter feed active, and there's some overlap there.  I am even Instagramming photos. 

But there's something else.  I felt as though I was being a passive friend.  And I think our culture of being convenienced out of being personal has allowed this to be "okay."

It's easy to drop a note on someone's wall to say "Hey, thinkin' boutcha" or "Happy birthday!"  Our culture has made it easy to never pick up a phone.  Even writing a letter or a written notes of thanks is foreign.

My friend has written a book on Table Manners, and how to integrate this into raising the next generation who will be pointing, clicking, gaming and no doubt texting at a very young age.  My fear for the next generation is that there will be NO ONE who chats or communicates by talking anymore.  In fact, think of how many families eat dinner at night and are attached to their smartphones.  I'm just as guilty.  I'll be at lunch and have my phone at the ready while talking to a guest.  Shouldn't my attention be focused on ONE person, the one I'm eating lunch with?

 Lastly, we live in a culture where calling someone to say hello is almost unheard of.  Just this past week, I decided to reach out the old fashioned way to talk to people.  I reached out to three friends, and even called someone who had a birthday.  Ironically, I wouldn't have known it was his birthday four years ago, when we reconnected on Twitter.

The sound on his voice was surprised...yet he was laughing because he said, "Man, I was just telling a story that I think you would appreciate!"  And he proceeded to tell me.  Now, maybe if I had reached out on Facebook, he might have told that story.  But the phone call was straight, sweet, to the point.

Shortly after my Facebook hiatus, I visited some friends down by where I grew up.  It forced me out of my comfort zone. I was able to make plans in person.  This is what I mean by being a less passive friend.  It's something that the technology driven environment has allowed us to do.

Think about how many people you know "online" whom you'll never ever meet in person.  Think about those you have meaningful relationships with in person, but you feel like you're enough in contact with them that you don't need to check in to see how things are.

Being off Facebook makes me wonder - hey, what's going on with these people?  It makes me be more available, and what I feel to be more of an active friend.

I'd rather be that dynamic person but wants to appreciate some of the simpler things in life.  I can adapt, but I don't want to be in a false sense of security in my relationships.

I want to be an active participant.

Fine Lines of Friendship

My esteemed co-blogger and I have made no secret that we met via social media channels and became friends (and co-bloggers) that way.

We also have friends outside of the social media world that we've known for years.  Take for instance the person I know outside of anyone in my family the longest in my life.  We met "traditionally" and then when social media became prevalent, we had another method of keeping in touch.

But what I've discovered over the years of this way of life is that the definition of friendship is perhaps a little broader than what we originally thought.  Indeed, the landscape may be changing as well.

So the literal Merriam-Webster definition of "Friend" is:
"a : one attached to another by affection or esteem b : acquaintance."

By sorts, the definition of a "Friendship" is:
"1: the state of being friends; 2: the quality or state of being friendly."

A few weeks ago, the friend I've known for over 30 years "deactivated" her Facebook account.  People do that to much fanfare usually, but sometimes those looking to get in touch with these persons who deactivate are left in arrears.

"OMG, did they delete me?"

"I'm dying to share this funny joke with them!"

"Is everything okay?"

Yet, with all these modes and channels of communications, we usually miss these announcements and take them very personally if we don't know what's going on.

In some ways, the social media stuff has added a layer of friendship that I'm very grateful for.  I met my husband through them, and I can't say for sure that we would have met otherwise.  I just have no other way to know.  I know someone who reconnected with someone they graduated high school, and they are now dating! (they weren't very good friends otherwise).  You just never know.

Yet, at the same this has substituted the idea of calling someone to see what's going on or trying to find out what else is making them tick.  Too often, we substitute this for just writing on someone's wall and communicating via "Inbox." 

We blame the dumbing down of our culture on reality TV, and 24-hour news cycles have almost given us too MUCH information, exposing biases and not really giving us slanted information to tell us how to think.  Have friendships become more disposable as a result of social media?

That same friend I referred to that I've known forever...she has some stories about some people who got upset about a miscommunication on Facebook and never spoke again.  Friendships that were solid outside of this layer that became almost narcissistic to a degree.  "OMG ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT ME?" 

On the other hand, people who didn't know each other outside of these channels, met and otherwise found they didn't have much in common...does that make their friendship less valuable or valid, for that matter?

The answer on one hand, is almost, who gives a shit?  A friend is a friend is a friend, right?  On the other hand, there are plenty of people who are your "online friends" in name only, and have no intentions of ever meeting you outside of the safe cyberworld where committal is little.  (See, I just made that up, catchy isn't it???).

