This thread is not for continuing that fight. If you have something to say, there’s already a thread for it, so take it there.
D_Nice let me see if I understand your position correctly. Are you saying that what you write isn’t something you stand behind? I’m having trouble understanding your position. When I say something on the net, something that I write in the first person, it’s me who’s talking. Not some character I made up for that conversation. When I close my browser after communicating my views on a topic, they’re still my views. Is this how you view internet communication? Somehow, because it is limited to a text form, that you don’t have an obligation to stand behind your words and have your words accurately represent your own convictions in a serious conversation? This is a serious question. Do you view all internet-based communication as mere idle chatter and assert that the views presented are presented without the weight of personal conviction in a majority of cases?
Joe_Cool I used your situation because it was a convenient example, no offense was intended.
Enjoy,
Steven
You don’t have the obligation to stand behind what you type on a computer, but that isn’t my point. Whether or not I choose to stand by my words on the internet is irrelevant. The limitations of this text form and the reason behind this thread are the same. You can not fully understand and get to know a person via communication on the internet alone. Until you have lived through real life events with someone, how can you really get to know the person they are? My views on issues are part of who I am. Unless I’m here with the sole intent of lying to everyone, then you can get a good basis of how I feel on certain subjects, but you won’t understand how I am as a person. How we get along and interact with one another on this message board for example, isn’t how we would necessarily interact in real life. You can’t simulate sitting in a room with someone and speaking free form on the internet. You miss out on body language, inflection, and physical contact. There are countless real life situations you can be in with people that couldn’t be reproduced anywhere but in that moment. Which brings me back to my original point, the internet isn’t a form of real life.
To a point I do view on line communication with people whom I don’t personally know as idle chatter. Have you honestly lost sleep over an argument had over a message board? I haven’t, but I have lost sleep after having an argument with my girlfriend. My life is not the internet.
How many real life relationships that blossomed over the internet Mgtman?
sorry bout the typo Mgtman.
That should read “How many real life relationships have you had that blossomed over the internet?”
I was not avoiding this thread. I did not know it existed until someone mailed it to me this morning. I will participate after work today.
Do you honestly believe that it is possible for anyone to do anything without some sort of consequence? The Internet is not some sort of vacuum that we can act in without being subject to causality.
I have encountered people online who tried to use the “It’s not real, it’s just words on a screen” story to excuse their own actions, but not many of them. And thank goodness for that, because they were all people who were, in my decidedly inexpert opinion, sociopaths. (One of them cyber-stalked me for years.) Normal, sane people do not believe that they can do whatever they like online without it having any effect on anyone else or potentially causing real pain to real people.
Of course people can lie online, but people can lie in real life. The kind of person who lies online is the same kind of person who lies in real life, regardless of the fact that it may be easier to get away with lies online.
People may seem different in person than they do online, but people also seem different at work than they do at home, or with their family than they do with their friends. It’s not that any of these personas are necessarily fake (although in rare cases I suppose some might be), simply that people behave differently in different situations. There’s no need to go looking for any other source for the conflict online and in person personas. It doesn’t even make much sense to try – if the online persona is not a real part of the person in question, then where did it come from? Even a person’s lies are a part of them, and can tell you a lot about that person once you realize they are lies.
I used to spend a lot of time online on MUDs (multiuser dungeons). This is a form of online role playing game. Many of the people in these games take the notion that they are role playing very seriously, and their online persona – their characters – may very well have very little to do with their actual personalities. Others did not. This led, unsurprisingly, to conflict. We had nearly endless, and very heated, battles over “crossgendered” players (people whose online character was of a different sex than they themselves were in real life), virtual violence (especially virtual rape), and so forth. It is my experience that the people who are best at this sort of thing are the kind who would make good fiction authors. Authors, as Ursula K. LeGuin points out, are paid to lie to you, and the mark of a good author is that he or she is very good at lying to you.
