3 ms·
> IMO, we're this is about many-2-many communication figuring itself out, at scale. Many-2-many is our default mode, what we naturally do. A group of people tal
by Invictus0 5y ago
> IMO, we're this is about many-2-many communication figuring itself out, at scale. Many-2-many is our default mode, what we naturally do. A group of people talking shop over dinner, a bunch of kids deciding between soccer and tag.
I think it would be more apt to refer to this as few-to-few. As the number of people increases in a party, people prefer to splinter into small groups where they have a greater speaking to listening ratio than all stand around listening to one person speak.
See here for more: https://www.danielnettle.org.uk/download/002.pdf https://www.danielnettle.org.uk/download/002.pdf
- dalbasal 5y agoSure, taxonomy is always debateable. It is approximate though. Beyond 4, other dynamics crop up. maybe we need more cultural tools to keep a conversation. Maybe the conversation starts to subdivide, some people dominate, other zone out... The "parasocial" dynamic that the author describes is part of that complexity, emerging around central figures in a many-to-many scenario.