Facebook unfriending not as simple as it sounds

facebook unfriending

TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) – From time to time, people find they have to unfriend people on their Facebook pages.

For most of us, it’s no big deal.

However, for some people, ending that online friendship can have some negative effects.

Facebook certainly is changing the way a lot of us interact with each other.

Some of the simplicity of Facebook could actually be causing problems for some people.

Unfriending sounds kind of mean, but a lot of people say it’s really no big deal.

Actually, it all depends on your personality.

Here are just a few responses we got when we went on the University of Arizona campus and asked students what they thought about unfriending someone.

Freshman Kaela Ward told us, “I don’t think it’s a big deal. I mean I don’t really feel anything’s wrong with it.”

What about being unfriended?

“You know what, it’s kind of a relief actually. So it doesn’t bother me. No,” said junior Liz Ivanov.

Freshman Roman Roberts said, “I don’t have a Facebook, so it does not affect me at all.”

Facebook says it has more than 800 million active users all over the world, and the average user has 130 friends.

We found sophomore Nicole Suerez and her classmate, Macy Orlowski, sitting together, using a laptop.

Nicole said, “I guess I would spend the majority of my time on Facebook. In class, at home. Now.”

Some experts say it’s clear.  Facebook and other social media affect our interactions, bringing us closer, such as catching up with old friends…and yet pushing us farther apart.

University of Arizona Psychology Professor, Dr. David Sbarra says,”We spend more time communicating on Facebook now than we do in person. We’re less likely to call someone and have deeper, more in depth conversations.”‘

He says that can be a problem, especially when it’s so easy to break up with a real friend.

“These are new ways in which we can be shunned and spurned and that’s just part of life today,” Sbarra says.

That involves social rejection and, Sbarra says, some people are particular sensitive to it.

“Social rejection has a definite neurophysiology. It’s tried to the same brain regions that are associated with the detection of physical pain,” he says.

Some folks just move on.

“I would like they’re going on a different direction in life and that’s okay,” said junior Alex Sternheim.

Freshman Ria Joseph said, “I don’t know. It’s just a virtual thing. Like just because you’re friends with someone on Facebook doesn’t mean you’re actually friends with them.”

Dr. Sbarra says Facebook is changing the language.

“So it redefines what we think of as a friend and it may be we develop new language for thinking about friends on Facebook and real, deeper friends. ‘This is my friend, and this is my close friend.'”

Dr. Sbarra adds that dumping a friend who really is only an acquaintance can be a non-issue.

But when it comes to a real friend?

“If you’re really trying to dump a friend–someone you’re close with–it probably makes sense to have an offline discussion too, if it’s really someone you’re concerned about what’s going on in your relationship,” Sbarra said.

Something to think about.

Back to Nicole and Macy working on the laptop.

“If Macy unfriended…I would be angry at Macy if she unfriended me. I have class with her every single day, so it would be really really awkward,” said Nicole.

“I would never. I would never unfriend you,” Macy answered.

Dr. Sbarra says we no longer distinguish between the real world and social media now.

He says social media is the real world, and we need to think about it that way, especially when it comes to our relationships.

Copyright 2012 KOLD. All rights reserved.

The day the Internet Died

internet censorship

( █ ) ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██.
This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed.

Don’t like what you see?

Tell someone.


future shock

future shock by alvin toffler

from wikipedia:

Future Shock is a book written by the futurist Alvin Toffler in 1970. In the book, Toffler defines the term “future shock” as a certain psychological state of individuals and entire societies. His shortest definition for the term is a personal perception of “too much change in too short a period of time“.

i do believe we are all experiencing this phenomena. In personal, global and societal ways. All at once. For me my microcosm became semi unmanageable with the entree of 3 new social sharing networks launching into my life within 3 weeks. Two of them I had been on for a while, but nobody else was. But this month…whoa.

Pinterest, Path and now Chill are running rampant in my network. Yeah yeah yeah – I know. My netwrok is different than the average person’s network. I know this. But if I can’t handle all of this “future shock” how in the world is my friend Sarah going to adapt/adopt?

I’m also thinking that my nieces must just be ready for all of this – that they can handle the splintering of their personalities and interests into different networks because they are digital natives. Of course my designy friends are on pinterest, it seems that Path is for friends who want to track waking sleeping and lots of physical exercise (seriously…this is what my path feed looks like: yoga, running, yoga, barre method, walk, run)

At any rate…my nieces. They don’t use alot of different networks. I’ve been trying to get one of them to really dig into instagram with no luck.

I just feel lost right now….i had no idea what the details were on all the Tebow stuff…none. But i did know that Jerry Yang was leaving Yahoo seconds after it happened. I had no idea what Chill was when peoiple started tweeting about it – but that new Bahamas record? Yes. Love.

They say one person can’t know everything. I think that is more true than EVER. But if we are supposed to be well rounded individuals, yet aware of the world around us — right now the world is too BIG!

