I Ghost Social Media, and it Still Haunts Me

As someone who's dived so deeply into social media that I made pie charts exploring my Facebook usage, I asked myself, what would it be like to disconnect? Not only from Facebook, but from all social media? Disconnecting from social media isn't new to me. After all, I treat dating apps like road trips - fun for a while, but at some point, I get tired of driving and delete my profile (again). I've also taken breaks from Facebook ranging from weeks to months. However, I had an on-again/off-again relationship with Facebook before I used social media for community building, such as the events I lead in the LGBTQ+ group Elgin Pride. At this point in my lifetime, going off the grid has actual consequences. I can't post events, invite people to events, or contribute to this digital community without social media. Additionally, I've never tried taking a break from social media at large. Could I truly go off the grid, taking a social media sabbatical? The idea tantalized and terrified me. The fact that I was anxious about disconnecting further piqued my curiosity. Where was this anxiety coming from? How could I work through it? The only way to know was to try.

Hence, I disconnected from social media for three days - Thursday April 25th 2024 through Saturday April 27th 2024. Prior to disconnecting, I did a bit of prep work. Since I message certain friends solely through social media - namely, Discord - I let my friends know that I wouldn't be replying to messages. That way, they'd know I'm not ghosting them; I'm just ghosting social media. Second, I determined which websites and apps fall under the umbrella of my social media. Facebook was an obvious answer. Dating apps clearly had to go. Discord was difficult to ditch, since I'm most social on this particular social media network. After those three categories, was I free from social media? As Patrick Star would say:

Image Source: giphy.com

Plenty of other apps fall under social media, even if I don't use them to connect with others quite as directly. YouTube, for example, is a social media platform. I don't message people on YouTube like I message on Facebook, Discord, and dating apps. Hence, it's not the first network that comes to mind when I hear the phrase "social media." However, it's inarguably the social media platform that I spend the most time on. Although I don't connect through messaging, I still use YouTube to connect with others by sharing videos over text. Spotify was another social media app in this same vein. Although I'm not following any friends on Spotify, I still follow artists, send songs to friends, and check out playlists. In other words, it's still social media. After making my list and checking it twice, I went cold turkey with the following social media:

• Facebook
• Discord
• Dating Apps
• Spotify
• YouTube

Once my list was finished, I logged into Blogger, getting a head start on my blog post and writing about my prep work, only to facepalm. After all, unless my blog is set to private, Blogger could also be considered social media.

Image Source: giphy.com

Hence, I typed my post in a Word document. Typing in Word instead of Blogger felt bizarre, since I couldn't preview my post like I normally would. For this challenge, Microsoft Word was a necessary evil, leaving my revised list as follows:

• Facebook
• Discord
• Dating Apps
• Spotify
• YouTube
• Blogger
  
  

What happened next?

Although my social media sabbatical was a brief three days, I quickly realized that checking my social media was so normalized that I did it subconsciously. I caught myself opening the Discord app and YouTube app without even making a conscious decision to do so, only to make the active decision to stop myself and close the apps. I also ran into another issue besides the allure of the apps - the temptation of push notifications. Since I'm used to opening messages immediately, swiping them away felt like picking up a delicious strawberry only to put it back down. Not knowing the content of the message (but getting a sneak peek) was akin to not being able to taste these strawberries - which is to say, it was torturous. I also received a notification for a new match. Although I don't take dating apps very seriously, it was difficult to ignore my curiosity about the match by swiping away the notification. Worst of all, swiping away notifications still involved interacting with social media, which wasn't a true social media break. To truly disconnect, I'd need to step it up a notch.

Hence, I deleted the more tempting social media apps (Discord, YouTube, and dating apps.) Although I knew that I could simply sign out, I found myself wanting to sign back in when the app was still installed. Uninstalling the apps proved to be a better option for me, removing the choice to open either the app or the push notifications. I wasn't surprised that this strategy worked, since it's a strategy I already use with Facebook. I don't have the Facebook app or Messenger app on my phone, which forces me to check Facebook by logging in. Since I'm already well-versed in Facebook breaks, it wasn't as difficult for me to stay clear of Facebook. Staying clear of Discord was challenging, since it meant staying out of my digital queer community. Nonetheless, I noticed that I enjoyed my morning a little more on Day 2 and Day 3. Without any messages to open (aside from texting), I started my day blissfully alone. Alone carries connotations of loneliness, but I find comfort in a degree of solitude, company to only my own thoughts and my morning coffee. I felt calm on these mornings, at peace watching the birds on the balcony. Although I was social media free, I wasn't tech free, since I still took a photo with my phone. Without social media, I didn't post the photo on Facebook, meaning that the photo was more about capturing the moment rather than sharing the moment online (at least, until sharing this blog post). 

Image Source: Personal Photo

On the opposite end of calm - namely, anxiety - I noticed a pattern of checking (or wanting to check) my phone. Three patterns stuck out to me:

• Checking in the morning right after waking up
• Checking during a meal (breakfast, lunch, and dinner)
• Checking during bathroom breaks

That last one is embarrassing, I'm not going to lie. Why do I crave entertainment for a bathroom break? Why is it more habitual to look at my screen instead of my meal? Although I don't think there's anything inherently bad about watching YouTube videos, I find myself splitting my attention between the entertainment and the task at hand. My anxiety of missing out on social media leads me to missing out on these tiny lovely moments - whether it's drinking a cup of coffee, eating scrambled eggs, or appreciating the morning doves. It also leads me to drawing out moments that needn't take nearly as long (looking at you, bathroom breaks!)

What's the Future of (My) Social Media?

Going forward, I'd like to be more mindful about social media timeliness. It's not a matter of if, but when I use social media. Going forward, I have a few ideas to try:

• Scheduling a Social Media Hour each day, such as 9pm-10pm, and leaving the other hours open for other activities.
• Social-media-free zones in physical spaces. Just like I'm not supposed to text when I'm staffing the reference desk at my library, stay social-media-free at the kitchen table.
• Pay attention to the times when social media gets on my mind without using social media.

To illustrate this last point, I'll tell a story. On Day 2, I was driving home from work, listening to my favorite radio station - WDCB Jazz. Sometimes, this station goes over the news - which in this case, included news about a particular Tweet from a particular politician. Even if I lived completely off the grid, we live in a society where Tweets are regarded as newsworthy. It's nearly impossible to truly disconnect from social media when it's so ingrained in our culture and so influential in our day-to-day lives. Personally, I'd much rather figure out how social media can enrich my life (such as queer community) without letting social media encroach on my life (such as morning routines).