In the meantime, I still find one item prevalent in these relationships.  That people will still one another for granted, the same nosy people will dig for the information they want, there will be the obsessive people, the people who care very little or those who will find a way to keep in touch with you, even when you are taking a "Facebook break."

Friendships may have gotten another level, but the complexities behind them are still in our faces whether we like it not.  They take work and understanding and not necessarily in that order. 

Things Dr. Roman Taught Me

Being an opinionated, intelligent and articulate woman, even in this day and age, is not something that's encouraged. I have a feeling that a lot of this is due to generational shifts where it was presumed that women had a place and a slot to belong to in society.

I suppose that some people didn’t get the memo that the Constitution was actually amended once upon a time to protect the rights of women. But I digress.

I went to an all-women’s college, and the underlying theme of feminism was prominent along with leadership roles of women. Around the time I started, there was a study that identified a weakness of girls in math and sciences, and that boys were typically pushed to go into those careers. I thought it was hogwash, but then again, I was in an all-women’s college. To me, there was no question of who was a leader. We were encouraged to speak up and debate and have it be healthy and energizing and supportive as well. As with human nature, it didn’t always go like that, but I did manage to enter the work force as a confident young woman who was not afraid to speak up or keep up with the boys (which I later did see first-hand in investment banking, but I’ll get to that later).

Dr. Roman was one of my English literature professors, and a common theme in many of the works she chose were women-focused, such as reading Charlotte Bronte, the Odyssey but focusing on Penelope’s role while Odysseus was out nailing the sirens while on the open seas, and having a better understanding of mythology in popular culture. Yet, I’ll never forget when a young woman in class made sort of a bitter comment about feminism, and said, “I don’t know what woman had the idea to open her big mouth. But I would have been perfectly happy staying at home and taking care of the house.”

To which Dr. Roman looked at all of us, shook her head solemnly and said, “Oh no.” The response got a laugh from the classroom. She told us that feminism wasn’t just about staying at home or working full-time or choosing a career over family or vice versa (though again, I will point out, I’ve seen that happen in the working world). No, she told us, feminism was that women could be whatever or whoever they wanted to be. So contrary to popular belief, if a woman wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, or wanted to have an outside career, she did not need to be penalized for it by other women. In fact, feminism made that choice possible.

I never forgot that.

Yet, I see the struggle first-hand with women against women, especially in social media settings. It’s made people more vocal with a larger soapbox from which to preach, but also has an underlying notion of negativity and even violence infiltrating these threads.

I think about how Dr. Roman defined feminism, and it’s something I hold to a high standard of how I conduct myself. Yes, it makes me angry when I see a perfectly able woman go on maternity leave, and then come back to find her job chopped up between three analysts, just so in a few months they can let her go. It makes me upset when a woman with an opinion who may be running for public office is accused of being “too male,” and yet when she displays emotion, “isn’t ‘fit’ to be President” or whatever office she may be running for. It’s a double-standard, and yet, most women do the same things themselves within their own population.

I’ve had my own problems with differing views of feminism, those contrary to my own. I guess when I see a woman working at H00ters or Hawaiian Tropic Zone, I see two things going on: one is that these women are adults and if they want to flaunt themselves to make a buck, more power to them. The other is that they are kind of exploiting men with bank accounts who spend a lot of money objectifying women. Yes, I could get upset about the objectification. But on the flip side, if these women were not drugged or exploited to do get jobs there, I see no problem with it. Plus, these places also hire men, so it’s not an issue to me.

Yet, I’ve been called out for not being “feminist enough” for simply disagreeing with viewpoints of what feminism could and should be. I’ve been harassed because I pick and choose my battles as far as women’s rights go. In an ideal world, of course I’d like to see women on an identical pay scale for men in equivalent roles and no glass ceilings. I’d also like to see women not be penalized by their own gender and the male aristocracy for taking time off to be with their families or wanting to balance their work-family. I don’t see anyone calling men out for taking time to be with their children when they are little.

It’s only become more prominent with social media tools such as Twitter. In fact, I was recently chastised by someone I considered a very good friend of mine outside of these forums, because she felt I was not taking her side enough in little Twitter wars. Yet, someone who is a proponent of free speech is penalizing me for simply not keeping up with whoever is her enemy this week, I felt this was a cop out for simply feeling under attack. I also have it on authority that she took this behavior with other mutual friends. Let me just state that this was not an isolated incident. It was cold and calculated.

