This philosopher's work explains Twitter Addiction
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- I am writing a book! If you to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video about Twitter and the philosophy of jokes or humor. It deals with the work of Thi Nguyen from the University of Utah, Ted Cohen from the University of Chicago, and the 3rd Earl Lord of Shaftesbury. It makes the point that jokes and tweets both centrally involve high-context speech and run the risk of context shedding or context collapse.
Read Nguyen's excellent short article on all of this, "Twitter, the Intimacy Machine" published by The Raven ravenmagazine.org/magazine/tw...
This channel is a hidden gem
This is one explanation, but tribalism and finding your identity-group(s) also lead to an addiction, because you can do it all form the keyboard without going to physical meetings and get-together. The kicker is, as Jeffrey Kaplan points out, that the 280 characters limitation increases your chance of being misunderstood/misread and that can create conflict with both in-groups and obviously out-groups.
My theory about humor is, you know how there's a certain mental delight when you finally understand a thing and the light bulb turns on? Humor involves making connections between things that shouldn't even be connecting, and you get an entire bank of light bulbs to turn on all at once. That would explain why jokes have to mix congruous and incongruous elements, and aren't funny (or at least are less funny) when repeated.
i think you could extend this to poetry as well
@@jensoh I could see that!
@@jensoh rap too
What about people who laugh at almost any joke and people who rarely do so?
@@eduardogamez2661 thats called mental illness lol
Professor Kaplan: You are a world class explainer! Thank you!
My favorite of all your videos. I had never before heard of what now seems to be the unified theory of jokes.
This makes a lot of sense. There's a common expression that's arisen on Twitter-and I'll post this if it's not mentioned in the video-when a post that was meant to get a very specific result from the people who are in the know, goes viral and starts to be circulated among many, many people who don't share the same assumptions as the author and loudly, angrily, mockingly make that known to all. The author will roll their eyes sometimes and throw up their hands, and say "I see my tweet has _escaped its target audience."_
But "context collapse" is shorter, I like it more.
That cloud joke is lit
This is shockingly applicable to CZcams comment sections. Really, it's applicable to how most internet forums work. The short, early, punchy comments get the most attention (positive or not).
No it's not
Your videos are fantastic, please upload more frequently!
This was great! Keep up the great work!
I just want to give praise for using the much smoother sounding "addictive" as opposed to the harsh and dumb sounding "addicting". Kudos.
Best discovery ever in CZcams. I was just looking for new info on how to take notes effectively, and, boy, let me tell you, is this channel addictive? Do I want some more?
I'm amazed, when I graduated from college I was requested to take a "social services" subject, and I chose to translate A History of Ethics. vol. I (by Vernon J. Bourke)... I'm fascinated with Ethics ever since!
Thank you, Mr. Jeffrey you're a genuine genius, and also an utterly talented comedian, I can't stop watching your videos.
This was fascinating to watch! Definitely applies to TikTok too.
You are a great philosopher
ooh man, just discovered ur channel. So good!
You are really really amazing sir ..
Your way of teaching is amazing
Sir please deliver the lectures on the whole philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.
Thank you ❤
I love you, Sir. We so much need people with great minds and spirits.
ALL communication requires shared background.
The essence of humor is the sudden, unbidden reduction of conflicting and irreducible thoughts provided by the event (joke). That is to say, non-deliberate disambiguation of incompatible information. In your example, it is the collision of a stereotype about German culture and the pun that hunger for food and hunger for power mean that food and power are essentially alike.
Thank you professor Kaplan.
So interesting!
Great video
Thanks!
I admire your concision and very large glass panel.
I admire his ability to write on it backwards!
Or do you just flip the video so everything is backwards?
@@harryr.burger828 Good point. Maybe I will flip the screen for a more authentic experience!
Hello teacher .thank for the clear explanation. Could you please make videos to explain about philosophy of freedom (Steiner Rudolf's book ) thank you so much for your help. I appreciate all your lessons.
Nice theory, hopefully it gets tested. Speaking of which, do you plan to do a few videos about Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend?
Could you do a video on Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus? I love your videos!!!!
I think there's an issue with this in that, if everyone assumed good faith of everyone else, this would not happen.
There is a meme on Tumblr that goes as follows: someone posts a niche joke that only makes sense if you are an expert in a specific field. It gets out into the world, where someone sees it, and replies with
"hang on I need to Google something" ..... "Okay yeah this is funny".
If we all had reason to assume that random people on the internet aren't in danger of being racist, then we wouldn't jump to conclusions when it comes to people being ironic about racism as quickly, and we would go "oh let me search this person up... Oh okay they seem cool".
I think that, given that we have far too much reason to be distrustful of people beforehand, it is important to establish a shared base of contextual knowledge among _everyone_ when it comes to these kinds of things. It feels like the only way to avoid those missteps.
Or, you know. Stop using Twitter altogether.
Honestly both is good.
I feel really dumb right now but how does the betrayal of trust aspect of this become addictive. Like I can see how saying a joke and getting a laugh could be addictive (re dopamine etc) but I assume that's the smooth brain take. What you're saying is having that joke get ripped out of context (the fall) is addictive but as far as I can tell you haven't mentioned HOW this is the case? Getting cancelled on Twitter and losing your job because of a miscommunication on Twitter sounds like a horror story to me and the antithesis of something I'd think of as addictive. If it's a case of or some variant of "some men just want to watch the world burn" and don't care about their own image I guess I could buy that but it's not mentioned in the video and seems like it could only be the case of the minority. Anyways, I've probably missed something fundemental lol, this was a really cool vid despite my not totally grasping it.
