Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

On Social Media and Microblogging

I haven't decided how to handle microblogging. I've typed up dozens of posts just to discard them because I doubt it's appropriate for people to hear every little mildly interesting thought that goes through my head. I considered just making a private journal, but something about that seemed unsatisfactory. It's like under the hood I feel that it's important that these thoughts not only be expressed, but also that they be heard.
Hell, I've tried to delete this post (and did delete several different alternates for this paragraph) more than a few times. What do people normally do with these kinds of thoughts? Is it what makes up the bulk of small talk with familiar friends? Do people normally just keep it to themselves and deal with the lack of fulfillment that comes from that? Am I wrong and the 800 posts about the color of socks are actually both normal and appreciated even though I can't really appreciate them and people make jokes about posting pictures of lunches?
I feel like normal people would have an intuitive answer to this question and probably wouldn't have even thought about it. However, having to engineer the logic behind what most people find intuitive the way that my brain seems to require, it seems like the answer that society says is correct mismatches with it's behavior. In many cases, a person may call someone's post about their lunch a shitpost, but it usually doesn't take much searching to find a similar post by them.
This means that what people want is for small thoughts to go unspoken, but at the same time they want to speak their own small thoughts freely and are offended by people who say they shouldn't. Double standards like this are common in society by my experience, but it makes choosing how to behave complicated.
Should I do as others say I should, spending a lot of time just letting things of only mild consequence go unsaid, or should I do as they do, and express those thoughts.
Originally my metric on the matter was whether I felt that a particular thought would warrant response and discussion. However, thanks to my own Socratic approach to discussion, most things worth discussing go without any discussion. And more than that, when my resolve fails and I post things I think are trivial and beyond discussion, they seem to generate a large degree of response.
That may also be a matter of personal risk too, now that I think about it. If we imagine people want to interact with me, then you have to ask which carries more risk: responding to a complex matter without sounding like a moron and making a fool of yourself, or responding to a post about lunch with something of equal quality like "yummy!" or "I ate there once, they food is good!"
Part of my earlier comprehension about what it means to participate in friendship suggested that people do genuinely like knowing what's going on, even if it's just small stuff. That would imply that the trivial posts are important, (as long as it's important to me, they would want to hear about it, even if they don't participate.) But since that contradicts with the "don't post about dumb things" concept, it's not immediately clear what the bar is for "postable".
The one thing I can be sure of is that not posting the trivial things that excite me is unfufilling, so there's a strong compulsion to post them. And anyone who's had the (mis?)fortune of spending a lot of time with me knows that I'm prone to randomly sputter out a sentence about what I'm thinking about only to immediately clam up after realizing that that's probably not directly interesting to the people around me, which I'm told is super annoying, suggesting that people are interested in where that sentence was supposed to go, even if it ultimately turns out that they couldn't care less.
Even in that context it seems the obvious question is still the same. Even I can agree that a leading sentence like that would be super annoying, so is the right answer not to speak at all, or to launch into the conversation full on, no matter how tangential or trivial seeming. In practice it's really the same line of thinking. The only difference is that when I make that post on a microblogging site, the "clam up" is just simply erasing the post before it's made, so it's like I never said it in the first place.
In real life I can't do that, but though it's really annoying, the one sentence "topic sputter" satisfies the "I have to say the thought" aspect of the matter, where as deleting the post does not.
*sigh* Socializing is hard stuff. Not that you needed me to tell you that, or that every post on this journal going back almost a decade isn't on that very topic (or the topic of not being a waste of a human life.)