unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go those Wisdominthemind.com Elegance-is-Edgy-Dress.com

sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

As I read your comment, one of your points really resonated: most of the things we consider as 'objects' have been created by people.

However, this took me in a different direction: inevitably, those objects will end up carrying some of the personality of their creators, regardless of how soulless the incarnation of the object appears (even code can include personality).

So, in some way, we do have some form of human 'relationship' with objects, even if that link is extremely distant and tenuous.

But many of the things we consider as 'brands' have an obvious element of human interaction, particularly in our increasingly serviced-based world. Brands like Starbucks are just as much about the barristas as they are about the taste of the coffee and the convenience of the location.

Even when brands are purely internet-based and we never actually 'meet' the individuals who work there, we can still form emotional bonds with the people who bring the brand to life, through twitter, customer service lines, or even the comments section on blogs.

Take Zappos as an example: people regularly refer to the 'humanity' of the brand, perhaps because the brand sees the importance of relationships and celebrates its people. Indeed, it's those people that make Zappos different.

Another great example is Innocent smoothies. The brand has a strong 'personality' because its creators build their passions and beliefs into each of their products.

Perhaps it's better to say brands don't have personalities; they simply mirror those of the people who create them, or the personality those people would like to convey.

I agree that there is a danger in pretending brands operate like people – they don't, and our 'relationships' with them will likely never work in the same way – but that's not to say that brands are devoid of humanity.

It's equally dangerous to pretend that brands are lifeless. People often mistrust faceless corporations and dislike overly-slick brands. Maybe that's because they're so clearly 'false'; maybe it's because they make people feel inferior. The reason doesn't really matter – what matters is that the people we engage with most are those who acknowledge their faults, are decent enough to admit their mistakes, and prove to us that they care enough about us as individuals that they want to make things better.

And such an approach will always need a human touch. That doesn't mean personifying an object – it just means building in the human touch; the friendly barrista who makes the brand an interactive, personal experience instead of a cold, soulless transaction.

@eskimon

As I read your comment, one of your points really resonated: most of the things we consider as ‘objects’ have been created by people.

However, this took me in a different direction: inevitably, those objects will end up carrying some of the personality of their creators, regardless of how soulless the incarnation of the object appears (even code can include personality).

So, in some way, we do have some form of human ‘relationship’ with objects, even if that link is extremely distant and tenuous.

But many of the things we consider as ‘brands’ have an obvious element of human interaction, particularly in our increasingly serviced-based world. Brands like Starbucks are just as much about the barristas as they are about the taste of the coffee and the convenience of the location.

Even when brands are purely internet-based and we never actually ‘meet’ the individuals who work there, we can still form emotional bonds with the people who bring the brand to life, through twitter, customer service lines, or even the comments section on blogs.

Take Zappos as an example: people regularly refer to the ‘humanity’ of the brand, perhaps because the brand sees the importance of relationships and celebrates its people. Indeed, it’s those people that make Zappos different.

Another great example is Innocent smoothies. The brand has a strong ‘personality’ because its creators build their passions and beliefs into each of their products.

Perhaps it’s better to say brands don’t have personalities; they simply mirror those of the people who create them, or the personality those people would like to convey.

I agree that there is a danger in pretending brands operate like people – they don’t, and our ‘relationships’ with them will likely never work in the same way – but that’s not to say that brands are devoid of humanity.

It’s equally dangerous to pretend that brands are lifeless. People often mistrust faceless corporations and dislike overly-slick brands. Maybe that’s because they’re so clearly ‘false’; maybe it’s because they make people feel inferior. The reason doesn’t really matter – what matters is that the people we engage with most are those who acknowledge their faults, are decent enough to admit their mistakes, and prove to us that they care enough about us as individuals that they want to make things better.

And such an approach will always need a human touch. That doesn’t mean personifying an object – it just means building in the human touch; the friendly barrista who makes the brand an interactive, personal experience instead of a cold, soulless transaction.

@eskimon

I appreciate the effort to open up our thinking, but it's still an error of reification.

A human being somewhere wrote the code and instructed an app to do that. Ditto for my fridge someday tweeting me that I need to pick up milk, or placing an online order on my behalf with a grocery delivery service.