I'd also be curious to try a social media sabbatical in different conditions. What would happen if I tried a social media sabbatical for a longer time period, such as two weeks? Would the experiment be different when classes aren't in session, leaving me way more free time to work with? If I end up trying another social media sabbatical, I'll consider posting it to Blogger - though of course, I've learned my lesson. As a social media network, Blogger would need to wait until I'm back in the social-media-office.

Would I recommend a social media sabbatical?

Definitely! Putting some distance between myself and social media gave me a fresh perspective on social media - not only its challenges (bringing out my compulsive tendencies), but also its benefits (building community, streaming anime, sharing songs, etc.). It also gave me a fresh perspective on how often I interact with social media without realizing it. During only three days, I couldn't open a song on SoundCloud that a friend had shared a link for (Primordial's song Traidisiúnta). I couldn't listen to a band on Spotify that another friend had mentioned. I knew I knew the band, but didn't know how I knew them. (The band was Bayside. After my sabbatical, I looked up the band on Spotify and realized I'd heard their song Duality ages ago!) I couldn't open promotional emails from social media apps (this bordered on interacting with social media, like how you haven't truly cut out an ex if you're still checking out their profile). I rescheduled an anime hangout since we hang out on Discord, relying on Discord (and Crunchyroll) to stream one of my new favorite anime Frieren. All of these experiences helped me better appreciate social media and better appreciate my time away from social media. I'll be more mindful of giving myself space from social media if it consumes me like a hungry mimic:

Image Source: tenor.com

I'll make sure my time on social media is time spent spreading happiness, encouragement, and heart emojis.

Image Source: tenor.com

Most importantly, I'll make sure I'm happy using social media, aligning my social media use to my social-emotional needs.

Image Source: tenor.com

Would you take a social media sabbatical? Are you a fellow fan of Frieren? I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Media Literacy Meets Broccoli

What does broccoli have to do with media literacy? Let's begin today's discussion with a photograph that I shared with fellow students in my virtual library science course. After posting this photo without context, students had the option of commenting on my photo to answer the following three questions: What message does the photo convey? Why did the person take this picture? What tone does the photo convey?

Image Source: Personal Photo

When it comes to media literacy, I like to think of it in three parts - the text, the subtext, and the context. For starters, the text refers to the observations of a piece of media. What do you observe with your senses? The text of this photo is simple. A hand holding a piece of broccoli. 

The subtext, meanwhile, is the interpretations of a piece of a media. One student's interpretation was that the photo's purpose entailed demonstrating the size difference between the hand and the broccoli. This student also interpreted the photo's tone to be either confusion or amazement as a reaction to this size difference.

Lastly, the context is the conditions surrounding a piece of media. Since I took the photo, I can speak to the context. Prior to taking the photo, I decided to make broccoli for dinner. When I opened the broccoli package, I discovered two broccoli crowns and one, as I called it, "baby broccoli." I found the size difference between the baby broccoli and the broccoli crowns quite amusing, which led to taking the photo for my own entertainment. It also led to me singing "bay-bee broc-leey" in increasingly higher pitches to the amusement of my roommate. I'd intended to save Baby Broccoli for my final broccoli bite, but to my (exaggerated) despair, my roommate had cleaned my mess on the kitchen counter, mistaking Baby Broccoli for an unwanted scrap. While I was boiling the far larger broccoli crowns, my roomie tossed Baby Broccoli. I had too much dignity (and common sense) to risk rescuing Baby Broccoli from the trash bin. Nonetheless, the photo lives on as the only evidence of Baby Broccoli's existence, and I still sing bay-bee broc-leey while making this delicious veggie for dinner.

If my silly little broccoli photo had that much context, what does that say about the larger world of media? Advertisements. Music. Television. Games. Apps. Socials. We are surrounded, if not bombarded, by media. Although we can certainly navigate media without developing our media literacy, we're left at a disadvantage when we do so, robbing ourselves of the opportunity to more fully understand the subtext and context behind the media we consume and create.

So how can we develop media literacy? Aside from the framework of text, subtext, and context, we can utilize other frameworks to develop our media literacy. One such framework was developed by writer Howard Rheingold, pictured below:

Image Source: Brittanica

Howard Rheingold proposed five key social media literacies. As said by Rheingold in his article Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies, "Ultimately, the most important fluency is not in mastering a particular literacy but in being able to put all five of these literacies together into a way of being in digital culture." So what are these five social media literacies? Although his article dives much deeper, here's the gist:

• Attention: What are you directing your attention to? How are you directing your attention? Are you splitting your attention and multitasking? Are you giving your focused attention to just one thing? Which method of attention works best for a given situation? 
• Participation: Which social media communities do you join? Are you a passive observer, or an active participant? Do you create content to contribute to communities?
• Collaboration: Do you connect with others? Do you work with others? Do you implement collective action through social media to create positive change in the world? 
• Network Awareness: Do you understand the nature of technical and social networks? Do you act on this understanding to make the most out of social networks? Do you mindfully build personal and professional learning networks through social media?
• Critical Consumption: Can you discern who is (and isn't) trustworthy? Can you differentiate information from misinformation? Can you recognize that social media is "not a queue; it's a flow."

Of these five competencies, which are most important for my students to know? Considering that I work primarily with elementary and middle school students, I'd say that Attention is the most fundamental literacy. Students have access to boundless social media platforms. By learning how to direct their attention, they can essentially direct the "flow" of social media, prioritizing content, connections, and communities that help them grow. Participation and collaboration are also important to keep students connected to each other, positive role models, communities, and ideas. Network awareness and critical consumption can help students navigate the choppy waters of social media, building a ship that can handle this rougher kind of flow - instead of a vessel doomed to sink in doomscrolling.

Attention, in my perspective, is key to developing any of these other social media literacies. Students can only fully participate if they direct their attention from passive lurking to active involvement. Students can only collaborate by directing their attention to others in their social media communities. Students can only develop network awareness by directing their attention to the inner workings of social media. Lastly, students who develop critical consumption learn who to give (and who not to give) their attention.

