First thoughts-a great website, fantastic project. But I think a real key point he makes is that users define how social media is used, not the developers. This is an eerie echo of Second Life, which upon starting up (2003) had exactly the same thing happen–the users quickly defined what the platform would become, which was very different from what the developers had intended. Again it appears that in many ways SL was a precursor to the social media phenom, at least from behavioral POV.
Great data from Miller’s group, and I think we can reference their key findings as social impacts for our project.
From my sister’s data, it’s becoming clear that the Hasbro Cat is very effective at eliciting an emotional response from people. A key point of interest is why is it effective–our quick and dirty beta test here is that the Dog is not near as effective, in fact is negatively(?) effective. The Cat in the office gets fairly constant interaction even when not turned on–the Dog has by request been turned off most of the time, as it is very irritating in a social environment.
D. thinks that a key ‘trick’ is the demanding of attention–a 2018 version of tamagotchi, and that the effort leads to valuation. Oddly, the Dog is more demanding, but with voice rather than movement/purring. This doesn’t work. Bob thinks (and I suspect he’s right) that the 2 units were developed by different teams w/in Hasbro, especially since the Cat posture/movement were not copied in the Dog, which is missing most movement. So it appears that the emotional link is based on perceived need–“IT” needs you, but there is a fine line between bonding and irritation.
We have also just realized our ‘ikigai‘ model has suddenly become a hot topic in self-help/self-improvement groups, witness all the new books coming out with ‘ikigai’ at key, new blogposts on the topic, etc. Having said that, as far as we can tell, all miss a major component of Mathews 1996 work, which was that most Japanese don’t even know what their ikigai is, nor is there any real general agreement on how one gets there. His work is very clear that ikigai is not self-improvement, “making yourself all that you can be” or such–it is an internal need to have a central, persistent purpose to existence. This within the Asian context of good/bad being in balance, and without the idea of self-improvement, but rather within the idea of following a path (unique to each individual).