It’s just Twitter, sure, but at the end of the day, if this person is cognizant of my social interactions in an open forum that’s free for anyone, chances are they are disapproving of my social interactions outside of them as well. And if I need to censor myself for fear of being attacked by this person, that kind of takes the fun out of these forums, right?

But at the root of it, I feel as though women are under attack by other women and if they are not immediately on their side, it’s seen as a liability. It’s only then I take solace in the words that Dr. Roman spoke about that day in class, when she enlightened by saying that women could be or do anything they wanted to be.

And isn’t that the very definition of feminism?

Unplug & Reconnect: The Challenge

Put the phone down. Get off the computer. Stop looking at your blackberry.

As the "better half" in a relationship (well, that's how my husband refers to me), there's always a period of disconnect when he needs to be on the computer, or I am on my phone. Heck, I know that when we go out to dinner or go watch a baseball game somewhere, I am constantly checking updates on my phone.

I could easily be TALKING to him. I could listen to his concerns or just hear what's going on his head. Well, my husband isn't much of a talker, but that's besides the point. The point is, he could be saying something to me, and I'll be going through the motions and checking my Twitter feed or checking into Foursquare when we go into an establishment.

So this should set up the story line where as a society we are more "connected" than ever, but then when it comes to our deeply personal relationships, we may be further away on some marks conversely. As an example, I conduct a lot of personal affairs on my iPhone and it was recently stolen. I had to replace it, but it was stressful that I would have my personal information out there for someone to see if they were able to hack into my phone.

And on the other hand, those of us who are super highly connected to our jobs rarely have a day off. While technology has made some task-oriented roles "easier," the amount of stress it has added to our lives is tenfold, twentyfold, I would even guess.

The fact is, even on our days off when we are supposed to be relaxing, there's always something to be connected to and it's rarely a personal relationship. In fact, it's mostly our personal relationships that get hurt as a result of this connectivity.

Enter Unplug & Reconnect, an initiative to (as their website states) "help us find a balance between our technology-laden, multitasking selves and our creative, emotional and spiritual needs — to benefit from one while sustaining the other." Now, I will admit that it's a bit ironic to launch an initiative to break away from your technology habits and have a supporting Facebook and Twitter account to go along with it! But as U&R's (in the "short hand") mission statement suggests, it isn't saying to break away from technology entirely, just take a break from it. Take a break, reconnect with your family, loved-ones, and friends, and not depend on technology so much. It causes a buffer, and there's a certain disconnect with having it around, even if you are using it to connect with family and friends.

It sounds easy, right? Yet, when I bring up an idea of doing a technology "cleanse" for a bit, I get a lot of jokes about "Oh, I don't think I can do that!" I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will cause you think outside of the box for building existing relationships, and making them stronger, then technology can balance out the rest.

My husband probably won't like that I'm saying this, but I'm willing to take the plunge and disconnect or rather "Unplug" from technology. The irony is, my husband and I met through social media, and we both blog. For both of us to truly unplug from it all, it will be a challenge! But then again, we did an elimination diet back in January when we eschewed dairy, wheat, gluten, soy, shellfish, caffeine, nuts, sugar and basically anything fun for three weeks. I was DYING by about week two, he took to it like a fish to water. Perhaps I will be the one with the bigger technology withdrawal problem!

It's not deprivation, either one of those detoxes whether it's dietary or technology-driven, but rather has you build on your strength from within and not disconnect emotionally or physically.

Are you up for the challenge? Take a look at U&R's blog post on Managing Stress (calling it an addiction, even!). I'm hoping to take a look into decommissioning my technology addiction for at least a weekend, especially when I do this food detox again, and plan a full report when I return!

Life: Unplugged

I recently joined a micro-blogging/shared interest network called Tumblr. One of the items to interact with the users on this platform is to open yourself up for questions; i.e., what is your favorite food, etc? The question I was asked was "What is your favorite inanimate object?"

To which I replied, "Does my iPhone count?"

I need my iPhone at the ready at all times. For everything! I have my email, my address book, my GPS for when I drive, different apps including Fandango and oh yeah, my phone...Now apparently, when I refill my Starbucks card, I can use the damn phone to not only refill the card, but use as a debit card to purchase my lattes as well. What a world!

The convenience of it is great as I can transfer money from my checking account to my credit card app in one fell swoop, just so I don't get hit with a late fee. Too lazy to hit the ATM the night before? No problem! I can simply link my Starbucks account to refill, and swing my phone over the register to pay for breakfast. Does this take away from the personal experience though of customer service and most importantly, human-to-human interaction?