Considering that Rheingold's article was written in 2010 (over a decade before writing this blog post), it's worth asking, are these literacies still accurate? Is Rheingold missing any literacies? I'd attest that his five literacies are still highly relevant, but only stay relevant when adapted to current contexts. For example, this article was written before the pandemic, which means virtual learning wasn't nearly as normalized and devices weren't nearly as commonplace in classrooms. Connected to tech at home and at school, one aspect of developing attention may involve knowing when to disconnect from screens and social media. In that vein, paying attention to one's own feelings on social media (social-emotional learning) is a key literacy that could be integrated into broader social media literacy. As another addendum, we now have more awareness and acceptance of neurodiversity; I'd be curious how we can adapt this media literacy framework to welcome students who have unique neurological processes of directing attention. 

Image Source: Genius Within

In addition to having many new societal contexts to consider, we have many more mediums available for social media, leading to a far broader range of expression and connection. As said by communication theorist Marshall McLuhan, "The medium is the message." Now that we have more social media mediums, discerning which medium suits the message (and why) can be critical to social media literacy. I'd attest that this component could be included under the umbrella of Network Awareness, since discovering the right medium involves developing an awareness of how social media networks offer unique variations of mediums. For example, Snapchat and Instagram both prioritize photos. However, they share the "message" (photos) in unique ways and to unique audiences - shaping the subtext and context for each photo, even if it's the same photo shared on both sites.

In addition to navigating more mediums (or at least, variations of these mediums), students are also navigating more misinformation. To teach students how to distinguish fact from fiction, I'd like to be more intentional about integrating media literacy in my library programs. I'd also like to make better use of my opportunities at the reference desk, weaving in media literacy as opportunities arise. For example, if a student is looking for books on gems, I can offer books published by the Smithsonian and discuss the museum's background in gemology, lending credibility to the book and modeling finding credible sources.

To conclude this post, I'd like to share one more story about something green. No, not broccoli. This story involved a leprechaun at the library. While I was staffing the reference desk, a mother and her son approached me. The mother said she needed my help finding a book to "settle an argument." When I asked which book she'd like me to find, she replied that she needed a book about Robin Hood, settling the score that Robin Hood is "not a leprechaun" and just has a "similar outfit." After reviewing the search results on the catalog, we decided on the book Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow - a story that mom and son read together at the library.

Image Source: Amazon

Just as Robin Hood can easily be interpreted to be a leprechaun, media can be interpreted in limitless ways, especially by kids just starting to develop social media literacy. That's why it's so important to learn this literacy early on. We can learn text, subtext, and context. We can teach attention, participation, collaboration, network awareness, and critical consumption. It can be as simple as inviting a child to investigate the correlation between Robin Hood and leprechauns. As long as educators continue to direct their own attention to media literacy, children can begin to develop those skills for themselves, serving them well in childhood and beyond.

Digital Safety for our Youngest Digital Citizens

Since the public library is a place for anyone and everyone to utilize the library's technology, I can't help but wonder - how are kids protected at public libraries? One form of protection involves laws that aim to protect children's digital safety. Two federal laws include CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) and COPPA (Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act). CIPA was adopted in 2001 and updated in 2011. I found it interesting that CIPA is tied to a library's or school's funding, providing financial incentive for an organization to adhere to CIPA. Meanwhile, COPPA was adopted in 1998 and updated in 2013. I found COPPA interesting to learn about because it has specific requirements for consent when it comes to student data. For example, schools can collect verifiable parental consent, such as a consent form signed by a parent. Alternatively, a school can collect consent on behalf of the school itself, but only within a particular scope of consent that involves how student data is used. For example, student data can only be used for the school's educational purposes, and this data cannot be disclosed to third parties outside of the purposes of the school's data needs. If a school falls outside that limited scope of consent, then the school could face dire financial consequences, such as $40,000 per COPPA violation per student. In case you're likewise interested in exploring the topic of student data consent within COPPA, I learned about this "federal statute" with "teeth" in the following YouTube video:

Video Source: Student Privacy Compass (YouTube)

Speaking of YouTube, did you know that YouTube had the largest COPPA fine in history? YouTube reached a settlement with the FTC of $170 million due to COPPA violations regarding how they collected user data, which included YouTube users under the age of 13 (of note, "under 13" is the applicable age range for COPPA). In addition to paying this gargantuan fine, YouTube changed their entire content system, which involves not only the YouTube platform, but also YouTube creators. Creators must label their content as being "directed" (or not directed) "to children" (under 13). If you're interesting in learning more, I'd recommend checking out the article YouTube’s new kids’ content system has creators scrambling. In this new system, it's not only YouTube that can face fines; creators shoulder the responsibility of accurately labeling their content as "directed to kids" - an accuracy that can be ambiguous, given the murky verbiage of "directed" to kids. The "under 13" age range is also murky territory. What makes a YouTube video directed to a 14-year-old, but not a 13-year-old? Answers may vary.

When I think of this discussion of age ranges in libraries, I'd like to note that my particular library doesn't lump all the books into an "under 13" category. There are picture books, beginning reader books, ready for chapter books, fiction shelves geared for elementary students, and teen shelves geared for middle school students. If we lumped Pete the Cat with With a Dog AND a Cat, Every Day is Fun, it wouldn't be of much help to the kids and families looking for books, would it?

Pete the Cat and the Perfect Pizza Party by Kimberly Dean & James Dean

Image Source: storygraph.com

With a Dog AND a Cat, Every Day is Fun (Volume 1) by Hidekichi Matsumoto

Image Source: storygraph.com

When it comes to kids, teens, and families using library technology, it might be worthwhile for libraries to think of COPPA as an incomprehensive baseline. From there, libraries can provide and guide library technology with consideration for unique grade levels and age groups. On the subject of age groups, I'd attest that "under 13" is not enough, since it doesn't regulate the data collection of teens or protect the digital safety of teens. Particularly since teens are so active on social media and online spaces, as discussed in this article by the PEW Research Center, shouldn't their digital safety be a top priority in our federal laws?

When I further investigated this absentee age group, I learned that there's a bill in the works called the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA 2.0. Among other changes, this bill brings about the major change of including teens in ages 13 through 17. Additionally, there's a proposed bill called the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) which addresses online safety beyond COPPA for kids under 17. For additional information on COPPA 2.0 and KOSA, I'd recommend the article Federal Children’s Privacy Requirements to Be Updated and Expanded. Whether these changes protect digital safety or compromise digital privacy is up for debate, and I'd be curious to hear about your thoughts on these proposed changes.