Future Shock. I’m going to wear an alvin toffler t-shirt to my next start-up meeting.

20 Ways To Get Good Karma – The Dalai Lama

good karma

  1. Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
  2. When you lose, don’t lose the lesson.
  3. Follow the three R’s:
    –  Respect for self,
    –  Respect for others and
    –  Responsibility for all your actions.
  4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
  5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
  6. Don’t let a little dispute injure a great relationship.
  7. When you realize you’ve made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
  8. Spend some time alone every day.
  9. Open your arms to change, but don’t let go of your values.
  10. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
  11. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and
    think back, you’ll be able to enjoy it a second time.
  12. A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
  13. In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don’t bring up the past.
  14. Share your knowledge. It is a way to achieve immortality.
  15. Be gentle with the earth.
  16. Once a year, go someplace you’ve never been before.
  17. Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
  18. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
  19. If you want others to be happy, practice compassion.
  20. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.

Love Lies and What They Learned

love, lies, and what they learned
I *loved* this article. Nobody likes to admit that they date online – but then it is also becoming so common in certain circles it’s hard to wonder how anyone is really meeting anyone new if you aren’t online. But the lying. The lying sucks. And there is so much of it. I’m not married (yeah right) I’m in a good place in my life (wrong) I know what I want (but i might just pick up and move next month) I’m interested in all types of women (but then i understood what curvy and about average “really meant”)
The stats in here are pretty fascinating. It is amazing how much people lie ONLINE – lying that they would not do in person.
I have to say I have had some personal experience with this. There have a been a few situations that blew me away. One of the larger ones had nothing to do with MEETING online….in fact it was social networking and facebook that blew the lid off of the fact that the “lawyer” I had been seeing on and off was an IT guy at the firm and about ten years younger than he had let on.   Walking around pretending to be someone else all the time? It must be EXHAUSTING.
These days I have to say that I do not trust people who don’t have a digital footprint. If i can’t find at least 4 things that mention you or see that you have up  a flickr album etc – even if its blocked for private users. If you are invisible out there? You have got to be hiding something. Match should have a direct link to linked in. (and if you have zero connections? syanora baby!)
November 12, 2011

THERE are millions of Americans seeking love on the Internet. Little do they know that teams of scientists are eagerly watching them trying to find it.

Like contemporary Margaret Meads, these scholars have gathered data from dating sites like Match.com, OkCupid and Yahoo! Personals to study attraction, trust, deception — even the role of race and politics in prospective romance.

They have observed, for instance, that many daters would rather admit to being fat than liberal or conservative, that white people are reluctant to date outside their race and that there are ways to detect liars. Such findings spring from attempts to answer a broader question that has bedeviled humanity since Adam and Eve: how and why do people fall in love?

“There is relatively little data on dating, and most of what was out there in the literature about mate selection and relationship formation is based on U.S. Census data,” said Gerald A. Mendelsohn, a professor in the psychology department at the University of California, Berkeley.

His research involving more than one million online dating profiles was partly financed by a grant from the National Science Foundation. “This now gives an access to dating that we never really had before,” He said. (Collectively, the major dating sites had more than 593 million visits in the United States last month, according to the Internet tracking firm Experian Hitwise.)

Andrew T. Fiore, a data scientist at Facebook and a former visiting assistant professor at Michigan State University, said that unlike laboratory studies, “online dating provides an ecologically valid or true-to-life context for examining the risks, uncertainties and rewards of initiating real relationships with real people at an unprecedented scale.”

“As more and more of life happens online, it’s less and less the case that online is a vacuum,” he added. “It is life.”

Of the romantic partnerships formed in the United States between 2007 and 2009, 21 percent of heterosexual couples and 61 percent of same-sex couples met online, according to a study by Michael J. Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford. (Scholars said that most studies using online dating data are about heterosexuals, because they make up more of the population.)

Dating sites and academics have gotten cozy before; the biological anthropologist Helen Fisher of Rutgers, for example, is Chemistry.com’s chief scientific adviser, and she helped develop the site, a sister site to Match.com.

But scholars are also pursuing academic research using anonymous profile content given to them as a professional courtesy by dating sites. Often the researchers supplement that with surveys and in-person interviews by recruiting online daters through advertisements on campuses, in newspapers and on Web sites like Craigslist.

Here’s some of what they have learned, including maxims for singles: why opposites don’t attract and honesty is not always the best policy.


Do online daters have a propensity to lie? Do we really need scientists to answer this question?

If you are curious about numbers: about 81 percent of people misrepresent their height, weight or age in their profiles, according to a study led by Catalina L. Toma, an assistant professor in the department of communication arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who wanted to learn more about how people present themselves and how they judge misrepresentation. On the bright side: people tend to tell small lies because, after all, they may eventually meet in person.

