Google+ is addictive. Once you get your stream going you keep finding new stuff that interests you and cannot stop doing it. Somehow the experience in G+ is stronger than what it was when just surfing the web or in other social networks. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory helps explain why. There is a video on TED where he explains what flow is and how he came to the theory.
He uses a graph to plot any activity within 2 axis: Skills vs. Challenges. Let’s assume you are learning to play a musical instrument. The first songs you learn will be easy and require low skills but still will be a bit challenging. Once you progress you will be learning more complex songs, and the challenge will keep increasing. A good music teacher will be selecting songs that keep pushing you out of your comfort zone and into higher complexity level.
The diagonal line will be the optimal learning area for you. The area marked as flow is the area where your motivation is higher. While you do have challenges they are manageable. When people are in flow they basically experience a detachment of time and space. The surroundings disappear and your mind is fully concentrated on the task at hand.
If we look at the activity of reading your stream in Google+ under this optic it becomes clear that it is easy to reach the flow state. Assuming that you have enough content in your stream, you will find an interesting post to read, an infograph to analyze or a video to watch. This post often leads you to learn new stuff. With this you have taken an initial step up your optimal learning line. The interesting part about Google+ is that it also helps you find next challenges. By adding people participating in the discussions to your circle you get exposed to yet more material. It is a continuous discovery process of new ideas and points of view that interest you. All these new posts will bring you a step further in your learning line.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi also describes in his theory what status result from being under or over challenged or under or over skilled. You can see them in this graph:
We can analyze other activities “competing” for our time and see in which category they fit. Television is with very few exceptions low on skills and low on challenges. Depending on the program it will be within the boredom, relaxation or plain apathy areas in the graph. Surfing the web has the possibility to challenge us depending on the site we navigate to. However these challenges are usually unique points in time without a clear next step to continue in our optimal learning curve.
Games are good at increasing challenges and skills as you proceed through their different levels. For most games it is questionable if the skills you are learning is something that will help you in the real world. Other social sites might get you busy and hooked, sometime with games (Farmville anyone?), sometimes when reconnecting with old friends or discovering new “friends”. But seldom would these challenges be of the intellectual kind.
Most people that praise Google+ mention that this is the place where you make new acquaintances, not where you keep in touch with old ones. I believe that truly Google+ fans have embarked in an intellectual discovery path across the optimal learning path. They reach flow status while curating their stream and engaging with other plussers.
If you feel you have a hard time putting the computer down at night, now you know that one reason might be that you are in flow, and thus disconnected from the rest of the world and having a blast.
I think this is a very reasonable analysis, though it seems to me that more emphasis needs to be put on the social aspect of Google+ and its contribution, not just to flow, but to the experience of coliberation. I’ve a page describing that idea here – http://www.deepfun.com/of-fun-and-flow/ – (scroll down towards the end).
I understand Flow.
Hey Miguel,
I understand Flow
I understand Google+
I’m still struggling with the logic of how some folks expressing enjoyment discovering information in Googe+ equates to Flow. By your definition, Flow is available on all social networks including Facebook and Twitter. No?
Mike Egan’s linking to this on Google+ is interesting since he’s less scientific in his opinion of the platform.
Curious,
Taariq
Bernie: Thanks for the interesting link. I like the story and approach of the slanted bar. Need to analyze how to use in real life.
Taariq: The original idea for this article came to me one night as my wife asked me in the evening what was it so interesting in G+ that I would not put it down and go to bed. I was in the middle of a G+ discussion. I could only explain the joy i was in while exchanging with like minded individuals and coming to new understandings/learnings in the process. This is why I postulate that G+ gets you in flow. I agree that some elements of flow are available on other social networks, but they are limited. For one in Facebook i was always limited to my circle of friends which, to put it nicely, were not always interested in what I was posting. It was a small audience.
As for Twitter, it is hard to really have a conversation on the platform. It is good to get some headlines, but how do you answer back? You need to post in the blog/news entry. Again this reduces the pool of people in your exchanges. Does this make sense?
Miguel: My wife bemoans Google Plus as she feels it’s hijacked me at bedtime. Of course, she says this as she’s using her phone for Facebook.
Google+ is dead. No one is on it. About the only people who praise it are social media “experts” and google fanboys.
RIP Google+.