With these changes in mind, I'd like to note that my perspectives of these changes are influenced by my own age. As an adult in my thirties, it's worthwhile to take a step back and remember who these laws would be directly affecting - which is to say, kids and teens. Are kids going to stop watching their favorite YouTube videos simply because they don't fall under the "under 13" category? On the contrary, I'd attest that our tech savvy kids and teens will simply include whichever magic number grants them access to the technology they enjoy and the content they enjoy. As said by researcher danah boyd, "On the internet, every child is 14." Does restricting content by age encourage kids to lie in order to access that content? I'd argue that it not only incentivizes kids to lie, but can also result in a moralistic battleground over what's flagged as inappropriate for kids (such as LGBTQ+ content being flagged simply for including LGBTQ+ representation). When it comes to my work in libraries and the ongoing climate of libraries, it's no secret that particular community members may attempt to censor the following, while libraries (hopefully) continue to advocate for the following:

Image Source: giphy.com

At my library, we wouldn't encourage kids to lie about their age to check out books. We wouldn't restrict an elementary student from checking out a book simply because it's located in the teen book section. We can guide book selection by shelving a book in the teen section; we cannot censor book selection because the child isn't deemed "old enough" to read that book (especially since "old enough" can be subjective). Since libraries prioritize access to technology, it may be worthwhile to consider our own role in guiding technology users. It's crucial to protect students' online safety, whether through federal law or library policy. It's equally crucial to protect students' privacy, providing resources for students to advocate for their own needs and to access the information they need - whether through books or through technology use.

As a final note, the laws themselves are not written in a way that students can easily understand. Public libraries, however, can provide resources for students and families created by and with students and families, guiding safe and enjoyable technology use with respect to federal laws, state laws, and library policies. 

Digital Tattoo, Courtesy of Facebook

Digital tattoos - the parts of ourselves that we share online for others to see - aren't so easily removed, including social media tattoos. Since Facebook is the social media platform that I'm most active on, let's take a look at digital tattoos on Facebook. It's true that anyone can delete a post. Presuming that a post hasn't been shared on other profiles, or forever captured with a screenshot, I could delete any Facebook post. I could even delete my whole account. Nonetheless, the impressions that I've made on others through my Facebook account cannot be washed away as easily as a temporary tattoo. Our digital tattoos can be permanent - or at least, difficult to change - because we are perceived through the lens of our social media accounts. It can be easy to forget that we're being perceived when we post, even when we set our posts' privacy to friends-only.

To put this "privacy" in perspective, look around the room. Now look back at your phone, or computer, or whatever screen you're using. Just imagine, all your Facebook friends crammed like sardines in this one room. They're watching what you type, what photos you include, and how you respond to comments. It wouldn't feel nearly as private, would it? For me, that's 140 people seeing my digital tattoo - or in other words, my digital persona.

What does my digital persona say about me? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? (Yes, I'm referencing Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody.) 

To explore this digital tattoo, I analyzed 2 sets of Facebook posts. First, we'll examine my 25 most recent Facebook posts. Then, we'll examine my first 25 Facebook posts, traveling back in time to when I made my Facebook account on March 13th, 2022. Has my digital persona changed over time? Let's find out!

Data Set #1: January 2024-April 2024

Image Source: Google Sheets. Chart created by Aron Ryan.

For my first set of data, I had 7 Facebook posts in January, 8 posts in February, 8 posts in March, and 2 posts in April (as of April 10th, 2024). This data shows that my number of posts per month is pretty consistent. Since I often lurk on Facebook, rather than actively post, it's not surprising that my number of posts per month is relatively small - at least, compared to some of my Facebook friends who post more frequently. However, just because my number of posts is smaller doesn't mean my digital tattoo is smaller. These posts can say a lot about me for any Facebook friend scrolling down my profile.

Scrolling down my profile, you wouldn't just see what I've posted; you'd also see what my friends have posted when they've tagged me. Anytime a friend tags me, I review the post before it's added to my timeline, which helps me control what's posted on my wall. This privacy setting, Timeline Review, helps me ensure that my digital tattoo is a tattoo that I want. After all, I wouldn't want a surprise tattoo, such as a friend tagging me in something that reflected poorly on me. Even if this situation is unlikely, I can't say it's impossible. Since I chose to include these tagged posts on my wall, I made these posts a part of my digital tattoo.

Image Source: Google Sheets. Chart created by Aron Ryan.

Examining this data, I realized that some of my favorite posts are the ones where friends had thoughtfully tagged me, such as the posts below (names omitted for privacy protection.)

Image Source: Aron Ryan's Facebook Profile

Image Source: Aron Ryan's Facebook Profile

Image Source: Aron Ryan's Facebook Profile

Although my friends had tagged me, I had not tagged my friends in this set of Facebook posts. To make the most out of my digital tattoo in the future, I'd like to remember to celebrate friends, community organizations, and causes as a part of my digital tattoo. It brings to mind The Social Institute's article Using Tech for Good: Positive Ways Students Are Navigating Social Media. This article shared how students can use social media to "build a community that supports and uplifts them." Students can also "recognize and celebrate the achievements of their peers," just like my professor celebrated my poetry reading. I hope to be more intentional about taking the time to celebrate others through my Facebook posts. That way, my Facebook account can be not only a digital scrapbook, but also a digital encouragement board for my online community.

Speaking of encouragement, I found that my posts were overwhelmingly positive. Of the 25 posts, 24 had a positive tone, while 1 had a mixed tone. For context on this outlier post, I'd asked for memes to cheer me up, though I did not specify why I needed cheering that day, keeping the details of my mental health on the private side.  I tend to keep negative posts off of Facebook for a couple reasons. First, I have a wide range of Facebook friends, which includes coworkers and other professional connections. If it's not suited for work, it's not suited for Facebook. Second, I don't want my bad days to be a part of my digital tattoo. Instead, I choose to curate a digital persona that is positive in nature. Does this omission of the bad days make my Facebook account inauthentic, since I leave out negative emotional experiences?

On the contrary, I'd say that my Facebook is still authentic to who I am. I'm simply choosing to share certain parts of who I am, just like I'd choose to share certain parts of myself at work, and certain parts with friends, and certain parts with a partner. Additionally, since my brain can often perceive situations negatively and experience negative emotions strongly, it's incredibly helpful for me to have a space that cultivates positivity. It's a mindfulness practice for me to curate a positive space, while finding spaces (besides Facebook) where I can more appropriately process and more gently welcome negative emotions.