Professor Toma; Jeffrey T. Hancock, an associate professor at Cornell; and Nicole B. Ellison, an associate professor in the department of telecommunication, information studies and media at Michigan State University, interviewed online daters in New York City, weighed and measured them, photographed them, checked their ages against their driver’s licenses and studied their dating profiles.

On average, the women described themselves as 8.5 pounds thinner in their profiles than they really were. Men fibbed by 2 pounds, though they lied by a greater magnitude than women about their height, rounding up a half inch (apparently every bit counts).

People were most honest about their age, something Professor Toma said is probably because they can claim ignorance about weight and height. Even so, in a different study she found that women’s profile photographs were on average a year and a half old. Men’s were on average six months old.

“Daters lie to meet the expectations of what they think their audience is,” Professor Toma said.

A paper to be published in the Journal of Communication used computer analysis to show that four linguistic indictors can help detect lying in the personal essay of a dating profile.

Liars tend to use fewer first-person pronouns. Professor Toma said this is an indication of psychological distancing: “You’re feeling guilty or anxious or nervous.” Liars use more negative words like “not” and “never,” yet another way of putting up a buffer. Liars use fewer negative emotion words like “sad” and “upset,” and they write shorter online personal essays. (It’s easier not to get caught if you say less.)

Scholars say a certain amount of fibbing is socially acceptable — even necessary — to compete in the online dating culture. Professor Ellison’s research shows that lying is partly a result of tension between the desire to be truthful and the desire to put one’s best face forward. So profiles often describe an idealized self; one with qualities they intend to develop (i.e., “I scuba dive”) or things they once had (i.e., a job). Some daters bend the truth to fit into a wider range of search parameters; others unintentionally misrepresent their personalities because self-knowledge is imperfect.

The standard of embellishment can frustrate the honest. “So if I say I am 44, people think that I am 48,” said one man interviewed by Professor Ellison and colleagues in a separate study.

But there is an upside to deception: it may inspire one to, as Professor Ellison put it, “close the gap between actual and ideal self.” One interviewee lied about her weight in her profile, and it was all the motivation she needed. She subsequently lost 44 pounds while online dating.


“Stick to your own kind,” goes the “West Side Story” refrain, a phenomenon that sociologists call homophily: love of the same. And they have observed this among online daters. But here is what they did not expect to discover: a very high rate of same-ethnicity dating.

“One of the theories of how the Internet might affect dating is that it might erode the tendency of people to mate with people like themselves,” said Professor Rosenfeld of Stanford. “I really expected there to be more interracial relationships for meeting online. And it wasn’t true.”

Research on a major dating site between February 2009 and February 2010 by Professor Mendelsohn and his colleagues shows that more than 80 percent of the contacts initiated by white members were to other white members, and only 3 percent to black members. Black members were less rigid: they were 10 times more likely to contact whites than whites were to contact blacks.

“What you’ve got is basically the reluctance of white Americans to date and to contact members of other ethnicities, particularly African-Americans,” he said. “We are nowhere near the post-racial age.”

Professor Mendelsohn set out to study relationship formation, not ethnicity. Yet along the way he found that white more than black, women more than men, and old more than young prefer a same-race partner.

Some people indicated that they were willing to date different ethnicities, but they didn’t. “What people say they want in a mate and what qualities they actually seek don’t tend to correspond,” said Coye Cheshire, an associate professor at the School of Information at Berkeley who has studied this with Mr. Fiore, Professor Mendelsohn and Lindsay Shaw Taylor, a member of the school’s self, identity and relationships lab.


Gender parity, it seems, isn’t sexy. Women want men who are — wait for it — tall and wealthy, according to online dating research by Gunter J. Hitsch and Ali Hortacsu at the University of Chicago, and Dan Ariely of Duke. The researchers have examined thousands of dating profiles that included height, weight and, in many cases, photographs. They found that women prefer men who are slightly overweight, while men prefer women who are slightly underweight and who do not tower over them. These were the women who had the best chance of receiving an introductory e-mail from a man.

And even though men may get away with carrying a few extra pounds, they are also burdened with the expectation of carrying a fatter wallet: The scholars found that women have a stronger preference than men do for income over physical attributes.


Decades of findings about political ideology suggest that it is in part passed from parents to children, said Rose McDermott, a professor of political science at Brown University. And because previous studies show that people in long marriages align politically (the crackling example of James Carville and Mary Matalin aside), she wanted to study how people end up with like-minded mates.

Professor McDermott and colleagues at the University of Miami and Penn State examined 2,944 dating profiles, and few people were willing to express a political preference or interest in politics. Professor McDermott suspects that this is because they wanted to attract as many dates as possible.

But though it could make for an interesting campaign year, such daters could be making a mistake if they are seeking long-term partners.

“I was personally really shocked,” said Professor McDermott, whose study was published this year in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. “People were much more likely to say ‘I’m fat’ than ‘I’m a conservative.’ ”