Social media loners and outsiders are real
A number of weeks ago I asked whether social media was about the individual or the group. Many of the responses indicated that they thought the group was the important part. But what about the lone wolves that refuse to join any pack for any length of time?
Some people naturally love to be part of groups. If I look at my two children, as an example, one is definitely a group person; the other is much more of an individual and a bit of a loner (not unlike his dad). Both tendencies have their strengths and weaknesses. The loner or outsider’s approach can be harder and more painful, but can have its own rewards when it comes to making choices that are consistent with your own personal values. The group member can often be happier, but sacrifice part of themselves to comply with the group’s norms; this isn’t a very painful sacrifice for many people, but it can be hard when you can’t fully commit to the group’s norms and goals.
I’ve drifted through a number of websites, online groups, etc. and, consistent with my past, quite often I just continue on to look at the next thing.
I should note that networks of friends, associates, etc. can still exist without formal group membership. These things are important to me.
I think that social media (and all media, really) should be able to incorporate the group member and the individual as long as their goals and actions do not conflict with each other. I think you can gain a lot of value by helping other people, but you don’t always need to be a formal group member to do so.
Outside of the Web I’ve been a member of certain groups (including my employer’s company) for many, many years. I know there’s power in that sort of thing. But there’s also a lot of potential in being an independent individual who moves from group to group without necessarily belonging.
What do you think?
digiphile:
Loners are certainly out there online, Mark. I don't see them online as much, perhaps because so many netizens choose to read and move on. That's changed in recent years as the tools for feedback and contribution have become more frictionless but I'm uncertain about this premise. If we're talking about social media, wouldn't loners inherently be unseen outliers? If the discussion is about tribes or affinity groups, I can see where movement from one to the next will be worth examining. Loose ties, etc. But if the focus is truly on loners, like the hoary woodsmen I've met in northern Maine or true nomads roaming the steppes, I'm not sure whether you'll find them coming into the social media campfire unless they need something — news, a review for a product or service or other information. At least, that's if offline behavior transfers over. I've observed many loners offline become quite social on the Internet once they find kindred spirits on message boards, in virtual worlds or in gaming environments. But then, they aren't true loners — just social outliers in whatever part of the globe they happen to be on.
25 February 2009, 5:32 pmTori Deaux:
I'm not really a lone wolf, but the patterns of social media trends are as unnatural for me as they are for the “outcast” type. Last year, I was so frustrated about it that I wrote a really long post on the topic which led to a really long series on the topic. I'm convinced that one of the reasons Twitter has taken off the way it has is that it allows and rewards many different interaction styles. (And I hope those links are ok, they just seemed really relevant)
25 February 2009, 6:02 pmMark Dykeman:
Thanks for your insight. Maybe nomads is a better term.
25 February 2009, 6:44 pmMark Dykeman:
That's cool, I'll check out those links!
25 February 2009, 6:44 pmAdamSinger:
I'm definitely the lone wolf, but make connections with those I feel are just so intellectually compelling or outstanding people that I know I can learn so much from. You're in that category, Mark.
25 February 2009, 10:06 pmMark Dykeman:
Thank you, kind sir!
26 February 2009, 4:33 amKimberly Bock:
I'm one of the lone wolves. I feel as if I lose my identity when having to be in compliance with a group. A loss of individuality in conformity with the majority. I fit in much nicer with others who are the same.
I like associating with those who do not feel obligated to conform. It seems they are more 'real' and transparent. In essence, more trustworthy. I've experienced the outgoing netsterisms and made a go of it. But since I've removed 'group think' from my vocabulary, I am able to create and innovate much more fluently. More clarity, less noise.
Thanks for getting the thought ball rolling Mark, as usual.
28 February 2009, 7:24 pmMark Dykeman:
Sure, you're welcome.
28 February 2009, 8:02 pm