Aside from analyzing the tone of the posts, I analyzed the content of the posts by assigning tags to each post. Bearing in mind that some posts had multiple tags, here's a breakdown of my posts:

Image Source: Google Sheets. Chart created by Aron Ryan.

All in all, I'd say that these Facebook posts reflect my interests quite well. As one example, the "nature" category included 3 separate posts featuring photos of squirrels, along with other posts featuring photos of cranes, mourning doves, and the Orchid Show of Wonders at the Chicago Botanic Garden. As another example, the "GG" category refers to my snake GG. GG boasted the only post to feature a video, since I'd shared this video combining GG and a song from The Lion King (wait till the end for the snake yawn!) Side note, I made this particular post public for the sake of sharing the GG video. Every other post of mine in this data set is friends-only and features photos, demonstrating that I post when I have something visual to share. Although most posts feature between 1 and 3 photos, I made an exception for the aforementioned Chicago Botanic Garden post, which included 25 photos of orchids, cool plants, and selfies with my cool friend.

Speaking of the number 25, let's dive into another set of 25 Facebook posts. Now that we've examined my 25 newest posts, we'll examine the first 25 posts on my Facebook account. I'd created this account on March 14th, 2022, meaning that my Facebook is two years old. How do my posts compare over time? Let's find out!

Data Set #2: March 2022-May 2022

Image Source: Google Sheets. Chart created by Aron Ryan.

For my second data set, I had 10 Facebook posts in March, 12 posts in April, and 3 posts in May (tracked until May 8th to reach 25 total posts). I posted slightly more per month in 2022 compared to 2024 (10 posts in March 2022, down to 8 posts in March 2024) but the difference isn't substantial between the two data sets. 

Image Source: Google Sheets. Chart created by Aron Ryan.

Compared to 2024, I had less posts on my wall from other friends tagging me (6 in 2024, down to 1 in 2022). Although it's difficult to draw concrete conclusions, I now have more Facebook friends, as well as closer friendships, meaning that it's more likely in 2024 for me to be tagged in a post. Although the number of posts and the number of tags didn't strike me as significant data points, there is one key difference that stuck out to me.

Namely, the difference in tone. In 2024, one post had a mixed tone. In 2022, I had three negative posts. Although two of these posts discussed important issues (mental health stigma), the way I'd discussed this stigma involved more negativity than I'd expected - and more cuss words than I'd expected! Although a few swears were sprinkled into posts for the sake of humor, I viscerally cringed while reading the posts, such as reading a negative vent about a migraine. Venting on social media was discussed in the article Social Media Armor: Are You Really What You Post? As discussed in this article, "It's not wrong to use social media to vent or talk about problems, but consider making those accounts private and keeping just one account public. But remember: Even things posted on private accounts or social media forums can still end up in the public eye, so if it's definitely something you don't want shared, keep it off the internet." Some of my old posts do not have the professionalism that's more characteristic of my current digital persona.

On the bright side, this difference shows that I've matured, developing a more professional and more optimistic presence on my social media. On the not-so-bright side, I'll definitely need to take a closer look at my old posts, making revisions to my digital tattoo. Just like old tattoos may need to be touched up, I need to touch up my Facebook posts. It makes sense that my old Facebook posts were more casual, since I'd only been friends with a few select friends in 2022. Having said that, the unprofessional verbiage no longer serves me in my increasingly professional roles on Facebook.

To conclude this post, I decided it would be fun to make word clouds! To make these word clouds, I copied the text from my Facebook posts into Google Sheets - one sheet for 2024, one sheet for 2022. For each data set, I entered the text into this word cloud generator - creating one cloud for my 2022 posts, and another cloud for my 2024 posts. If your social media profile had a word cloud, what words do you think you'd find?

2022 Word Cloud:

Image Source: graphic created on freewordcloudgenerator.com
Text Source: Aron Ryan's Facebook Profile

2024 Word Cloud:

Image Source: graphic created on freewordcloudgenerator.com
Text Source: Aron Ryan's Facebook Profile

Acceptable Use Policies in Libraryland

Kids and the internet. It's a combination that can make educators and librarians break into a nervous sweat. How can libraries with public internet access ensure that computers, tablets, and other library technologies are used acceptably by younger patrons? What does "acceptable use" even mean? I'd like to break down my own library's acceptable use policy. As a patron and staff member at Gail Borden Public Library, I bear witness to kids using the internet every single day. We have computers and tablets that students and their caregivers can use, as seen in the photos below.

Image Source: Personal Photo

Image Source: Personal  Photo

How does my library distinguish between acceptable (and unacceptable) use of this technology? Through policy, of course! My library's policies are available for everyone to see on the library website. First, I found the list of library policies on our policies webpage. Then, I found the webpage for the Internet Access & Technology Use Policy. 

Are kids included in this policy? Technically, yes. A better question to ask might be, how well are they included? As a public library, all ages use the space (and the technology in that space). Regarding kids using technology, the policy addresses particular passages to kids and caregivers. I found it interesting that caregivers - specifically, "parents or legal guardians" - were listed as the ones responsible for children's internet usage. This designation of responsibility can be seen in the following passage from the library policy: "Parents or legal guardians, not Library staff, are solely responsible for deciding which internet resources are appropriate for their own children. We encourage parents to learn about the Internet so that they can teach their children how to use technology properly and responsibly."

I found this verbiage interesting, since it alludes to digital citizenship (learning about the Internet and using technology responsibly). This responsibility is assigned to the parents or legal guardians, rather than the library. I wondered, what about the kids who visit the library with a teacher, such as a school group on a class visit? What about kids who visit the library with babysitters? What about teens who visit the library independently? The library doesn't factor in the age of children or factor in other types of caregivers in their policy. This makes sense from a legal standpoint (a clearly designated point person who's held fully responsible). However, it doesn't translate as effectively from a practical standpoint, speaking as a staff member upholding our policies with many types of caregivers (and with teens who are old enough to be in the library without a caregiver).

Speaking once more as a staff member, I can attest that children sometimes misuse technology. Writing defamatory language in the search bars of public catalogs, for example. Renaming Minecraft worlds on the IPADs with offensive verbiage, as another true story. These instances could fall under the "harmful," "obscene," or "otherwise inappropriate" transmission of material outlined in the "prohibited" computer usage. This broad brush of a policy is helpful in the sense that staff have plenty of wiggle room to determine which materials are inappropriate (and to define "transmission" broadly). On the flip side, it's not as helpful from the perspective of a child or caregiver reading the policy. It's so broad that it's murky about which behaviors may fall under the prohibited category, particularly when it comes to kids. If I were to revise the policy, I wouldn't want to get overly specific, making my policy brush too thin. Let's say the policy said, "kids should not create or rename Minecraft worlds or characters with inappropriate or offensive language." This policy would likely backfire horrendously, giving kids a tantalizing idea for inappropriate technology use. At least in my overactive imagination, they'd be racing to the IPADs to concoct increasingly devious world names.

Image Source: giphy.com

Minecraft aside, I wish that the policy was a little more specific. I also wish that it was written in a way that's more accessible to kids. As is, the language is geared toward adult patrons, making it inaccessible to kids utilizing library technology. As an example of a library policy created with kids in mind, I'd recommend perusing the Acceptable and Safe Use of Electronic Resources Policy by the Portland Public Library. In my perspective, this policy was written with kids and families as primary readers of this policy. The policy also includes specific library resources for parents to teach their children appropriate technology use, framing the library as an institution that "support[s] parents and their children in the safe and effective use of the Internet." Compared to my library's policy, the language is much more welcoming and accessible to the patrons (including young patrons) who are expected to abide by this policy. It also promotes digital citizenship more directly and more encouragingly. The importance of accessible, encouraging language is discussed by former Technology Director Thomas Murray in their article Acceptable or Responsible? What's Your Use Policy? This article recommends outlining expectations in a positive manner, as well as making the policy easy for students to understand. Between the Gail Borden Public Library policy and the Portland Public Library policy, it's crystal clear that the latter policy better embodies these guidelines.

As a whole, my library's policy emphasizes what patrons shouldn't do, as demonstrated by the eight bullet points under prohibited computer use. There are five should-dos for technology use; however, the should-dos often include should-nots. For example, technology users should "protect all personal passwords and PINS." In the same breath, the policy says, "Personal passwords and PINS should not be written down nor should they be shared with others." As another example, users should, "Consider carefully before giving out personal information over the Internet." In the same breath, the policy says, "It is strongly recommended that users under the age of eighteen do not give personal information without parental consent." (Text highlighted red for the sake of emphasis in this blog post; the text is not red in the policy on the library website.)

In addition to making the policy more specific and more kid-friendly, I'd recommend making the policy more relevant. The policy was last updated on March 10th, 2015. Although updating library policies can be a lengthy process, I believe that it would be worthwhile to consider updating the technology use policies to reflect current technologies that are used by patrons. One such technology that could potentially be included in the policy is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). As far as I can tell, neither the public technology policies nor staff technology policies mention AI.

On the subject of staff policies, there are several technology policies listed in the Personnel Handbook, including the following: Library Telephone and Other Communication Device Use; Use of Computers and Electronic Communication; Personal Cell Phone Use; and Telecommuting. In contrast to the public policy on technology use, the staff policies were much more specific. For example, the library updated the Personal Cell Phone Use policy in 2021, adding the following passage: "Employees may need to use their cell phones for work purposes including receiving two-factor authentication codes to access certain computer programs." This information was likely added to the policy in light of the fact that Microsoft Outlook started requiring two-factor authentication, which by and large, means using personal cell phones to receive verification codes.

Image Source: tenor.com

This addition demonstrates the importance of updating policies to reflect current technology use. I believe that the patron policies could definitely be revised to more accurately reflect (and more positively reflect) how kids and adults can best use library technology. This revision could be spearheaded by librarians and other managers. These leaders could then include opportunities for all staff to provide suggestions and feedback on potential policy revisions. Gathering feedback from staff who work directly with the patrons using our technology (including Library Associates like myself) would be paramount to effectively revising these technology policies.

Aside from benefitting library patrons and library staff, policy revisions could also be helpful for the overall security of the library institution. As of the date of this post, the K-12 Cyber Incident Map showcased 1,619 "cybersecurity-related incidents reported about U.S. K-12 public schools and districts from 2016 through 2022."

Image Source: K-12 Cyber Incident Map

Since it's an interactive map, I was able to zoom in and discover several cyber-security related incidents reported in neighboring towns.

Image Source: K-12 Cyber Incident Map

Although I work in a library, rather than a school, many students who attend these schools visit their local libraries and use library technology. To protect and empower students, staff, and libraries as a whole, it's worthwhile to investigate how kids, families, and staff can encourage digital citizenship and responsible technology use. Even when the policy designates parents and legal guardians as fully responsible for their children's technology use, libraries can play a key role in teaching families how to use technology responsibly, providing resources for families to learn this skillset inside and outside the library.

Algorithms: I See You, but You Don't See Me

When I think of algorithms, I sometimes have a tough time conceptualizing what social media sites actually know about me. I have a growing understanding of how algorithms work - in short, algorithms collect data on social media users, then utilize this data to deliver personalized content to each user. Since I cannot possibly watch every single YouTube video or read every single Facebook post, this catered content is like serving food I'm more likely to enjoy, making me a loyal customer at these diners of social media. After all, I wouldn't return to a restaurant with icky food.

Image Source: tenor.com

Having said that, I have limited say (and oftentimes, zero say) in the data that these social media sites collect about me. Additionally, these social media algorithms are subject to bias, with even emojis playing a role in misinformation. Developing a more nuanced understanding of how algorithms work is like taking a trip into the kitchen of that restaurant, seeing what's going on behind the scenes - inner workings that social media sites don't necessarily want users to know. Not everyone may want to take a trip into the kitchen. Even I have asked, why should I care about the data they collect? As long as the food's good, what does it matter? I care because it's not about the food, but about the tab. If I'm paying these restaurants (the data that social media sites collect), I want to know what I'm paying. Since I work with kids and teens as a KidSpace Library Associate at a public library, it's also important to know the tab so I can better empower students to make informed choices. Many kids at the library are avid social media users, plus the library has its own social media presence. In other words, my organization and the families my organization serves are directly impacted by algorithms. 

On the subject of libraries, I discovered another algorithm metaphor that doesn't relate to food (I may or may not have been hungry while writing this blog). As described in Dorcas Adisa's Sprout Social article, Everything you need to know about social media algorithms, algorithms are described as "librarians, sorting and connecting users with their preferences. This prevents overwhelming users with endless content and helps them find what they like faster. Algorithms enable users to uncover valuable posts, connect with like-minded individuals and explore their interests." In other words, algorithms can be useful by providing relevant information to users. For example, when Facebook provides wildlife photos in my newsfeed, I'll devour that content.

