The premise of the lecture was that through audience participation, we were to vote on whether this renowned(?) designer was a ‘Genius or Wanker’. At the end, a public ballot was held to determine the outcome, by holding up a piece of paper with the respective word on it. More than half of the people voted for the more positive outcome of Genius, but it didn’t seem to match with how he presented himself during this interview.

One of the topics that was discussed was a recent verbal slaughtering that he had received on an online forum. I kind of agreed with what he was saying; about how people might use such an anonymous form of communication to express themselves in a harsh and judgemental way. But would he be complaining about the conduit if someone praised him highly on the very same website? I doubt it, and it seems silly to dismiss the validity of a comment based on how it affects you on a personal level.

So it seems that it’s frowned upon to make negative comments towards an individual. Even if the negative comments are intended to be honest communication. I’ve seen this censorship occur in the absence of the facebook dislike button; where a website will choose to restrict people’s methods of communication (for whatever reasons, I can only speculate).

Jumping back to the present, in this open well lit lecture hall, where work colleagues sit next to each other discussing their vote at the end of  this semi-contrived social experiment. In light of the presumed social stigma of making a negative comment, how are these people expected to make an unbiased vote on this persons character?

Throughout the lecture, I developed the impression that the person we were scrutinising was no more than a regular guy, with strengths and flaws just like anyone else. The thing that did seem to set him apart though, was his desire to repeatedly contradict himself when trying to satisfy the audiences not-so-well thought out questions. We all live with contradictory aspects of our character, but he didn’t seem like he was able to present that to the audience. Without a shovel in sight, he dug his own hole by trying to appease other people. Instead of acceptance, there seemed to be a big dirt pile of denial. Not the kind of person I would say that I admire in any industry.

My Genius idea would be to stage a recount in a completely unbiased environment. I want to believe that the outcome of the vote would be different. But maybe the part of me that’s saying that is just a complete and utter Wanker.

For a week, I see what life would be like without logging on to Facebook. I turned off all my notifications, turned away when my girlfriend was logged on watering her virtual plants and avoided all temptation. At the end of the week, I wanted to identify a difference between the useful and non-useful things that social networking provides.

Staying in touch
It turned out that there were only people that I stayed in touch with via Facebook, I didn’t have their current phone number or even email address. I don’t see this as a benefit of Facebook, but a lazy hook that they use to drag you in to their realm. There’s no reason that I shouldn’t have someone’s email address, they must have one to use the site in the first place, so the onus of this one is on me.

Direct Contact
The only new direct information that I learnt was that 4 different people like the photos that I take and I also discovered that a youtube video that I thought was a fake, turned out to be… well… a fake. I understand that you have to give to receive, and maybe with a week of zero interaction, I couldn’t expect much, but  I have to ask; is the time invested in priming these responses really worth it? In the short term, I feel like I get some kind of reward from this feedback, but it feels like a can of diet soda; a nice sweet taste, with zero calories in the long run.

Useful information
Just news that my sister has a cold, and my girlfriends brother posted an interesting dance music blog. I was kind of hoping for more, since all week I’ve been teased with my girlfriends cute little snickering as she checked her profile. I had dreams of side-splitting anecdotes and golden nuggets of enlightenment, but there didn’t seem to be any. What I discovered instead, was a desire to add a few more people to my ‘hide’ list, and that I will strive to post less throwaway comments.

The flip side
In my estimations, I must have diverted around 7 facebook hours, or if I stop lying to myself; 15 hours. So what did I do different this week, that I didn’t do for the past few months? I swam a kilometre at my local pool, went for a hygienist appointment at the dentist, took my cat to the vet to get spayed, created 6 new portraits (cat chappell, kara cabados, phineas kibbey, sue kibbey, magnus huckvale, dj bissen), and paid some attention to the neglected Guitar Hero that has been collecting ageing rocker skin cells in the corner.

I didn’t get a feeling of instant reward at first, where were the people telling me that they liked my photos, where was the feeling of satisfaction when taking my cat to a strange place to be poked and prodded? I learnt that the reward system that I’d become reliant on from Facebook was no more real than the rewards that I eventually derived from myself, but the one big difference, is that I was in control, not some external source. That I can live with.

I still agree with my previous post about life being how you choose to waste your time, so if I was to say that choosing to do things other than check my posts at hourly intervals was any better than playing an imaginary guitar based video game, I’d be a hypocrite (oh wait, I am a human… isn’t it in our nature to subscribe to Hypocrisy?). All that happened this week, is that I chose to do something different, and I enjoyed it. In that sense it was a success. If you are so inclined, I suggest that you make up your own life experiments and put them into practice.