Years ago, a common complaint would be if you called a customer service hotline (operative word being "service"), it would take forever to reach a human. It was fodder for stand-up comedians the world over. And nowadays, we seem to take the human interaction, or lack thereof, to another level, by adding more apps to our phones to make a simple transaction even simpler by making it not only "express" but "super-duper express."

I can't say that I have a problem with it per se, but I do have a problem with the lack of person-to-person interaction. I guess I was one of those old school "people persons" who would take pride in helping a person find what they needed or talk to them. Back in the day, you could go into your local hardware store, talk to the owner, get what you needed "on credit" and pay when you felt like it. Fuggedaboutit nowadays. You go to Home Depot, you pick up your supplies, go to the "self-service checkout counter," use your Home Depot credit card and then leave with nary a word spoken to personnel (unless, of course, you need to get items that require assistance from their experts).

Don't get me wrong. I am not wistful for days of yore, in fact, I embrace these new technologies. I think when the year 2000 rolled around, we expected to live like the Jetsons, with flying cars and ready-to-eat meals in a pill form so that our time wouldn't be wasted with cooking. Well, we haven't gotten that far...but we have gotten to a point where the most mundane of tasks such as paying bills have been automated to a point that we don't even need to think about it.

But that's not to say that being totally plugged or addicted to our apps or smartphones or even our social networks aren't being a cautionary tale. Sherry Turkle, a professor of social studies at MIT, has written a book called Alone Together that had a review at Fast Company recently. The title in and of itself fascinated me as well as provides a paradoxical situation. The world is brought closer together, but in some areas we still are so far apart.

I have often said that social media has opened doors for many different things for me, personally. I feel like my relationships have gotten better as a result. However, it's not that I don't take those things in stride. I have "connections" and I have "friends." There is a big difference. Turkle takes this to the next level and warns that she doesn't disparage social networking, but she puts "these technologies in their place." She goes on to warn, however, about being too explicitly connected to these social networks:

"...even though you're alone, you get into this situation where you're continually looking for your next message, and to have a sense of approval and validation. You're alone but looking for approval as though you were together--the little red light going off on the BlackBerry to see if you have somebody's validation. I make a statement in the book, that if you don't learn how to be alone, you'll always be lonely, that loneliness is failed solitude. We're raising a generation that has grown up with constant connection, and only knows how to be lonely when not connected. This capacity for generative solitude is very important for the creative process, but if you grow up thinking it's your right and due to be tweeted and retweeted, to have thumbs up on Facebook...we're losing a capacity for autonomy both intellectual and emotional."

It's more than the next generation of millennials or the generation after that is to be warned of this notion but even my generation and the generation prior, because we are getting sucked into this almost antithetical lifestyle of being truly connected, but having a disconnect at the same time of needing that validation. If it doesn't happen in our face, then perhaps we shake it off. We may take it personally if someone doesn't take our friend request or "recommendation." This stuff never bothered in face-to-face contact, as I could handle rejection. Being so connected, it's hard not to take stuff personally. It's just another level in the interaction of human quality.

It seems like Turkle and CoopDeeVille are not the only people pondering these questions. Another book that was published by a woman who disconnected her family from their devices, including smart phones, computers, television, video games, the whole nine called The Winter of our Disconnect serves as a primitive form of the blog in chronicling this. It wasn't just her children, she conducted this "Experiment" as she called it herself (even admitting to sleeping with her iPhone, which I have not done yet, but I have brought it into the bathroom with me on occasion).

I have to say that it would be hard for me to totally disconnect. It's one thing that I have to use a computer to work. I guess that could be a dispensation since everyone is "wired" in the office setting. On the other hand, Susan Maushart (the author) said one of her children for homework and research purposes went to (*shock!* *gasp!*) the LIBRARY. Wait a minute...you mean, people still use those? Guess they do serve a purpose somehow. But the topic fascinated me. Could I do that?

Maushart went on to say that "The Experiment" was "relinquishing the ostrichlike delusion that burying my head in information and entertainment from home was just as good as actually being there." I thought that was interesting. It called into question strengthening the relationships in reality and not be as plugged as we are. What a concept.

So as I reach for my phone to check into Foursquare and to pay for my Starbucks skinny vanilla latte while listening to U2 on my iPod, perhaps I should at least say hello to the cashier who is nice enough to ring me up. After all, I wouldn't want to seem disengaged or anything.

How Do I Love Facebook? Let Me Count The Ways

I read somewhere that Facebook has become the new Myspace.  Well, if Myspace is the new booty call and Facebook is the new Myspace, then what could we conclude here?

