Twitter is a social networking application that does only one thing — allows the mutual sharing of 140 character communications (called “tweets”). Why the 140 character limit? So you can send text updates from your cell phone as well as the net.
If you haven’t used or even heard of Twitter, don’t worry, you’re not alone. As of now, only 11 percent of American Internet users have used something like Twitter (that number also includes people who simply update their status in Facebook, so we don’t know the true, lower number of Twitter-only users) (Lenhart & Fox, 2009). Twitter is a service used more widely the younger you are (up to 20 percent of those under 34 have used it or a status update service) (Lenhart & Fox, 2009).
The best way to imagine Twitter is as a 24/7 online conversation that never ends, even when you’re away from the computer. Since tweets are so short, they better take on more of an immersive, real-time feel of a talking conversation than, say, an email. Think instant messaging, except instead of talking to a single person, you’re talking to the world (and the world talks back!).
We’ve been down this road before. Despite the relative ease of creating a web page and putting it somewhere online in 1996 (GeoCities was an online community that hosted such pages and had millions of users at one point), online conversation really began on the web with the advent of blogs. It opened up web-based, two-way conversation, allowing feedback on what one wrote online:
Static Web page | Blogs |
One to many Limited conversation |
One to many Open public conversation (public feedback loop) |
IM/Chat rooms | |
One to one/many Difficult to access (especially on cell phones) |
One to one/many Easy to access Far more public (public feedback loop) |
Twitter is doing the same thing for online chat. Long available in other forms, such as IRC, IM or the thousands of individual chat rooms scattered around the net, chat is the informal streaming conversation done in real-time. The important differences that Twitter brings to the party is that its chat room is readily accessible to anyone, the conversation is automatically stored forever, it’s all readily searchable, and most importantly, it can act as a shared communications medium (like a regular chat room) or a private one (like IM). Twitter also supports applications that make twittering easy from anywhere. And just like blogging before it, one of Twitter’s primary uses seems to be to share URLs of other interesting, helpful or entertaining resources online (which depends entirely on whom you choose to “follow,” e.g. — add as a “friend”).
The Pros and Cons of Twitter
Because of this, Twitter has some unique pros and cons.
On the pros side, Twitter is yet another way to communicate online. I’m not certain anyone thought we needed this (“Oh great, one more thing I need to keep updated!”), but its popularity speaks to an unfilled communications void. The fact that it allows you to also update your status on other social networks means it can act as a central “status updating” service.
But more importantly, Twitter acts as a new public, global conversation medium. Like blogging before it, it has the potential to move us away from the “1.0” tools (like IM and chat rooms) to bring conversational chat out of the dark back rooms and into the public light.
This is a key point, because humans are inherently social creatures who engage primarily in conversational talking. Most of us aren’t authors and don’t write books, articles, or even blogs. We simply know how to talk, and Twitter is the first text service to adequately mimic this behavior in an online medium.
On the cons side, Twitter celebrates public conversation. This means that the private messaging tools are limited and not the default. Once you tweet something, it’s out there in the world forever (and stored to be searchable in the future on Twitter’s servers). The good news is that unlike Facebook, when you delete your Twitter account, your Twitter history is also gone.
Twitter can also bring about a feeling that you’re “missing something” when you’re not online and see your Twitter feed. Normal human conversations have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Twitter has none of these things — it’s continuous and nonstop, even when you’re gone. This can impart a sense of needing to “always be there” to see what’s going on. This isn’t necessarily a new feeling for some people, but the constant conversational updating on Twitter brings it to a new level.
This behavior can be unlearned, however, as it’s simply a way we’ve been taught to have a conversation with others when those conversations nearly always occurred face-to-face. Online, with no such limits as needing to be there at exactly the same time as another person, many of us will have to learn that it’s okay to step away from the conversation and come back to it at another time. It also means, however, that others need not to expect all replies in Twitter to be instantaneous. Just like email, some people will have it on all the time, and others will only check it once a day.
Which brings us to one of the biggest downsides of Twitter, and that’s knowing what you missed — you simply don’t know. Unless you have the time to go back and review everything “said” while you were away from the computer (bad you, trying to sleep!), you’re going to miss stuff. And although it’s unlikely to be important stuff (you can easily review direct and private messages sent only to you), you just don’t know.
This not knowing if you’ve missed anything “important” in the Twitterverse is a characteristic of the increase in information overload many people are beginning to experience. Between blogs, RSS feeds, news headlines, emails, Facebook status updates, and now Twitter, many people are starting to look like zombies trying to process all the information being pushed to them. Good information helps us (lead more productive lives, stay informed, etc.), while bad information results in a waste of our time and cognitive resources. But tools like Twitter don’t differentiate, all the while pushing dozens (or hundreds!) of updates to our eyes everyday.