Perhaps it is like people (almost addictively) turning their heads to look at a car crash 🤔
I was similarly waiting for him to close the loop, like explain exactly how addiction is defined/works, & why the set of addictive things includes Twitter.
I'm very curious as someone autistic (highly formal & literal in structure of how thought itself works), and problematically addicted to Twitter, seeking a cure.
And yes, there very much is an "Autistic Twitter", the main tag is #ActuallyAutistic.
The betrayal of trust isn't directly responsible for the addiction. The addiction comes directly from resonating with your crowd. Retweet can lead to context shredding, but also can lead to greater resonance. Really, Twitter is gambling. You make your tweet, you are gambling on it resonating with people and getting retweets to boost the resonance but also understanding that it will lead to increased context shredding which can be dangerous. It very much is a risk/reward structure.
@@Helm_To_108 thanks, I can see a lot better where he's coming from. Essentially the rush of putting yourself out there and being at the mercy of the audience; do they laugh at the joke or stare at me awkwardly? I think the reason I'm not vibing with the theory (resonating with it even!) is just that it seems to be presenting this as the root cause of Twitter addiction when I suspect the average Twitter addict could care less how they get their likes as long as they get them. I am sure it is definitely A cause just not the main cause if the echo chamber that is Twitter is anything to go on.
I'm with you in not understanding this theory. I didn't realize that retweeting something dumb or ignorant was even a thing. I always though twitter was somewhat addicting because when people go to the site they are looking for some form of entertainment or to stumble across some new perspective on a common or current subject. Basically they're bored. Any app is checked out because it's new or if its popular. It's nothing more than a follow the crowd mentality and at some point something new comes along and people abandon the old. A site that is successful mostly because of epic fails in cognitive skills (that can't be seen, recorded and shared on CZcams)? Really?
Someone once said that as religion fades from the public square, it is being replaced with group identity. I see some truth to that.
So we are just gonna ignore how he’s writing on that glass backwards
The law of large numbers practically requires freewill.
It would be interesting to see how HP Grice's Logic and Conversation would be applied to this idea of "high context " speech
So true... The joke s some of us think of instantaneously is lost on the people we share them with... Of course it works the other way too.
Tbh...very few of my social circle say any thing off the cuff.. Or come to think of it share few if any funny anecdotes...
All lovely people who I love and think love me? Who really knows? There's another debate.. Who likes, admires, loves or just puts up with you..? Any ideas?
context shedding, or context shredding? You said the first, but the on-screen text had the second. They both kind of work with the same meaning and I'm not sure which was the intended version.
We have hopes in all the time whenever you talks with anybody
I've say an watched a close friend loose his life to this addiction. Like an alcoholic he even defends it.
Ah so this is where my daughters tuition is going
the most interesting place on youtube!!! Thomas Nagle forever....(now that i can understand him)...Thanks !!!
HIs paper on echo chambers and epistemic bubbles is also quite an excellent read, would definitely recommend
Link
@@azdjedi google
Wait so why is It addictive? Because of context collapse? How is this addictive?
No, the context collapse explains why it is often cruel. It's addictive because it's like gambling--taking a chance and when you win you feel connection with other people because you share a common background.
There’s another ‘context’, where ‘bad faith’ interpretation is hidden and can be denied. Retweeting and likes are addictive in spreading and perpetuating the bad faith etc while denying culpability. There are levels of context & hiddenness.
@@jeffreykaplan1 Not all positive reinforcement is addictive. Why is Twitter reinforcement addictive? Or did I futz up my first assumption?
Maybe it’s like intermittent rewarding. You can swing a golf club a hundred times and miss, but one good hit will carry you through another hundred misses. So the occasional reward of an upvote strengthens your participation more than 100% upvotes. In dog training you don’t give rewards 100% of the time. If you only reward some of the time you create a much stronger behavior. If we had no emotions at all would we still tweet?
Danger.
Makes sense kids prefer slapstick and goofy humour over punchline humour.
This is so Jeffrey Kaplan
Is this academic ? It seems a set of very ordinary ideas we all would normally understand. Attaching catchy new names to things such as ‘context collapse’ ‘trust fall’ doesn’t make the obvious any less ordinary.
I don't see how, as you put it, "blocking the catch" is incentivized. I can see how getting re-tweeted outside of your context group could cause this, but it seems like it just happens by accident, when people re-tweet and it spreads beyond the initial audience.
If I can't make joke, I'll become the joke
See 'How one tweet can ruin your life', by Jon Ronson on CZcams.
That wasn't eight minutes.
And to think that alI this time, I just thought it was appealing to the narcissistic epidemic that is mankind.
Seems like it's kind a shibboleth thing. You tell the joke and if your audience laughs, they're part of your tribe.
It’s a echo chamber and used for cognitive affirmation
I love your work Jeffery, but your rose colored glasses miss the protest of the retweet… getting ratioed is not a sign of misunderstanding the nuance of the speaker (twitterer)… it’s the only available appreciated method to dislike/disagree (or embarrass) the speaker.