[Mud-Dev] Social Networks

[John Buehler]

Paul E. Schwanz, II writes:
> From: "Dave Rickey" <daver at mythicentertainment.com>

>> At the other extreme, I live in a townhouse development full of
>> dual-income, no-kids households.  I have only met the people
>> living in the townhouse next door (with whom I share an interior
>> wall) once, and I don't know their names.  In the terminology of
>> networks, I am a weakly connected leaf node, and my neighborhood
>> is a sparse social network.  I have no sense of "belonging" to
>> that neighborhood, it is just one of many places I have lived in
>> my life, and one I could leave at any time without a sense of
>> loss.

> Nice post, Dave.  This is such a good description of Northern
> Virgina communities (I'd forgotten that you live nearby).  It
> reminds me very much of my own townhouse experiences in
> Centreville.  A couple of years ago, though, my wife and I moved
> out to Gainesville, where community is a bit more existent, though
> not truly small-town.  Now I am wondering what factors go into
> determining these sorts of things.  Brainstorming for three quick
> answers, I come up with:

>   - More children in the neighborhood.  Parents now share a need
>   that falls low on Maslow's Heirarchy.  Interest in their
>   family's security compels them to reach out to others in the
>   community.

>   - More stay-at-home moms.  Again, comminity seems to result from
>   shared needs, though probably higher on Maslow's Heirarchy in
>   this instance.  The need for adult fellowship is probably not
>   nearly as pressing, but I do think it contributes.

>   - Less ambition.  Less investment at work may lead to higher
>   investment at home.  Maybe this is simply a matter of having
>   more time, but investment in outdoor recreational activities,
>   yardwork, etc. around the home seems to lend itself to
>   community.

> In general, it seems to me that shared needs are the key.  And the
> lower those *perceived* (important to virtual reality) needs
> appear to fall in Maslow's Heirarchy, the greater their tendency
> to push toward community.

There are shared needs.  Then there are shared goals.  And then
there are shared goals that inherently encourage bonds.  If your
goal is to raise a family (a 'warm and fuzzy' goal), then if you
meet somebody else whose goal is to raise a family, there is a
certain comfort level there.  These people are comfortable with
socializing with each other.  It is inherent in their goals to
socialize, and their sincerity is demonstrated by pursuing those
goals (raising a family).

In constrast, those who have the shared goal of becoming the CEO of
a major corporation certainly share a goal, but they are in
competition with each other.  Further, they have established that
their goal is centered on themselves.  It is inherent in their goal
to compete, and their sincerity is demonstrated by pursuing that
goal (gaining steps in the corporate ladder).  The social bond that
they develop is a camaraderie of enemies, of conflict.  They *like*
having peers who are experiencing the same things, but the goals
that they have are not conducive to sharing at a fundamental level.

In a current multiplayer fantasy game, players are encouraged to
identify with each other by personal achievement and the
accumulation of wealth.  And this by killing.  Contrast this with
raising a family in the suburbs.  It's not very condusive to
community, although community certainly forms.  It is like the
management of a stagnant corporation.  Everyone is fighting for a
piece of the pie, all the while socializing with each other because
these are the people available to socialize with.  And they all
refer to it as 'the rat race'.  Sounds very much like what I've read
on various game message boards over the past three or four years.

JB, another member of Northern Virginia


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev