As a social entrepreneur, I have asked myself time and time again whether I've become one dimensional when coming to my understanding of the use of social networks? This is a serious topic to me because of the fact that most of us (especially especially) are invested in relationships without going into details of the workings of these relationships. I know that positive attitudes toward a new communication technology tend to be a significant motivator in subsequent adoption and use. The recent spurt in the adoption of social media tools such as social networking sites (SNSs) demands the examination of attitudinal variables on motives to use these instruments.
I once read about a study which explicated a multidimensional measure of attitudes toward SNSs and tested a theoretical model to examine the effect of attitudes on motives to use SNSs and SNS activity. Participants (N=674) completed a cross-sectional survey consisting of measures of attitudes toward SNSs, motives of SNS use, and level of activity. Results showed support for a revised model in which attitudinal variables-ease of use, self-disclosure, and social connection-strongly predicted motives of SNS use such as passing time, information/entertainment, social conformity, and, most importantly, socialization.
As a social entrepreneurs, I too have taken note of the motive of using SNSs as a social tool that supersedes the direct effect of other motives on SNS activity, suggesting that users' primary activity on SNSs was for socialization and for relational development and maintenance. Again I ask, Are social entrepreneurs broadening this platform by developing various uses that is multidimensional? First of all, the understanding of human cognitive evolution, and that of the other primates, means taking sociality very seriously. For humans, this requires the recognition of the sociocultural and historical means by which human minds and selves are constructed, and how this gives rise to the reflexivity and ability to respond to novelty that characterize our species.
For other, non-linguistic, primates we can answer some interesting questions by viewing social life as a feedback process, drawing on cybernetics and systems approaches and using social network neo-theory to test these ideas. Specifically, we need to show how social networks can be formalized as multi-dimensional objects, and use entropy measures to assess how networks respond to perturbation. We also need to refer to the use of simulations and natural ‘knock-outs’ in a free-ranging baboon troop to demonstrate that changes in interactions after social perturbations lead to a more certain social network, in which the outcomes of interactions are easier for members to predict.
Without sounding like an academic sort: I also read an article that supports Mead's theory that further explains how the communicative process by which a human mind comes into being has two phases. The first phase, which Mead calls the ‘conversation of gestures’, characterizes the communicative interactions of non-human animals. Mead's argument was that non-humans undoubtedly communicate with each other, but that they have no sense they are doing so. One animal produces some action or gesture that is responded to by the other, which then elicits a further response from the first in a very ‘conversational’ way. Neither animal, however, needs to understand that its own gestures are causing the other animal to act. They ‘know how’ to communicate but they do not ‘know that’ they are doing so. Animals that engage each other in this way cannot respond to their own gestures from the standpoint of others; in this sense, their communication is ‘unconscious’ (or perhaps ‘non-conscious’).
The second phase that emerges—both evolutionarily and developmentally—is the ‘conversation of significant gestures’: a form of conscious communication, via language (significant symbols), that arises out of the process of unconscious communication. Once communication via significant symbols is possible, it gives rise to the capacity to respond actively to our own gestures from the standpoint of others. For example, Mead suggests that, when we ask someone to fetch us a chair, the vocal gesture we make ‘calls out’ in us the same response that it calls out in the person to whom it was directed. For Mead, it is this capacity to turn our vocal gestures back on ourselves—this reflexivity—that characterizes the emergence of thought, and our ability to communicate intentionally and not just ‘unconsciously’.
The mind is, in other words, a form of social participation: a process, not a thing. This is important for me to note, however, that Mead was not denying a central role for the evolved nature of the human brain, nor was he suggesting that all human cognition was produced by cultural processes alone. Instead, the process is one of mutual enhancement and integration: the nature of the human brain is instrumental in the process of creating minds—thus we should not expect to find that, with appropriate social and cultural scaffolding. The sociocultural foundations of human cognition are thus laid clear by this framework: mind is an active process by which we set out to make sense of our particular social environment and is itself changed as a result of that interaction through feedback processes designed to control our perceptions of ourselves and of others.
In conclusion, I've learned that our social dimensions have a common set of nodes, typically, corresponding to human beings Layers, in turn, reflect various relation types coming from different user activities gathered in computer systems. The time dimension corresponds to temporal variability of the social network. Social groups for example, are extracted by means of clustering methods and join people close each other. An atom component of the multidimensional social network are views – small social sub-networks, which are in the intersection of all dimensions. A view describes the state of one social group, linked by only one type of relationships (one layer), derived from within only one time period. A true multidimensional model of the social network is similar to the general concept of data warehouses, in which a fact corresponds to a view.
This new formalization of social networks provides me with a framework within which to predict network dynamics and evolution, which is most likely going to help me highlight how social networks work when developing my business relationships and has implications for my future investment decisions when coming to cognitive evolution......