Now, a message board is, perhaps, not a place where most users would expect role playing to be taking place, but you can rest assured that there are users of the SDMB who are “role playing” when they post. Many of them are trolls, of course, but there are probably trolls posting amongst us even today, as of yet unidentified by the Administration simply because their form of trollage is not sufficiently offensive, or sufficiently obvious, for the Administration to notice or care.
I think I’m the same online as I am in real life, though I have been told by one person that I was not. :shrug:
Life is hard enough to live without making shit up.
Then I think we’re at an impasse. The Internet, and other forms of computer-based communication, is still communication. If you communicate assertions you don’t believe, or if you give one impression of your beliefs when you don’t actually hold those beliefs, then you’re not communicating. You’re writing fiction. Fine with me, but if you pass it off as fact then you’re doing a great disservice with those you pretend to communicate with and YOU, not them, bear the blame if they draw false conclusions about your true character.
I have a friend who is a habitual bullshitter. About every fourth word out of his mouth is some kind of exaggeration or attempt to pull your leg. This mostly stems from the fact that he is a professional gambler and it’s in his interests to give a false impression of himself to the people sitting at the table with him. Since I know him and I know this tendency, I don’t have a problem with it. I take it as given that at least half the time he’s trying to get a rise out of me or trying to pull my leg. If the conversation turns serious then he drops the BS, it’s understood. At one point he was at our place and we introduced him to another friend who had never met him before that night. They started chatting and he laid on a line of BS. She completely fell for it and started chatting to him more personally, thinking they had something in common. His BS couldn’t hold out and he admitted that he was pulling her leg from the beginning. It bothered her, and rightly so, because she was being genuine and he was not. He saw it as a game, something without consequences that he didn’t have to stand behind.
In retrospect I seriously regret not warning my friend about my other friend’s tendancy to BS with little to no warning. Communication when one side pretends to be honest, but doesn’t have the conviction to stand behind their words is a waste of time at best, hurtful at worst.
**
I completely, and utterly, disagree. Standing behind your words in ANY form of communication is paramount. Why do you think it’s ok to communicate ideals you don’t hold as if you did hold them?
**
Limitations of the form of communication make it even more vital that you carry your end of the conversation honestly. I have agreed that you can’t get the total picture, but, back to the analogy, if I feel a tusk, it’s still a tusk. I’m sorry to hear you seem to believe interpersonal communication is not possible without face-to-face contact. Myself, and millions of other people, do it fine. Guess how? We’re honestly representing our views in our words.**
Agreed, but it’s a valid form of communication ABOUT real life. If you’re not being honest in your communication and accurately communicating your views in a serious conversation, then it’s you who has a problem. Not very long ago there was a poster on this board who developed the reputation for being a depressed high school student. He once posted something which could be construed as a suicide note. The administration of the site, rightfully, attempted to contact his parents IRL. He freaked out and said the same kind of thing “I didn’t mean it! Goddamn it’s just words on a screen! You have no right to try to take it as an indication of Real Life!” He was wrong, and so are you.
Forms of communication, including computer-based things such as email and message boards, allow us to communicate ABOUT REAL LIFE. Don’t say things here as if they represented real life situations if they don’t. The old-fashioned word for that is – lying.
**
Nor is mine. My life does involve interaction with other people via the Internet however. It also involves communication via telephone, email, fax, etc. If I were to take the position that I did not have to accurately communicate my opinions or convictions in [insert form of communication here] then it would seriously retard communication. Why would I want to do that?
Yes, I have lost sleep over miscommunications in many mediums. When I write a letter that I later discover someone thought meant something I did not mean, I’ve lost sleep until I could contact them and clarify what I really meant. If you’re treating the medium as a means of communicating with other human beings, then how could you not be concerned if you give an impression you did not mean to? It all boils down to accuracy and honesty in communication. The medium is irrelevant(although it’s kind of amusing that you believe the Internet to be a transient form of communication(just ones and zeros that go away when you close your browser) when it’s actually probably one of the most permanent).