And that’s supposedly a good thing, according to some arguments made by many people who are mesmerized by Twitter. There are “jewels” in there somewhere, sometimes, that make all the endless drivel acceptable. I suppose so, but it can very much be like waiting for a thoughtful needle to poke you from the haystack of the mundane.
Which is all the more ironic given that computers are ideal tools for helping us sift through vast amounts of data and making sense of the data (trends, significance, etc.). But Twitter turns that idea on its head and instead sends us the unfiltered stream of consciousness from millions of people. While certainly potentially interesting and even fascinating at times, most people aren’t simply up to that kind of data dump on top of their existing daily routines (and existing, limited cognitive resources).
Twitter is helpful for those who find it so, but it’s not for everyone (just like blogs, Facebook, and even an iPhone). Whether it holds value for you and improves your everyday life and information flow is something you’ll only find out if you try it yourself.
Ready for more? Read the Psychology of Twitter, Part 2
Reference:
Lenhart, A. & Fox., S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
34 comments
Great reviews. I myself using twitter to update my Facebook status, but I keep checking my Facebook again to see if there’s any responses from my friends to my updated status.
Thanks for the antidote to the predictable but still tiresome backlash from other psych sources:
via @Scobleizer: Liked “Let the Twitter backlash begin: Times calls Twitter users narcissistic” http://ff.im/-1bhUN
Great article and I decided to Digg it for you Dr Grohol, however you are missing an important point and that is that Twitter encourages users to develop their intuition (and not rely on technology so much) by providing so much information that only a highly intuitive person will look at Twitter at the right time – when there is something relevant.
Armand, I get the RSS feed of my Facebook friends status updates, and also when they comment on my or a friends status update, all sent to my email, so I only visit Facebook when there is something I want to say or need to reply to. If you use Firefox, get the Facebook toolbar.
VERY interesting regarding age of users – not our experience at all (anecdotally). DeeAnna Merz Nagel reglarly tweets about how few of her under 20 students use of have even heard of twitter, and I did a straw poll of every under 20 year old I know and they all just use MySpace or FB.
Thanks John, good read!
Kate
Kate,
Your experience maps with the Pew Internet data – younger adults (ages 18, 19, 20) are more likely to be on Facebook/MySpace than on Twitter.
Median ages (meaning half of users are older, half are younger) according to Pew Internet surveys of internet users, age 18+
Facebook: 26
MySpace: 27
Twitter: 31
LinkedIn: 40
I find twitter the first useable social networking tool and have to say that I find the audience more ‘mature’ shall we say. The only useful thing on Facebook now is sharing photos and videos – the endless stupid applications are childish and boring. Twitter allows you to connect with like-minded people and for me is geared towards sharing business or hobby information as much as simply chatting.
Interesting article though.
I use http://ping.fm to do all of my updates.
John –
Thanks for your very insightful post. You really clarify the issue of normal conversations having a beginning, middle and end, as opposed to Twitter being continuous and nonstop. Perhaps this explains the need of many folks to routinely tweet “good morning peeps” and “good night tweepts.”
You also really nail the signal:noise ratio issue. The ‘unfiltered stream of consciousness’ is both the strength and weakness of Twitter.
Carol
Well, this is the first time I’ve appeared in a screen grab of my Twitter activity!
Great post, John. For me there’s an additional aspect that’s been a phenomenal rocket ship ride: connections.
Ted Eytan told me early on that it’s all about the conversation, not the individual tweets. He’s right. I started following a couple of interesting people. Seeing their tweets, I saw some people there that seemed interesting; I clicked on their names and saw what they’d been tweeting, and if they were indeed interesting, I followed them. Then when I had something to say to them, I’d say it, and they’d start following me, and I might follow them, and it grew exponentially.
Today I’m being followed by an insanely large group of people I’m unlikely to have ever met, certainly not that quickly: @WSJHealthBlog, @SciAm, Elizabeth Cohen of CNN, several IBM executives involved in healthcare, two dozen MDs, and many others. My tweets have been picked up and forwarded (retweeted) around the world. Wow.
It’s a far cry from the “Dude, I’m in line at Ben & Jerry’s” tweets of the early days. Here’s a big shout-out to @JonL of Social Web Strategies – he was darn right to steer us there.
BUT – thanks for explaining what it is, more clearly than anything else I’ve seen!
Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion points and additional insights…
I think Ted Eytan is missing a component that is important to more people than not when talking about conversations — we value those that are easy to follow and bring value to all parties.
Twitter doesn’t differentiate “value” to the listener (just as a blog can’t either). That means that no matter whom you follow, it can be a very random experience. Some people I follow sometimes say something valuable, insightful. Sometimes those same people will go to a baseball game and give me a play-by-play (that I neither want nor find interesting). So then I spend more time “managing” people I follow, off and on. And spend even more cognitive resources in managing this new information stream.
Granted, I think it has some value. But that value varies greatly, from day to day and even from hour to hour. Following the “right” people is a start, but it doesn’t guarantee anything… And if you’re on the computer all day, it’s probably a lot more valuable to you than if you’re on a construction site all day. Which is to say, most people don’t have jobs that allow them to follow other people’s online conversations and stream of consciousness.
Very apt.. and it is for a more older thoughtful audience. but it is time consuming. you need to find ways to streamline
I haven’t tried Facebook toolbar yet, I’ll seek for it after this post. Thanks for the tip 🙂
Like the people who walk around in constant contact on a cellphone, twitter and blackberry addicts are insulating themselves from who they really are. Hopefully, some loved one will be there to pull them away.
I agree with the author–I am already overloaded. I can’t imagine I would have anything useful to say on twitter–it IS narcissistic, if you think about it. Also can’t imagine wanting to “keep up” with anyone’s 24/7 thoughts or movements–would be lost in an endless stream of data.
I’m sorry, I didn’t have the attention span to read your whole article. Please rephrase it in 140 characters or less!
I find the site very annoying. Can you imagine seeing 30 new Tweets every 5 hours, and then finding most of them to be conversations between their friends? I only use it as a status updater, rather than a conversational tool, because to “Reply” to a Tweet means that your status on your profile will change to your latest reply — so when someone views my profile they will see “@Amanda: Hahaha what time is it tomorrow?” rather than “I’m feeling overwhelmed with school, please bring me ice cream~ haha”
You’re absolutely right about Twitter not differentiating “value”. But I don’t try to “manage” people I follow. I trust that I will see what I need to see, and if I missed it I really haven’t “missed” anything. I use the search function to find like-minded people and it’s yielded a joint venture opportunity and some interesting and insightful info
“Despite the relative ease of creating a web page and putting it somewhere online in 1996 (GeoCities was an online community that hosted such pages and had millions of users at one point), online conversation really began on the web with the advent of blogs.”
USENet (the current major instantiation is Google Groups) has been around much longer than blogs, allowing users the ability to carry on online conversations.
“A culture filled with bloggers thinks differently about politics or public affairs, if only because more have been forced through the discipline of showing in writing why A leads to B…” (Lessig). If blogging gets us thinking socially / conversationally, engaging in and through personal philosophies with others around us, microblogging (i.e. twittering) gets us thinking socially on-the-fly, encouraging us to cut through flourishes and decorations to get to the point. What we need to watch out for of course is that we do not turn out into a culture of people walking around talking in elevator pitches.
http://pareidoliac.blogspot.com/2009/02/twitter-diagram-art-of-communication.html
Excellent post John, hope to see you at the conference in Canada!
Interesting analysis. It should be noted however that recent research exposes that accounts with more than 1000 followers are in fact not all that socially interactive (See DanZarrella.com) As a matter of fact the more followers you have we are far less interactive.
What is more Twitter is not nearly as large as we are led to believe, most people have multiple accounts, (personally I have 4, one colleague has as many as 9) Most of these multiple accounts are relatively inactive. Further when you put the top accounts againt “Status People” Twitter Faker tool, you come to find that there are 10’s of millions of fake and inactive users on Twitter.
Finally, Twitter is very much automated now. Most people are scheduling there “tweets” and are less interested in interaction and more interested in getting their message out. Even Jack Dorsey has admitted that Twitter is not really all that social…it is more of an information portal.
Finally there is the psychological question of “followers”…and that is what are we really following and what is the motivation for following them. Is it reality to follow thousands of people? It is not really physically or psychologically possible. It is merely a number that helps boost our follower count due to the influence of reciprocity. So in reality we really are not following who we say we follow we merely have them for our own selfish purposes.
There is a great deal of psychological research that needs to be done as to why we use this particular medium and what sustains people to continue to use it. After all getting the “right” followers is not easy and time consuming, the larger your followers the less interactive the user is, so then why do we continue?
I use it…however, I am pretty sure I do so because I have fallen into the trap of “Group Conformity” (See Solomon Asch)