Watching all the discussion in social media circles around the many very human errors made by people managing corporate Twitter or Facebook accounts and trying to put a face on a brand, I don't think the distinctions are being lost at all. I think people are very, very aware when someone tries to personify something that is not human, particularly when they stumble.

Better to own our humanity and all the mistakes that go along with it. And we're neither logical nor simple, most of the time, even if we are learning how to say things in 140 characters. Don't mistake your finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

@BarbChamberlain

I appreciate the effort to open up our thinking, but it’s still an error of reification.

A human being somewhere wrote the code and instructed an app to do that. Ditto for my fridge someday tweeting me that I need to pick up milk, or placing an online order on my behalf with a grocery delivery service.

Watching all the discussion in social media circles around the many very human errors made by people managing corporate Twitter or Facebook accounts and trying to put a face on a brand, I don’t think the distinctions are being lost at all. I think people are very, very aware when someone tries to personify something that is not human, particularly when they stumble.

Better to own our humanity and all the mistakes that go along with it. And we’re neither logical nor simple, most of the time, even if we are learning how to say things in 140 characters. Don’t mistake your finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

@BarbChamberlain

But I wonder whether this is making us easier or harder to define with people increasingly having reasons to hide and show things where before they didn't exist.

You see this perhaps more in countries outside the UK and US, for example in China where users have multiple identities, each used for different online purposes.

Are we showing more of our true colours now, digital facilitating the platforms for expression, where as once they were tucked away out of sight. And as such, are we harder to define?

Food for thought though indeed

But I wonder whether this is making us easier or harder to define with people increasingly having reasons to hide and show things where before they didn’t exist.

You see this perhaps more in countries outside the UK and US, for example in China where users have multiple identities, each used for different online purposes.

Are we showing more of our true colours now, digital facilitating the platforms for expression, where as once they were tucked away out of sight. And as such, are we harder to define?

Food for thought though indeed

our changing relationship with inanimate objects has been a major theme in the development of AI; even with the advent of talking toys. either “our language may hold us back from seeing a lot of the new possibilities that come from objects, ideas and people interacting at the same level,” or our experiences on the web will change the way we relate to objects and therefore the language we use to describe them…..or all of the above depending on the object/circumstance.

Don't tell Facebook but Zeus Jones has a regular profile page with lots of friends and someone has also camped on the @zeusjones name on Twitter and refuses to release it.

On language, yes I think language shapes behaviour and vice-versa. I think we are used to the idea that objects are inanimate and don't interact with us, rather we interact with them. Similarly, I think we are used to the idea that people are hard to define and can't be described in just a few lines. On the Web, neither are true therefore objects are not objects in the classic sense, likewise people are not people. I don't really understand it either.

our changing relationship with inanimate objects has been a major theme in the development of AI; even with the advent of talking toys. either “our language may hold us back from seeing a lot of the new possibilities that come from objects, ideas and people interacting at the same level,” or our experiences on the web will change the way we relate to objects and therefore the language we use to describe them…..or all of the above depending on the object/circumstance.

Don’t tell Facebook but Zeus Jones has a regular profile page with lots of friends and someone has also camped on the @zeusjones name on Twitter and refuses to release it.

On language, yes I think language shapes behaviour and vice-versa. I think we are used to the idea that objects are inanimate and don’t interact with us, rather we interact with them. Similarly, I think we are used to the idea that people are hard to define and can’t be described in just a few lines. On the Web, neither are true therefore objects are not objects in the classic sense, likewise people are not people. I don’t really understand it either.

personification of objects have not always been figures of speech – many religions and belief systems in general personify objects explicitly and deliberately, e.g. ascribing identity to the earth and wind.

and Twitter & Facebook don't necessarily flatten the distinctions between people and objects – Facebook has different pages for different entities (people profile pages, object/brand pages, group pages, event pages) and Twitter clients enable users to differentiate between people and objects (e.g. TweetDeck).

but I Love how you combine the fact that objects are being socialized on the web + how smart objects automatically generate data. my refrigerator's Twitter stream! adorable.

“It’s interesting to speculate that our language may hold us back from seeing a lot of the new possibilities that come from objects, ideas and people interacting at the same level.”

still don't quite understand this part – what 'new possibilities' is our language precluding us from seeing? (might people who speak different languages see and therefore develop different possibilities? a potential study in web development x anthropology.) and does being aware of how our language precludes us make us more able to overcome it?