 |
We define a group share same experience,(say, have same hobby or situation) as a social circle. Social circles in real life could be divided into four types below:[1]
 |
| Dyad |
Type 2: Point to specific points, which is a steady state. One member communicates with all members in the circle. The circle could last long, but has less importance and frequency degree than one to one.
Type 3: Communication among members in a big circle/community, could be regarded as point to unspecific points, an infra-steady state. It may transfer to ultra-steady or steady state circles, but social behaviors tend to reduce in this circle as time goes by. For instance, colleagues in same company/department, cyber-pals in a game/BBS, classmates in certain program/course (IE QQ group) could be regarded as the big circle, and any member could communicate with other members. For some certain periods, especially for the initial period we join the circle, we would like to communicate with all or most members. Once we build friendship with one or some members in the circle, we will communicate more in the new point to point (or point to specific points) circle and reduce social behaviors in the big circle. Another possible case is that a member fail to find any member I'm interested after a certain period, then he/she will also reduce communications in the circle. Generally speaking, if this kind circle has no new members, it will become inactive eventually.
Type 4: Communication among members in a huge circle/community without boundary. This could be called as point to all points, which is an unsteady state.It is temporary, discrete and random. The relationship ends as soon as the communication is over until next communication starts. In our daily life, this not going to happen, we cannot broadcast to everybody in most cases. However, this could happen online.
Each person has many circles. We share and acknowledge different information in different circles.
As I mentioned, digital network is a mapping and extension to our real social environment. Now, let's take a look at what roles current SNS products are playing on.
Relationships on Facebook is more likely type 3 mentioned above. In most cases, we share pictures and statuses to all friends. It is not that stable.But the wall and message function enables point to point communication to satisfy users' need on type 1.
Twitter/Weibo looks more likely type 4.But due to the "follow" mechanism, in most cases, we know who follow us and our twits will be read by whom (not the case for public account). Hence we could also consider it as type 3. Sina Weibo seems try to map type 2 by the "close friend（密友）" function in latest V5 version, but it looks not very successful so far.
Other knowledge-based online communities such as Wikipedia, could be considered as type 4. We could say there is little social relationship on Wikipedia.It seems difficult to build relationship in these knowledge sharing communities.
IM and email is mostly used for point to point relationship.
It seems that no SNS could map all relation types circles at same time. In this regard, WeChat may be a good try, although it is not good enough.
Somebody says it is vain to map our complicate real life to online world. What do you think?
------------Supplement-----------
Added in 19 Nov 2012:
I found that the description may be ambiguous for type two circle in the article, so add an example here: suppose there are four persons A, B, C and D familiar to each other, they often gather together, we could say this is a type two circle. Generally speaking, one person has one or two such circles. And this kind circle usually contains only a few people.
In our real life, if a circle contains more people, the circle tends to less stable, as the cost to maintain it is higher.
Reference:
1.普通人的关系缺乏“全部公开”和“点对点”之外的中间状态吗？
This four types are so interesting to explain all the situation among social network analysis. Maybe anyone of relationship can get a mapping. I want to ask a question. Can the function of "chat"(私信）of weibo match with the type 1?I think it's one to one
ReplyDeleteYes. Just like the "message“ function in Facebook, the "chat” in Weibo matches to the type 1. But I don't think it is the main function for both.
DeleteWell I admit that Type One is the most pleasent one for me because it's more definite. I know the one I talk to is sure to receive my message and willing to give a reply.
ReplyDeleteWhile in social circles, especially some online group, I don't think Type Two is too good, for it gives an opportunity to personality cult, and finally lose the orgin idea of the group. For example, a QQ group is built with a topic of travelling. But finally members become only followers of the group builder, or QUNZHU in Chinese, then no one talks about travelling anymore, only drawed by the QUNZHU.
What Type 3 attracts me most is the non-responsibility-uncertainty. I mean, any reply I got here can come from a surprising person and any message can be a surprise. I'm cheered up by the surprise. Also, if no reply comes, it won't matter too much, life is going on as it should be.
For Type 4, I just think of a joke about QQ groups: Some groups seem dead but will come alive someday. Some groups seem dead and it's dead forever, which discribes the breaking down of a temporary combination. Haha, it's just for fun ~
Well, four types in this article refer to relationship in our real life. Maybe I don't describe the type two clear enough. Type two circle is a circle in which people close to each other. The example you raise, a QQ group with a travelling topic, is actually type three.
DeleteFacebook is more likely to be the type three while Twitter is type four, is this a proof that people in twitter have a more close relationship? why this kind of condition happen since we can display more about ourselves via facebook?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reading and comment. I'm not quite follow your questions. I believe that people in type three circle has closer relationship than type four. Plus, as I mentioned in the article, if most of a Twitter user's followers are his/her familiars, it's also regarded as type three circle.
DeleteIn fact, I really want to get my SNS relationship map. Do you know any app can realize this map?
ReplyDeleteIf there exist some apps, I hope that the map is private to the owner of the map. I don't want to let my bf notice that I have made that many comments to other cute guys....joking...- -
As far as I know, there is no such SNS app or website... Maybe you could create one～ :D
DeleteI’m highly agree with the sentence that if a circle contains more people, it tends to be less stable, as the cost to maintain it is higher. It’s very meaningful to talk about the four types of social circles in real life. You described them as ultra-steady, steady, infra-steady and unsteady respectively. Especially for the point to unspecific points one, I have some thoughts about it. You example is very good to make me understand this type, it is also very common in my real life that it is unlike to the Dyad relationship, in this environment, one will often lack motivation to communicate if he is not interested in the topic of the social circle. In point to point type, it’s very a full interaction between two people, so, even you don’t really interested in one topic, you will have the responsibility to reply and thus continues the topic. But in type 3, one will easily lose patience and even he disappears, no one would care.
ReplyDeleteYour following examples of the combination of any two types are very appropriate. In this way, we know that a social circle is very complicated, and as there is always a point to point, this kind of ultra-steady type exists, the circle can thus keep connected.