SocialMediaBust

Note: I decided to do what so many online publications do, which is to write an article title that is misleading, sensationalized and may not actually have anything to do with the actual comment of the article.

In searching for articles for inclusion in our Psychology of Social Media Library area, I had the fortune, or misfortune to look at the top 200 listings from a Google search using the terms "Psychology of Twitter". I had expected to see a number of articles from people or organizations that had identifiable qualifications in Psychology, or at minimum research methods, and I also expected to see some really interesting hypotheses and data.

But I didn't. What I did see was mention of a few studies, and a few articles where the mentions were repeated over and over again by people who have no background in the topic whatsoever. In some cases the titles of blog posts, while sounding good, provided only a link to one of the other articles. In other cases, the individual(s) writing who cited the same studies clearly had no understanding of how to read research, or how to draw conclusions from research.

I did find ONE person who presented the truth -- that we know little about the Psychology of Twitter, or, for that matter, the Psychology of social media. We have lots of speculation, and even some decent theorizing, but almost nothing based on replicated properly done research.

Bravo. Maybe there's more than one in that set of results. But I doubt it.

What Does This Mean?

Here's some things to jog your own thinking on the topic. Treat them as hypotheses and not absolute truth. Leave a comment if interested. Add to the list.

1. People trying to make decisions about what and how to use social media for business purposes are probably making those decisions based on third and fourth hand information, which is as accurate as would be the case if we played the "broken telephone" or "pass it one" game. Each person passing it one garbles it and/or each person "hearing" it mis-hears.
2. Those passing themselves off as experts in social media are basing this on the ability to self-proclaim, rather than on having a body of verified knowledge. And, yes, this applies to even smart, well known people who are more circumspect -- the Seth Godins and Kawasawki's of the world.
3. Google is an ineffective tool, at this point in time, for finding quality original sources, at least in terms of its general search engine, at least on this topic. (actually try to find where to buy popsicle stick makers in Canada, and you'll see how bad Google search is for other things).
4. Related to the Google issue, is the question of what defines "truth" on the Internet, and guess what? What is POPULAR is what becomes truth. If something is popular, it gets passed around more, despite the fact that popularity does not have any relation to what is true or not in any objective sense. Google, to some degree, used factors that relate to POPULARITY (incoming links) to gauge the importance of a site, and thus makes it worse.
5. Rehashes are the order of the day on blogs and social media. There's very little original thinking going on, and certainly even less critical thinking, or asking of even simple "right" questions. The same research results and thoughts are parroted over and over with little commentary.

Hey, if you comment, engage your brain first. For all our sakes.