Image Source: tenor.com

I was intrigued by the librarian metaphor because librarians help identify misinformation. Algorithms can likewise flag and filter misinformation; alternatively, algorithms can bolster and spread misinformation. Per Joe Lazer's Contently article, Facebook’s Algorithm Has Unprecedented Power. Here’s How We Need to Respond, Facebook had come under scrutiny for "its role in spreading fake news leading up to the election, and the filter bubbles it helped create among people with similar political ideologies." The chart below explores this role in a visual way.

Image Source: Contently Article

Librarians, too, have this power of opening access or restricting access to information and misinformation. Can we trust social media algorithms to utilize this power wisely? According to a PEW Research Center survey, as discussed in the article Mixed views about social media companies using algorithms to find false information, "Fully 72% of Americans have little or no confidence that social media companies will use computer programs appropriately to determine which information on their sites is false, including three-in-ten who have no confidence at all." I was not surprised by this lack of confidence in algorithms' ability to determine false information. In sharp contrast to the lack of information filtering, I was surprised by the abundance of information gathering, especially when it came to Facebook.

Why Facebook?

As a regular Facebook user, I was unnerved by Caitlin Dewey's Washington Post article 98 personal data points that Facebook uses to target ads to you. I knew that Facebook had the power to collect a lot of data, but 98 data points? - including credit card data, car data, and home data? It's not nearly as innocuous as favorite TV shows, as I had presumed before doing my research. Users can indicate ad preferences, but users can't actually opt out of Facebook's tracking methods. As discussed in the aforementioned article, "The preferences manager, for instance, lets users tell Facebook they don’t have certain interests that the site has associated with them or their behavior, but there’s no way to tell Facebook that you don’t want it to track your interests, at all." In summary, the only way to opt out of data tracking is to opt out of Facebook entirely. This understanding made me think differently about algorithms, since I hadn't fully grasped the impact of lack of consent on lack of privacy, particularly when there's a lack of transparency regarding the full scope of the data that Facebook collects.

Will I change my Facebook ways?

To be determined! At the very least, I'll pay closer attention to the information I choose to share with Facebook. I'd also like to cultivate more resources for teaching kids about the hidden digital footprint that algorithms leave behind. Lastly, I've gained a curiosity about which ads that social media sites choose to display.

To satiate this curiosity, I ran some impromptu data on another favorite social media site - YouTube. In the spirit of the article on Facebook's 98 Data Points, I created a spreadsheet categorizing my last 98 YouTube ads. I learned how to access your YouTube ad history through this YouTube video. I included my top five categories, as well as an "Other" category for the remainder of the ads.

Image Source: Chart made on Google Sheets by Aron Ryan

Mint Mobile and Canva are both services that I use regularly, so it's no surprise that they led the way with my YouTube advertisements. It's also not surprising that therapy ads were so common, considering I watch a lot of content on the topics of psychology, mental health, and neurodiversity. I was surprised that so many deodorant ads had played, since I've never bought deodorant online. I hope that YouTube advertises deodorant because I presumably use deodorant, not because I need more deodorant so as not to offend the algorithm. Lastly, I found the topic of refugees (Gaza refugee camps) to be interesting, since these ads are geared toward social activism. Much of my YouTube viewership relates to social activism topics, even if I haven't watched content on refugee activism.

Now that I've discussed my ad history, I'm curious, which ads do the algorithms curate for you? How do you feel about the role of algorithms in social media sites? I'd love to hear your insights!

Testing the Waters of PLNs with Personality Tests

Professional and personal learning networks, also known as PLNs, can be an invaluable source of connection and growth for anyone in any field. As a KidSpace Associate in the field of library science, I decided it would be fun to explore how my PLN cultivates growth. Additionally, we'll explore the nuanced ways that my PLN intersects with my personality. Before diving into the insights and pitfalls of personality tests, let's examine the broader benefits of PLNs, showcasing why PLNs are invaluable in the first place.

4 Growth Pathways in PLNs

Dr. Torrey Trust, Professor of Learning Technology at the University of Massachusetts, discusses four distinct pathways of growth. These PLN benefits include social growth, affective growth, cognitive growth, and identity growth. Of these four categories, I resonated most strongly with affective growth. In Dr. Trust's words per her video on affective growth, affective growth empowers educators to "feel emotionally supported when they are able to learn and connect with others, which then leads to them feeling more confident in taking risks in their classroom, trying new things, soliciting feedback from others, and repeating that process of trial and error and learning and innovation." In my field of library science, I feel more connected to my work when I'm connected with innovators and changemakers, granting me fresh perspective on the how and why of my work. With the emotional support of PLNs, I can build a stronger foundation in my career and feel more fulfilled in my career.

The importance of emotional resonance in my work goes hand in hand with my personality. How does my personality intersect with my PLN? Let's dive into three personality tests - along with one bonus round test - to explore which personality traits I bring (and don't bring) to my PLN spaces.

Personality Test #1: 16 Personalities

My first test, 16 Personalities, uses a framework called the NERIS explorer. At first, I'd assumed that the test was the Myers-Briggs test. Upon further research, I learned that the NERIS model uses elements of the Myers-Briggs test, but scraps particular Jungian concepts in favor of integrating the Big Five Personality Traits (we'll dive deeper into The Big Five in Personality Tests #2 and #3.) In case you're looking to learn more about this first test, I'd recommend checking out this article on the test's framework. As for my own personality test, I received the personality result of The Advocate (INFJ-A).

Image Source: 16 Personalities

Does this test capture my personality? The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. The assumption behind this personality test (and personality tests at large) is that each person taking the test has a single concrete personality behind a single concrete identity. So what happens when someone taking this test has fluidity in identity? As someone with Dissociative Identity Disorder, also known as D.I.D., I've found this test fascinating in the sense that different alters in our system have tested differently in particular categories. Although I consistently test as INFJ on this specific test, the other primary alter in our system consistently tests as ENFP. The intuitive and feeling categories stay relatively consistent, while the judging/prospecting and introverted/extroverted traits may shift between alters. Identity - and personality, by extension - shapes our PLNs based on the circumstances of the outer world (such as which PLN we're participating in) and the circumstances of the inner world (such as who is fronting).

