Listening to the news (in London) regarding the ever increasing voilent crime, the suggested cause is that young people are making their own rules, looking out for only themselves and dispensing with the respect and defference that would normally be afforded to parents, the church, police etc. Instead forming 'laws' amongst social groups.

Very poorly articulated, but a connection?

If you think that's weak… how about this other unconnected nugget. A colleague of mine remarked "there are no heroes in the world anymore. the world needs more heroes". Since we're all becoming 'friends' who will stand out as a hero?

While the web has been touted as an extraordinary and unprecedented opportunity to connect with the world, to expand the limits of experience and exposure to limitless horizons, it seems to me that without conscious effort on the part of its users, it actually accomplishes exactly the opposite effect. Instead of introducing the user to a new world, it reduces the world effectively to a set of things that match up with the user's world view. Why pay any attention to things that are strange or different when it's so easy to set your search filters for things you already know you like? Why waste time on people with different ideas when people who agree with you are actively searching out your blog? It's so much more fun and easy to share an existing love for a particular style of music/movies/books/arts/food than it is to try to convince someone who doesn't respond that way to see your point of view. People are exposed to so much more than was possible before, but so much of it fits into narrow little boxes that line up comfortably with the known.

I don't consider myself a luddite by any means — hell, I worked for Atari back in the day, man! — but I have to admit, it was the utter randomness of who and what I came into contact with as a child that DID make me appreciate new experiences. If I'd been able to narrowcast my interests to likeminded souls, I'd probably be a much sadder and more limited person. Granted, I had a lot of options for exposure to the "other" because I grew up in a cosmopolitan environment (San Francisco), but it still makes me a little nervous to think that people can so easily choose to wear blinders that don't just shut out the outside world, but instead transform it into a recognizable shape that conveniently leaves out all of the unpleasant bits. It seems that for a some people, the more access we have, the less we choose to see…

While the web has been touted as an extraordinary and unprecedented opportunity to connect with the world, to expand the limits of experience and exposure to limitless horizons, it seems to me that without conscious effort on the part of its users, it actually accomplishes exactly the opposite effect. Instead of introducing the user to a new world, it reduces the world effectively to a set of things that match up with the user's world view. Why pay any attention to things that are strange or different when it's so easy to set your search filters for things you already know you like? Why waste time on people with different ideas when people who agree with you are actively searching out your blog? It's so much more fun and easy to share an existing love for a particular style of music/movies/books/arts/food than it is to try to convince someone who doesn't respond that way to see your point of view. People are exposed to so much more than was possible before, but so much of it fits into narrow little boxes that line up comfortably with the known.

I don't consider myself a luddite by any means — hell, I worked for Atari back in the day, man! — but I have to admit, it was the utter randomness of who and what I came into contact with as a child that DID make me appreciate new experiences. If I'd been able to narrowcast my interests to likeminded souls, I'd probably be a much sadder and more limited person. Granted, I had a lot of options for exposure to the "other" because I grew up in a cosmopolitan environment (San Francisco), but it still makes me a little nervous to think that people can so easily choose to wear blinders that don't just shut out the outside world, but instead transform it into a recognizable shape that conveniently leaves out all of the unpleasant bits. It seems that for a some people, the more access we have, the less we choose to see…

Because, any other action apart from ones' own action, can be given the term accident.

But yes, these social networking sites have provided wider opportunity and means for the ones genuinely interested.

Not really, according to Jack Avery after reading this blog, Grant McCracken is exactly the same and back in high school "could find something interesting to say about a rock on the ground". So, perhaps unrecognizably different in your own mind, but not to the ones who knew you.

But I'm reminded, Grant, of many discussions I've had with people from cultures with arranged marriages (particularly when I lived in South Korea and Zimbabwe). Their argument is always: How could you leave such an important decision as finding a marriage partner to chance? Surely (they say) wouldn't it be better to put this decision in the hands of an experienced intermediary, who knows the two families and their histories, knows both the two people better than they do themselves, and can therefore match one with the other far better than leaving things to mere happenstance. Not many modern-day westerners find this argument compelling, though.