Human Nature Meets Social Media – The Brain Science Behind Participation by Joseph Carrabis, DishyMix Guest Blogger

[[This is a resurrected post from another blog. We’re ressurecting it because J references it in Reading Virtual Minds Volume II: Experience and Expectation and the other blog is kaput. By the way, you should also get a copy of Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History because he likes royalties.
PS) The prelude to this post is in The Lost Prelude to “Human Nature Meets Social Media – The Brain Science Behind Participation by Joseph Carrabis, DishyMix Guest Blogger”.]]

I left off with some redefinitions based on reframes. This might be semantics to some and I won’t argue that, only offer that semantics is extremely important and increases in importance the larger the social frame in which statements, observations, etc., are made.

For example, I wrote “The reframe you want is ‘interactive members'” and offered that it is an example of part of the answer to your larger question. Both NextStage and related research has demonstrated that men and women will respond to that simple statement quite differently, different age groups will respond differently, different cultural groups will respond differently and, what’s the killer for most marketers, those responses will occur at a non-conscious level. People will have a positive or negative take on it, not even be aware of their own reaction yet act upon that non-conscious reaction as if it were stated fact. It doesn’t matter if the audience understands, accepts or shares the meaning of the language used in communication. We’re not talking about logic or truth. Especially when it comes to social networks.

Referencing my last post again, “The reframe you want is ‘interactive members'” is a male oriented statement, “The necessary reframe is ‘interactive members'” is a female oriented statement.

I can offer an in depth explanation why the former is male and the latter is female based on Modality Engineering if people want and the simplest answer is that the former establishes a linear relationship between me and thee, speaker and spoken-to. The former – completely without meaning to – will perceptibly raise people’s blood pressure, increase pulse and respiration, …, and those are just the macro sympathetic nervous system factors. Blood chemistry will change for all but a few people because adrenaline and a host of other proteins, enzymes and peptides get released.

All from a simple statement? Yes. That simple statement is hierarchical and depending on tone, situation, inference, etc., is adversarial. Use it wisely or not at all.

The latter statement does many wonderful things. It completely removes any adversarial aspect between speaker and spoken-to by removing “you want” as the action clause. It further supplies information without involving persons or personhood. And it directs attention to the transitive phrase and away from speaker and spoken-to via the adjective “necessary”.

I offer all this because it’s part of the answer to the larger question. The easiest way to get people to take part, to become interactive, is to demonstrate their value directly, is to make it obvious that the site owner/management recognizes them as “members” and not just an “audience”. This brings us to exafference and reafference, something I wrote about in Branding in Online Video. Online video and social media both deal with exafference – passive participation (the “they’re giving you their time” part) – and reafference, or active participation. How the two deal with exafference and reafference differs and the principles are the same.

The original question contained “…there are different reasons for contributing…” and listed several ways of contributing. Remembering that I suggest we invite members to add and share, we need to acknowledge that nobody does anything unless they feel safe first. Even people who routinely engage in risky behaviors do so because they feel safe in their own being (this is the “Twenty-One and bullet proof” concept young people tend to have)

So people become reafferent (interactive) when they feel safe first. Social media conveys safety by demonstrating it. People responded to Susan Bratton’s call for questions because they feel safe with her and via extension, with me. I’m benefiting from Susan’s reputation within her existing social.

People submitted questions for me to answer because they trust Susan to value their time, their input, their reputation, so on and so forth. This trust equates to safety in the guise of pleasure or pain on an interesting slider.

Pain to Pleasure Trust

I’ve written in several places that the brain determines trust and never distrust. People may say they don’t trust someone and what the brain is registering is that they trust that someone to cause them pain (and the implications this has for online and brand loyalty are enormous).

The core issue, though, is that safety and trust have to be demonstrated. Susan gets to demonstrate this by having you folks post questions and get responses. This is a demonstration to others that they, too, can feel safe asking questions and getting responses on Susan’s blog.

This form of reafference brings us back to “direct address” again.

(more to follow)

Posted in , , , , ,

Joseph Carrabis on Neuro-Economics and Reading Virtual Minds Part 2 of 2

[[This post is a resurrection of a podcast on another blog that’s gone into the great internet of the west. We’re reposting here as J mentions it in Reading Virtual Minds Volume II: Experience and Expectation. He also suggests everybody pick up a copy of Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History because he likes royalties.]]

You’ll need javascript and flash enabled to hear this amazingly erudite speaker discussing the most fascinating topics

Posted in , , , ,