Does this make the test useless? On the contrary, I'd argue that it's incredibly useful. By developing greater knowledge of the personality traits of unique alters, we as a system can better interact and engage with our PLNs. We have a high degree of adaptability in navigating variable social spaces due to our internal experience of variability. For example, I tend to be more of a planner, while my fellow co-host alter is more of a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pantser. If something happens that doesn't go according to plan, this fellow alter may end up fronting - or at least, offering helpful suggestions on how to handle unexpected situations. By having an internal team of sorts as our norm, we also greatly enjoy working on teams and genuinely love hearing out others' perspectives. PLNs are a great way to seek out collaboration, perspectives, and ideas, providing affective growth externally that is already experienced internally as a system.

Furthermore, knowledge of my own personality traits as an individual alter empowers me to bring my best to PLNs and to be mindful of my areas of growth. My INFJ results noted tendencies of perfectionism, burnout, and reluctance to open up (all of which I agree with). Although these tendencies can certainly be applied to our system as a whole, knowing my own tendencies can help me catch myself when I'm acting in a state of perfectionism or guardedness. By catching myself, I can self-correct, gently shifting into a state of mindfulness and authenticity. Authenticity in professional spaces isn't always feasible, and I'd highly recommend Jodi-Ann Burey's Ted Talk on this topic. Nonetheless, it is entirely feasible to carve my own path for authenticity in PLNs.

Personality Test #2: Five-Factor

For my next test, I took the Five-Factor Test, which measures five key traits of human personality, inspired by the "Big Five" researched by Goldberg in 1993. These five traits include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

Image Source: Psychologist World

So how does my personality fare? After taking the test, I received the following results.

Image Source: Text from Psychologist World, collage created in Microsoft Word

I'd agree that I can often be open to experiences, although the way that this test measured openness to experiences struck me as biased toward certain types of experiences. For example, three of the questions related to art, and one question to poetry, indicating an openness to particular forms of creative expression, rather than openness to new experiences as a whole. Since I love art and poetry, this test indicates that I am extremely open to new experiences. Although this openness is often the case, I also know that I'm a big fan of routine, resisting experiences that fall too far outside my comfort zone. I can be open to new experiences in practice, but not always in mindset (in personality). For example, I am currently serving as Elgin's Poet Laureate, leading to a whole new PLN of writers, artists, and community builders. Writing poetry comes naturally, and you can probably infer how I answered the following question:

Image Source: Psychologist World

Although writing poetry is inherently enjoyable, performing poetry can be incredibly intimidating, especially when it comes to performing in crowds. I have made the choice to be open to these experiences in practice, even when my brain throws a fit before performing in a crowded venue - as was the case when we performed a poem celebrating my library's 150th Anniversary. Even with a more extroverted alter performing the poem, our heart was thudding in our throat. Still, we performed, and we are confident that we performed well. These small successes help shift our system personality into being more open to uncomfortable experiences. Joining a PLN can be uncomfortable and overwhelming at times, but growth is hardly ever easy. Hence, we choose to lean into that discomfort, growing in ways that we could only accomplish by resisting our own resistance to change. Of note, we still must balance growth with stability. Pushing ourselves too hard can lead to burnout, and we are definitely prone to burnout, particularly when we have some neurotic tendencies. However, we trust in our process of striking that balance, and of adjusting our approach when our balance gets thrown off.

Personality Test #3: FiveThirtyEight

In a similar vein as the previous test, FiveThirtyEight likewise measures five traits based on the big five. In this case, the five traits include openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, negative emotionality, and extroversion. I found it interesting that the previous test used the framework of neuroticism, while the FiveThirtyEight test used the framework of negative emotionality. In my opinion, neurotic describes a person's personality, while negative emotionality describes a person's experiences with negative emotions (perceiving the person versus perceiving the behavior). I don't have a preference between the two terms, but I find the subtle differences in connotations to be intriguing. I was also intrigued by the subtle differences in my test results below.

Image Source: FiveThirtyEight

While some of the previous test's questions seemed hyper-specific (such as a question about poetry), some of these test's questions seemed incredibly vague. For example, one prompt noted:

Image Source: FiveThirtyEight

The answer to this question can be circumstantial. For example, if I'm at work, I tend to be very focused on my work, leading to a quieter disposition. However, when my coworker asked if I'd been playing any new games, I dived into a lengthy discussion about my playthrough of God of War III, leading to a far more extroverted disposition. Many neurodivergent people, myself included, are cast as introverts, but can express much more extroverted traits when special interests are involved. I have a high social capacity, with a limited range of social topics, meaning there can sometimes be a disconnect between how much I talk and how much I want to talk. Bringing it back to PLNs, I find that aligning my PLNs with my interests leads to a higher degree of participation and socialization in learning networks. I can set myself up for success by discovering PLNs that suit my passions and that welcome my neurodivergent way of being.

With any of these three tests, I suspect that they weren't designed to account for identities outside of personality - not only neurodivergent identity, but also cultural identity, socioeconomic status, and much more. When it comes to PLNs, knowing yourself can help you bring your best self to a learning network, but personality tests can only take you so far on that journey. In my perspective, the results are not a definition of who you are, but an opportunity to redefine who you are and what you want out of your career.

Bonus Round: Theory of Monotropism

If these three personality tests don't account for neurodivergent identity, are there tests that do take this factor into account? Allow me to introduce the Theory of Monotropism. As discussed in an article by the British Psychological Society, "In a nutshell, monotropism is the tendency for our interests to pull us in more strongly than most people. It rests on a model of the mind as an ‘interest system’: we are all interested in many things, and our interests help direct our attention. Different interests are salient at different times. In a monotropic mind, fewer interests tend to be aroused at any time, and they attract more of our processing resources, making it harder to deal with things outside of our current attention tunnel."

Monotropism is not exclusive to autism, nor is it required to be autistic; having said that, many autistic and neurodivergent individuals report high scores on monotropism assessments. In my case, I scored quite highly on the self-assessment for monotropism. 

Image Source: Monotropism Questionnaire

Image Source: Monotropism Questionnaire

What does this mean for my PLN? For me, it means that the right PLN is one that provides a good fit for my monotropic traits. Although identity can vary in our system, our monotropic traits translate across every alter in our system. Learning how to navigate our monotropism can be crucial to learning how to navigate PLNs, providing a space where we can grow and help others grow - whether that's social growth, cognitive growth, affective growth, identity growth, or a combination of these pathways of growth. PLNs can provide spaces to reflect and encourage people to reflect on their work and themselves, making them invaluable when an individual (or a system) is connected with the right PLNs for their personal and professional growth.