What's Behind the Success of Web 2.0? A Psychological Interpretation

I have recently read Yarden Lewinsky’s post regarding Web 2.0 and The Evolution of the Ego. This is a fascinating article written in Hebrew and I wanted to share its key ideas with you. Since Yarden is a Medical Doctor specializing in Psychiatry and also has been involved in a few internet projects, he has a deep understanding of the human psyche and in this post he uses his knowledge to interpret the reasons behind the high usage and popularity of Web 2.0 platforms as we know them today.

Yarden refers to another post by Idan which explains the popularity of Web 2.0 sites like Facebook or Twitter: 

“Given the correct tools, people have a desire to talk to and with an audience or community. Chat, SMS, Email – all these are classic tools for one-on-one interaction (or one-on-few). Web 2.0 opens up new possibilities to talk one-to-many or many-to-many which answers a very basic human need people have in communicating with the outside world.”

Yet Yarden points out that this explanation still does not answer relevant questions such as: Why do people want to talk to and with a community? Is there one basic reason that can answer this question or are there a few? And if we can detect these reasons could we use them in order to build better products?

All the developmental psychological theories deal in essence with a person’s self identity and his relations with his environment. We understand that at a very early stage of human development the definition of self identity stops being dependent only on the person himself and starts being affected by his interaction with his surroundings. Every psychological theory defines this process differently, has different names for it, and gives different explanations regarding the mechanisms which affect this process. Yet if we understand the mechanisms which cause this and are able to detect which ones are dominant in every person, then we can better explain the behavior of this person in later stages of his life. In this manner we can explain why one person may be an introvert and another an exhibitionist.

It is very easy to claim that Web 2.0 is a technological revolution (specifically because of things like RSS, AJAX, API, and XML), yet this is not the case. Web 2.0 is simply a social progression based on the understanding of human needs (see my post entitled Why We Should Care About Web 2.0 where I make the same point). The claim is that technology changes human behavior in a drastic way. Yet in order for technology to succeed and become popular, it must imitate human behavior in order to satisfy our most basic needs and urges.

If we take the most famous sites in the Web 2.0 world we will see that these sites actually allow us to do what we were doing all along, even before the internet, but in a more effective manner. MySpace or FaceBook are based on the way in which we manage our social contacts, Skype is based on our need to talk with others, Google is based on the way that we rank things, Flickr is based on the manner in which we share experiences with others, Amazon is based on the way we talk about books, and Delicious is based on the manner in which we try to remember things.  In essence, the innovativeness of these sites does not come from the fact that they created something new, but rather, from the way in which they allow us to do what we’ve always done – better, more times, in more places, and faster.

Now we understand how these applications became popular. Yet we have yet to explain why we continue to use them. What brings people to use applications like Twitter every couple of minutes in order to let the world know what they drank, ate, or saw? Why are some of us inclined to become friends of other people who we don’t even know on all the different social networks and get updates on all their doings? Why do some of us share our most secret thoughts and intimate details in public blogs? The more popular these applications and platforms become, the more the term privacy diminishes from our language. Today almost everything is public and if it’s already public, then it might as well be distributed on a worldwide scale.

In order to understand this phenomenon we go back to the dynamic theories of man and the society in which we live. According to Kohut’s theory, in the first few months of a baby’s life, the baby expects his environment to provide him with all the essential components that he needs for self development. The “other” turns into what Kohut refers to as “Self Object” which provides the baby with the three most basic components that each person requires: Self value, idealization, and comprehensibility. Kohut also claims that throughout our lives we need the same “Self Object’s” feedback that we see in others around us. In other words, we define other people not as separate identities from us but rather as a continuous source of self satisfaction. When a man with a “defective” self image meets another person for the first time, he does not ask “who is this person? What’s special about him? And what do we have in common?” but rather, he asks “what will I get from him? How will he appreciate me? And how will he affect my self image?” Therefore this person is not able to to build a mature and honest connection with the other.

If we look at what’s happening now in our Web 2.0 world we may easily argue that the most prominent social trend of the last twenty years is narcissism. Our society emphasizes the idea of self potential, uniqueness, and self branding. We raise our kids under the impression that all are created equal and that everyone has the same potential to be rich or famous, even though it has been proven in many studies that this claim is not accurate and that the chances of someone from a lower social standing to become famous are lower than those of someone from a higher social standing. Furthermore, we show our kids that success is actually based on “luck”. You’ll be famous if they’ll hear about you on American Idol, or if you win Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, or if you’ll win the lottery. Thousands of teenagers try to get on American Idol even though we all know that only a few will actually be able to survive as professional artists. Yet we continue to glamorize celebs and forget that if we tell our kids continuously that they could become one of those famous people then their main focus in life will be concentrated on the everlasting search of fame and fortune.

Therefore what we find ourselves with is a full generation of ”little narcissists” who have been educated to think that their personal success is connected mainly to what other people in their surrounding think about them. And then we bring in the internet. On the Web, any average narcissist can find what he’s looking for: A few success stories of people who have become “famous” on the internet based on having thousands of friends on all the different networks, and the possibility for receiving constant, immediate, and limitless feedback is continued. From that moment on, every narci
ssist presents “his stuff” to the public without limitation of privacy out of hope for receiving acceptance and reassurance. Interpersonal relations continue to exist but turn into something less meaningful while the hope to “be discovered” becomes much more meaningful. In essence, the narcissist can now redefine himself, based on the response of others.

The most successful sites are those that have recognized these basic human needs which are deeper than needs such as “I want to learn” or “I want to talk/read”. It doesn’t matter that most of these people will never become famous. What matters is that these sites help us answer our most basic question as humans: Who are we?

People become members of MySpace or Twitter and write in their blogs because it gives them the feeling that they are famous. They check the statistics of the number of readers they have, how many comments they received, how many subscribe to their “broadcasts”, because all these stats strengthen their sense of self. This is the way they define themselves. All those services that we mentioned above do not invoke the human need for attention, but rather they satisfy it – the same human need that exists amongst all of us and that is affected by our society. Web 2.0 simply allows us to become more human.

 

 What do you think?  Do you agree with this claim? Would you add other factors into it?

 

Thanks to Niila Keshava for the pic.