Socializers Clump
Imagine that this weekend you and others will volunteer time to help tend the grounds at some large site – you’ll trim bushes, pull weeds, plant bulbs, etc. You might have two reasons for doing this. First, you might care about the cause of the site. The site might hold an orphanage, or a historical building. Second, you might want to socialize with others going to the same event, to reinforce old connections and to make new ones.
Imagine that instead of being assigned to work in particular areas, each person was free to choose where on the site to work. These different motives for being there are likely to reveal themselves in where people spend their time grounds-tending. The more that someone wants to socialize, the more they will work near where others are working, so that they can chat while they work, and while taking breaks from work. Socializing workers will tend to clump together.
On the other hand, the more someone cares about the cause itself, the more they will look for places that others have neglected, so that their efforts can create maximal value. These will tend to be places places away from where socially-motivated workers are clumped. Volunteers who want more to socialize will tend more to clump, while volunteers who want more to help will tend more to spread out.
This same pattern should also apply to conversation topics. If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. Like say the missing Malaysia Airlines plane. But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. You’ll seek topics that are important and yet little discussed, where more discussion seems likely to result in progress, and where you and your fellow discussants have a comparative advantage of expertise.
You can use this clue to help infer the conversation motives of the people you talk with, and of yourself. I expect you’ll find that almost everyone mainly cares more about talking to socialize, relative to gaining insight.
By socialize do you also mean signal? A lot of the reason bloggers touch on the topic of the weak is to generate links to their blogs so they get exposure. It seems like the promotion of an unpopular idea would require high amounts of socializing to get noticed and high amounts of signaling to indicate that the author isn't otherwise crazy (You've talked about this second part in the past).
Such as with teams, there may be a domain of increasing returns to additional persons to a group. Your hypothesis is true if there are constant returns to group additions or negative returns - and yet we still see it. If merely having another person around decreases the cost of work, then it stands that socially working results in more work being done [due to the relative cost change]. If there is increasing marginally productivity over a domain, then socializers will also look like people who actually care. They are indistinguishable if all the payoffs and the rules are known.