Virtual vs. in Real Life: The Value of Relationship Perspective

I love the real life exploration of everything you've been covering, Michael.

I have 2 points I'd like to explore with you and the readers relative to this post. 

first  - just wanted to ask about your six dimensions of influence model.   Would you say that, by providing the recording of the event - and the ability to interact with that recording, you are extending the "timing" and "alignment" of the target (e.g. people like me who missed the conference)?  

second - a few years back I set out to "map" the social media landscape.  I focused on  2 primary dimensions of Context Potential and Interactivity mapped on X and Y axis.  This seemed to capture the sparse, interactive nature of Twitter (upper left) and the context-rich, but far-less-interactive nature of video (lower right quadrant).

Then I started mapping other stuff - like a web site and In-Real-Life (IRL) events, networking, the phone, etc.   And I realized that it was less a map of social media and more a map of human communication in general.   IRL is in the upper right corner and remains the most potent, high bandwidth, context-rich and interactive form of communication.

I'm wondering if that kind of continuum could be helpful in answering the question you ask in your post, "how can we make the tradeoff between the more efficient F2F engagements vs. the tremendous gain in accessibility? They seem like apples and oranges. "

Sometimes we don't have a choice in how to engage.   How to optimize the mix of real and virtual worlds seems like an important and very personal question.   And is "optimizing" the same as "balancing" ... I worry they may be two very different things in this context  :-)

Thanks for sharing your presentation - and thank you again for providing space to participate in this continued inquiry into who we are becoming as the human species. 

- Skip