‘Being social’ is often quoted as one of the core tenets of social media marketing. It loosely describes an approach where the marketer (or customer service professional or HR representative) adopts a more casual and familiar tone of conversation on social networks in order to interact on a peer-to-peer, human level and build relationships. But trying to teach someone how to ‘be social’ is damned difficult and immensely frustrating, and I’ve always wondered why some people do this naturally and some just don’t get it. And won’t. Ever.
Enter ‘theory of mind’.
Theory of mind is the cognitive skill of understanding another person’s state of mind. It’s an ability to intuitively comprehend that other people have mental states (beliefs, intentions, desires, knowledge etc) that may differ from your own and an understanding of others’ emotions and behaviours. Closely related to empathy, theory of mind is an innate ability that everyone possesses, but that some have developed to a greater degree than others. Scientists have now proven that the size of a person’s social network is directly related to the size of part of the brain called the orbital prefrontal cortex, but that this is only true when brain size is combined with the psychological skills associated with a developed theory of mind.
Effective Social Communications
So what’s my point? Well, I’m now wondering whether people with a more developed theory of mind make better social media professionals, and is trying to teach those with a less effective theory of mind a complete waste of time? It makes sense to me that ‘being social’ is summed up perfectly by theory of mind: intuitively recognising, accurately judging and effectively reacting to others’ emotions, motivations and feelings. Does this explain why some marketers seem to have no idea whatsoever of how to ‘be social’ on social media?
Outside the social media bubble there seems to be a broad belief that anyone can do social communications, despite the plethora of car crash examples to the contrary. There’s undoubtedly a lack of recognition for the specific skills involved in ‘being social’ from many (most?) CEOs and MDs, as well as some marketers. So in order to make social media work, is there a role for psychological profiling when recruiting or selecting a practitioner? Would we be better taking a scientific approach to a very human issue?
Like this post? Subscribe to FutureComms and get it straight to your inbox.
Often I see twitter and social campaigns managed well and very often poorly. Of course the types of conversations vary massively ie. personal / pro.
I have been in the twitter mix for many years and have overseen many online campaigns and identities. Being social in terms of media is something that I feel develops, requires lots of time and dedication. A recent tweet by @wearesocial identified “How to create great social content” really sum up some of the theories I have been talking about for some time…
“The concept is fairly simple: whenever possible, communicate your point with a visual direction, rather than with dialogue. ‘Exposition’ is also important. It refers to dialogue or exchanges between characters, the only function of which is to explain the plot.
The trick as a screenwriter is only to use as much exposition as necessary. Too little and you risk confusing the audience. Too much and you risk boring them. Or worse, you risk appearing condescending.
Thirdly, and if all else fails, remember this: keep it simple.”
Aside from the theory and strategic plans – there is no doubt that ‘Being Social’ requires patience and for some that is a gift in itself. Too often i see users jump into social media without reading and understanding those who are around them. Whether it is an inbuilt human ability to be social I am still unsure. Possibly it is a Y generation perogative.
To mix it up… if you placed 50 people in a room and showed them twitter for the first time, one of that 50 would be more adept and popular.
Thanks for leaving your thoughts, Neil.
I certainly agree with what you say about the social mindset developing over time with practice. But I guess where I’m coming from is that some people are naturally aligned to social comms and some people simply aren’t and never will be, no matter how much practice they get. From my own experience, I know that no amount of training and coaching will help some people, who simply fail to grasp the concept of ‘being social’. Theory of mind seems to explain this (to me, at least).
And I wonder whether some kind of pyschological profiling to identity a developed theory of mind (if such a thing exists) is the key to identifying who will be good at social comms and who won’t?
Paul, this is an interesting and thought-provoking article. Theory of mind itself is a fascinating subject, but as someone who has to teach theory of mind to undergraduates I find that there is something of a relationship between understanding theory of mind and theory of mind itself…! In other words, if you understand theory of mind you probably have a good theory of mind yourself. That is similar to your point that there is something about understanding others which some people possess in greater amounts.
If we look at that from an evolutionary perspective you would expect if sociability or empathy with others had some kind of advantage it would be selected for. But you might also find that increased social activity leads to greater expression of any genetic component.
So, as we increase the amount of social activity as a result of the various aspects of Web 2.0 we could find more people becoming more socially capable as the experience helps the genetic component become expressed. Or we could find that over time, it leads to selection of the “good social genes” at the expense of those who have poor social skills, meaning that in the future everyone on the world of social comms would be adept because the whole species would be good at it.
But that is several thousand years away…! So, in the meantime it may well be pertinent to profile people to find those who fit the role best. That’s nothing new, of course, it is what every good recruitment company would do anyway.
One thing we do know from other research, however, is that CEOs who are more empathetic tend to have companies which perform better. And recent research shows that companies which have women on the Board also tend to outperform companies which are dominated by males. Theory of mind might well point to women being more able to be empathetic because it would be a nurturing requirement for babies.
So that could well explain why women help businesses perform better and may well be why the world of PR and comms is dominated by women, because to do the job you have to understand the client and the audience well.
Whether you call it theory of mind, seeing things from the other’s perspective, or empathy doesn’t really matter. But what we often see online is that many people don’t do this and end up in social media trouble.See: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/science-technology/twitter-users-should-pause-before-1204103
Wow. That comment is better than the original post, Graham!
Interesting what you say about evolution. Obviously we’re talking thousands of years, but I’ve read in the past about how digital/social media could well be altering the path of evolution due to the way that it’s changing both behaviours and thought processes. There’s certainly a theory that it’s changing how our memory works, as we’re learning how to store and retrieve information (think social bookmarking, Pinterest etc) rather than retaining the information itself, so our memory is rewiring.
I guess it’s important to be mindful of the fact that it’s such early days for social and mobile tech, but the psychological aspects of what’s happening is something that, I feel, should get a lot more credence from marketers. If concepts such as theory of mind do indeed ring true, which you seem to agree with me on, then we should be leveraging those ideas and principles.
Thanks so much for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment. Much appreciated.