"Possible Selves represent individuals’ ideas of what they might become, what they would like to become, and what they are afraid of becoming, and thus provide a conceptual link beteen cognition and motivation. PSs are the cognitive components of hopes, fears, goals, and threats; they give the specific self-relevant form, meaning, organization, and direction to these dynamics. It is suggested that PSs function as incentives for future behavior and to provide an evaluative and interpretive context for the current view of self."

Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986, Sept). Possible SelvesAmerican Psychologist, 41(9): 954-969.

Abstract only.

I tested this theory of identity development in online environments in my Masters research. Markus and Nurius’ work provided a framework for how we choose which new aspects of our desired or undesired selves we test online - a safe, relatively consequence-free space - and whether they are adopted into the offline self.

It’s a very satisfying and parsimonious theory, and appears to be apt both online and off.

(Wikipedia entry)

I’m most interested in psychological identity, of the individual’s conception of his or her “self”. In Untangling the Web and in my academic research, I lean on theories of social identity, particularly those of John Turner and Henri Tajfel (Social Identity Theory), Glynis Breakwell (Identity Process Theory), and Markus & Nurius’s Possible Selves theory of identity development.

what happens to identity play in an era of Facebook’s “authentic” identity? Here’s a case study from 2008, in which the author was ejected from Facebook because she wasn’t using her “real” name.

"The use of social media is heading towards the convergence of our virtual and real selves."

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, in the 2011 article, Sharing to the power of 2012 in The Economist

Facebook: “authentic” identity?

Technologist and search engineer Stephen Wolfram analysed the substantial data (some might even call it “Big Data”) he’s collected about his online behaviour - email, keystrokes, calendar activity, phone calls etc - over the last decade (and change).

It’s amazing how much it’s possible to figure out by analyzing the various kinds of data I’ve kept.

I propose that this is one example of one slice of his online self. Wolfram’s personal analysis offers useful insights - the colour to the play by play. I wonder what someone who looks at this with no knowledge of him sees, and what assumptions the disinterested party would draw about who he is.

I don’t know if we will all routinely collect personal data like this in the future, as Wolfram contends, but I already do use many of my online expressions as personal archives.

What’s more interesting about this than the explicit plug for Wolfram Alpha’s data analysis capabilities is that it’s an eyeball into the kinds of datasets that companies, governments and other data collectors use to define us and predict our behaviours.

via Roo Reynolds’ Tinyletter (which directs the HT to @diemkay)

an O’Reilly joint, published in Sept 2011. A good primer on the issues about privacy as they currently stand with relation to the data-driven digital world we currently occupy.

Currently chewing over Chapter 2: The Right To Privacy in the Digital Age, which covers the cultural and contextual variations on privacy interpretations (case studies: US and Europe) - and how these conflict when trying to regulate the digital space.

Two quotes on this:

“In general, the American view of privacy is focused on the home and on the person,” and the right to be “left alone” and free from intrusion.

“The European concept of a right to privacy is centered round preserving the individual’s honor and dignity in the public sphere,” which translates into a greater right over personal information and how it’s presented in the public sphere.

To summarise, the authors say:

How we view and value privacy is dependent on a host of influences that include our history, culture, and social norms. Added to that, age, ethnicity, and sex may influence our expectation of privacy.

makes things complicated, no?

HT @kaythaney

data professionals need shorthand ways to easily think about the societal impact of their work

Coverage of Strata 2012 from Jim Adler, who sat on the panel, ‘If Data Wants to Be Free, is Privacy a Prison?

Good list of recent gaffes, interesting frameworks, outlines of privacy perils.

HT @kaythaney

"He externalised what was important for him, so he would have the cues he needed to remember something later."

Prof Viktor Mayer-Schonberger of the OII, in a review of his book, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age from The Guardian.

as an aside: this explains why I am “cryptic” on Twitter. i explicitly use the service to externalise things that will trigger - for me and for me alone - a whole memory i can recall later.

More from the review:

The overabundance of cheap storage on hard disks means that it is no longer economical to even decide whether to remember or forget.

“compelling institutional forgetting”

So much of our past is so readily retrievable in the digital age that we can’t help but stumble across things we’d do better to forget.

"Plato observed that even a habitually just man who possessed such a ring would become a thief, knowing that he couldn’t be caught."

Online, Anonymity Breeds Contempt. A historical perspective on anonymity from an article on internet trolling on NYT.com in 2010.

BUT! Anonymity isn’t the only issue. Here’s a report from The Guardian in 2007 including this quote from Dr Chris Fullwood, “internet researcher”:

Removing anonymity may have some small effect, but not a massive one. This is because a number of factors contribute towards what psychologists call online disinhibition. Removing one of them - the anonymity - and not removing any of the others means it will probably still occur as people remain invisible and so can disassociate their online from their offline persona.

(note many of the links in the guardian article are broken/old!)

"…if you use Facebook, and your friends sign up for social applications, your name and details could appear in unexpected places"

Luluvise’s date-rating site shows where your Facebook data can end up

from The Guardian on 8 Feb 2012.