On "Twitter tweets our emotional states" (Washington Post, 20110930)
[This was a comment I posted on the Washington Post earlier concerning their article http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/twitter-tweets-our-emotional-states/2011/09/28/gIQAVb9r7K_story.html and the 20-odd comments it had garnered at that point, mostly of the 'Well, duh!' sort, blasting the Post (for reporting it), the scientists (for asking a 'stupid' question) and Cornell (or whoever supported the study financially). In summary, the article itself reports on a study by researchers at Cornell mapping the emotional content of (500 million) tweets on a weekly cycle. The study found tweets used positive words early in the day, declined to a low in the mid-afternoon, then climbed to peak around midnight. It also found Saturday to have the most positive tweets. See the article for more information, and the study if really want answers.]
It isn't a question of what 'everybody knows'. "Knowing" something is easy. Now prove it.
Sometimes research is valuable because it proves something 'everyone knows' is false. Commenters here are moaning about waste because this one does not prove something false. Guess what? If you don't ask the question, you will never know which is true in a given case!
The fact that the study seems to confirm what 'everyone knows' is a byproduct of what makes this study interesting and useful: it appears to show that studying twitter postings of large numbers of people can supply researchers with useful information. As exactly *one* person has noted in the comments so far, this is something that businesses (and governments and political parties) find very valuable. Perhaps not this coming presidential election, but certainly by the one after that, you can bet that the candidates campaign staffs are going to include one or two people doing just this kind of analysis. Lots of money and CPU cycles are going to be burned during debates analyzing how people across the country are reacting to answers. Debate guidelines will probably have to be modified to not allow candidates earpieces during debates (if they don't already, I do not recall), or else going first will be handing a huge advantage to your opponent(s).
WIth a little imagination and creativity, this research shows a lot of promise. And threat. If you stop to think about how it can be used.
The other interesting thread in the comments so far is the 'proud avoider' type of comments. Hey, I get it. I have never bothered with Facebook, and the reports of their privacy-invading business model make me glad I did. I also avoided twitter for much the same reasons other folks on here have listed. But a couple of weeks ago I signed up. Hey, guess what? I haven't posted anything from a smart phone yet. I haven't felt the need to tell the world what I am doing every single moment, or even once a day. And I have not had to resort to 'l33t' speak once.
What I have done is started catching up with a few folks I hadn't heard from in a while. Learned of a few things I didn't know were going on. Shared a few things (like, probably, this article) with other folks who would find it interesting. And chatted with folks I have never met before, but who share one or another interest of mine. Following a topic while watching it live can be fun (figuring out how to balance watching the TV and reading peoples reactions is a different story...), and you meet people who enjoy something you do.
You know, kind of like comments on the [article]. But live. And, somehow, less aggravating...
Today 9/30/2011 15:42:28 AM UT
It isn't a question of what 'everybody knows'. "Knowing" something is easy. Now prove it.
Sometimes research is valuable because it proves something 'everyone knows' is false. Commenters here are moaning about waste because this one does not prove something false. Guess what? If you don't ask the question, you will never know which is true in a given case!
The fact that the study seems to confirm what 'everyone knows' is a byproduct of what makes this study interesting and useful: it appears to show that studying twitter postings of large numbers of people can supply researchers with useful information. As exactly *one* person has noted in the comments so far, this is something that businesses (and governments and political parties) find very valuable. Perhaps not this coming presidential election, but certainly by the one after that, you can bet that the candidates campaign staffs are going to include one or two people doing just this kind of analysis. Lots of money and CPU cycles are going to be burned during debates analyzing how people across the country are reacting to answers. Debate guidelines will probably have to be modified to not allow candidates earpieces during debates (if they don't already, I do not recall), or else going first will be handing a huge advantage to your opponent(s).
WIth a little imagination and creativity, this research shows a lot of promise. And threat. If you stop to think about how it can be used.
The other interesting thread in the comments so far is the 'proud avoider' type of comments. Hey, I get it. I have never bothered with Facebook, and the reports of their privacy-invading business model make me glad I did. I also avoided twitter for much the same reasons other folks on here have listed. But a couple of weeks ago I signed up. Hey, guess what? I haven't posted anything from a smart phone yet. I haven't felt the need to tell the world what I am doing every single moment, or even once a day. And I have not had to resort to 'l33t' speak once.
What I have done is started catching up with a few folks I hadn't heard from in a while. Learned of a few things I didn't know were going on. Shared a few things (like, probably, this article) with other folks who would find it interesting. And chatted with folks I have never met before, but who share one or another interest of mine. Following a topic while watching it live can be fun (figuring out how to balance watching the TV and reading peoples reactions is a different story...), and you meet people who enjoy something you do.
You know, kind of like comments on the [article]. But live. And, somehow, less aggravating...
Today 9/30/2011 15:42:28 AM UT