Weak ties and "parasocial" relationships

A great article in the New York Times magazine examines the social impact of the new wave of "digital intimacy" brought on by sites like Facebook and Twitter (see Brave New World of Digital Intimacy). It's well worth the read, and I want to focus on one particular aspect, which is the references to social network theory, particularly the strength of weak ties - something I've written about before (see Structural Holes and online social networks).

The article explains the rise and immediacy of frequent updates and micro-blogging (or "ambient awareness" - a concept I like a lot). It then goes on to analyze the networks people feed their updates to, which is where weak ties come in. As a refresher, here's what weak ties are about (see my previous post about it for more detail):

In his 1973 paper entitled “The strength of weak ties”, Mark Granovetter developed his theory of weak ties. The theory states that because a person with strong ties in a cluster more or less knows what the other people in the cluster know (e.g. in close friendships or a board of directors), the effective spread of information relies on the weak ties between people in separate clusters.

Ok, so here is where we pick up the NY Times article:

But where their sociality had truly exploded was in their “weak ties” — loose acquaintances, people they knew less well. It might be someone they met at a conference, or someone from high school who recently “friended” them on Facebook, or somebody from last year’s holiday party. In their pre-Internet lives, these sorts of acquaintances would have quickly faded from their attention. But when one of these far-flung people suddenly posts a personal note to your feed, it is essentially a reminder that they exist. I have noticed this effect myself. In the last few months, dozens of old work colleagues I knew from 10 years ago in Toronto have friended me on Facebook, such that I’m now suddenly reading their stray comments and updates and falling into oblique, funny conversations with them. My overall Dunbar number is thus 301: Facebook (254) + Twitter (47), double what it would be without technology. Yet only 20 are family or people I’d consider close friends. The rest are weak ties — maintained via technology.

This rapid growth of weak ties can be a very good thing. Sociologists have long found that “weak ties” greatly expand your ability to solve problems. For example, if you’re looking for a job and ask your friends, they won’t be much help; they’re too similar to you, and thus probably won’t have any leads that you don’t already have yourself. Remote acquaintances will be much more useful, because they’re farther afield, yet still socially intimate enough to want to help you out. Many avid Twitter users — the ones who fire off witty posts hourly and wind up with thousands of intrigued followers — explicitly milk this dynamic for all it’s worth, using their large online followings as a way to quickly answer almost any question. Laura Fitton, a social-media consultant who has become a minor celebrity on Twitter — she has more than 5,300 followers — recently discovered to her horror that her accountant had made an error in filing last year’s taxes. She went to Twitter, wrote a tiny note explaining her problem, and within 10 minutes her online audience had provided leads to lawyers and better accountants. Fritton joked to me that she no longer buys anything worth more than $50 without quickly checking it with her Twitter network.

So that's the good part. Here are the perceived dangers:

It is also possible, though, that this profusion of weak ties can become a problem. If you’re reading daily updates from hundreds of people about whom they’re dating and whether they’re happy, it might, some critics worry, spread your emotional energy too thin, leaving less for true intimate relationships. Psychologists have long known that people can engage in “parasocial” relationships with fictional characters, like those on TV shows or in books, or with remote celebrities we read about in magazines. Parasocial relationships can use up some of the emotional space in our Dunbar number, crowding out real-life people.

The bottom line

I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Facebook's model is to enhance offline relationships, not replace them. Most Facebook connections start with someone you know, someone you went to school with, someone you met at a party. Few relationships on Facebook are exclusively online.

On Twitter I follow people I know, or people/organizations I know of and am interested in (Richard Roeper, CNN Breaking News, NYT articles, etc.).

I am excited about how social media is expanding the reach of our networks, and how it allows us to tap into our weak ties more effectively. I don't feel like my life is moving increasingly online at the expense of my offline relationships. I see my online life increasingly starting to enrich my offline, real-world experiences.