A recent study revealed that approximately 40 million people changed their Facebook status from "In a Relationship" to "Single" in 2010.  Only about 28 million changed their status from "Single" to "In a Relationship".  It may have nothing to do with Facebook, but I believe that some networking sites (and I use the word "networking" loosely) make it so much easier for people to have inappropriate relationships outside their "committed" ones.  The personal exposure is unlimited and to some, a real ego-booster -- making it easy to stray.

Girls love the attention they get from guys when they post sexy pics of themselves, and guys love looking at them.  It's one thing to be attractive and receive compliments, but when the lines are crossed, you tend to back away from those habits -- and the people who encourage them. After a while, you realize that the negativity you generate far outweighs the compliments.

I sincerely believe that just like Myspace, Facebook is no longer what it was intended to be.  At least for me it isn't. I guess to some degree, just like life, Facebook is what you make of it.  You can't get more out of it than what you put into it.  However, and I could be wrong but, despite its recently announced $50 billion worth, and all the privacy and security settings and features that come with it, I think Facebook is going to see some big changes in 2011, and I don't mean on their part. 

More and more Facebook users will be cautious when it comes to putting their lives out there for everyone to see.  In other words, private will become the new social. They will start by choosing their friends and their statuses more carefully.  Either that, or they will use the site less frequently or even shut it down totally.  There are moments where, if not for my blogging, I would consider deactivating my account altogether. 

So one could argue that if I feel this way then why even have Facebook at all?  I've thought about it and that is definitely a valid point.  However, why can't I still enjoy all that Facebook as to offer and share my life with the people that I choose to remain in touch with?  Facebook can reach all of my friends at once, in one organized and convenient place.  Can't do that on a cell phone.

It all comes down to one thing: What am I looking to get out of Facebook?  What do I really want?

Maybe I have gotten all I am going to out of it.  Maybe it has served its purpose for me.  Maybe Facebook just isn't enough for me anymore.  The thing is, the list of people we are "connected" to on Facebook is called "Friends".  But as I scroll through my list, I wonder how many people really are "friends"?  They are acquaintances, and honestly, I'm not looking for more acquaintances.  The networking aspect of it is nice, but that's as far as it goes for me lately.

And so, we enter cleansing mode.  And it usually starts with a new year.

For some, it's a time to get rid of dead weight - those who just take up space on our news feed, whom we couldn't care less about and who don't care what we have to share either.  We don't interact with these people, and if we do, there's no reciprocation.  For others, it's a time to get rid of the creepers and stalkers and nosy/busy-bodies.  Who needs people who only gawk at our pics, are jealous of our accomplishments or take pleasure in our pain?  For others, they may just not want to see things they don't want to see.  You know the old expression, what you don't know won't hurt you.  And still for others, it's a time to realize who our real friends are, as opposed to just "online" friends - those we probably would never go out of our way in real life to meet and/or spend time with.  Not that these people aren't nice and don't deserve a fair deal, but honestly, we can barely spare the time these days for our real friends and family.

But Dee, isn't that the beauty of Facebook?  To be able to maintain relationships that you normally wouldn't be able to?

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel the need to be connected to people I don't associate with outside of Facebook.  I know Facebook is supposed to help you stay connected to those people, but if I need a networking tool to help me do that, then what kind of relationship really is it that I am trying to hold on to?  Look, it's nothing personal.  The people I have chosen to remove myself from -- and there are many -- didn't necessarily do anything wrong.  In fact, I may end up regretting some of my decisions.  But this is just something I feel the need to do.  Just because I "know" you, or am in your company once a year at a mutual friend's function, doesn't mean I have to be connected to you on Facebook.

All that being said, there are still going to be the people who don't care who they are friends with and what they share with them.  Someone, somewhere, will learn a serious lesson the hard way, and have something they posted come back and bite them in the ass. But for now, it's the "so-what" attitude and, unfortunately, a popularity contest.  I could easily have anywhere from 600-800 "friends", between former schoolmates, former co-workers, distant relatives and those I've met throughout the sports/blogging community.  But I am down to literally a handful of people (and believe me, there are more I wish to delete, but some people you just can't) who I would consider a part of my real-world life, not just my online one.  People I knew BEFORE Facebook, and will continue to know even after, should that time come.  I don't want to have to rely on something in the virtual world, to help me live out my life in the real world. Quite honestly, that goes for texting and Kik messaging as well, but that's on a much smaller scale, and a whole other post that I am not quite ready to entertain.........