**
I fail to see this as a valid metric when discussing the question of weather it’s important to accurately represent yourself and your views in computer-based communication or not. But since you’re curious. All of them. About twenty at last count. People who I’ve met over the net then met IRL. We had some mental-picture adjusting to do with regards to physical impressions we had formed through the communication, but since we had been honest with each other about our views and opinions on the shared interests which had drawn us together in the first place, it was a simple matter to replace the mental image with a real one. The understanding of each other from an ideological standpoint did not have to be re-defined.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview:
KellyM I’m also familiar with the occasional conflicts between online personae and RL personalities through the online RPG medium. I think we’re on the same page regarding honesty in communication if it’s not understood that there is some sort of “character” the RL participant is pretending to be.
I still maintain that if a person represents something as their true opinion, then they should be honest. If one wants to play games then play games. The Great Debates forum of the Straight Dope Message Board is not a place for dissembling or misrepresenting one’s own views. This is a place where real people talk about real life. The opinions and issues here are, for the most part, real. If one person isn’t willing to be real, then they should not participate.
The first thing here is to establish if why people appear different IRL than online.
Really…why do they do so? There could be many reasons, and let’s take them from “worst” to “best”.
- They are doing it on purpose, and maliciously, to deceive others to hurt.
- They are doing it on purpose, not maliciously, to play a game.
- They are “role playing” and see it as innocent fun - in the “spirit of the Net”.
- They are doing it to protect the privacy of themselves and their family.
- They are doing it because they know that, under the privacy afforded by the Net, they can be themselves, speak their mind freely, and go out on a limb intellectually, without fear of ostracism and censure IRL.
- They are unintentionally doing it, and don’t know they are, but are sane.
- They are honestly insane.
My guess is that most people will place themselves in Category 3, 4, or 5. My opinion is that you can find all of categories 1-7 here on the SDMB, and several sub-categories as well.
There is, of course, Category 8, which does not entirely belong with the 7 above:
- They are exactly who they say they are in every way, shape, and form; and they have no (nor do they wish any) anonymity on the Net.
The reason that people fear and distrust the fact that most people are not exactly as they appear IRL is due to the extremely negative consequences of dealing with peoples from categories 1,2, and 7. People in these categories effectively “piss in the pool” for the other categories.
Let’s examine each one in detail.
Category 1 : The Malicious Troll Here we have a person who has decided the goal of their life is to fuck with people. To cause hurt and pain, to pretend to befriend, and to learn secrets about others out of a voyeuristic urge. There are several people like that on the SDMB, most of them banned. These people are the aforementioned “busty, nubile 16 year old cheerleader who is into hardcore anal sex” who is really the 58 year old pedophile sitting naked in front of his laptop. What can you say about these people, other than they should be eliminated from society?
Category 2 : The Joker Who Goes Too Far: Here we have the person who has purposefully assumed a false identity, but not for gain or to necessarily deliberately cause hurt - although they very well can and do cause hurt as a consequence of their actions. These people are often sociopathic to some extent, in that they don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing. They, ironically, are the ones most often to tell others to “grow up” or “get a strap-on porta spine”, when they are called on their deception.
Category 3 : The Joker: Here, in this case, the person is clearly playing a role, and it is well-known that they are doing so. They are doing it for amusement of themselves and others, and typically, this is either harmless or of minimal harm.
Category 4 : The Private “Great Majority”: I feel that most people fall into this category. They assume their persona for the purpose of being as private as possible. They do not speak or act especially different than they might IRL, although they will purposefully and consciously edit themselves, and be vague on things, or even refuse to answer questions. Their persona is close to what they are IRL, such that upon meeting them, you do not really feel like you are meeting a stranger.
Category 5 : The Oppressed or Repressed Here we have a category that I feel a large number of SDMB’ers fit into. People in this category do not feel safe expressing themselves fully and openly IRL. This could be due to many reasons, which I will explain further below, but essentially, they are taking on a persona that does not look like them on the surface (surface being defined both as a physical surface and a metaphysical surface), but does look like them as they are inside.
Category 6 : The Clueless Recluse This person takes on a persona without realizing they are doing so. This can be very similar to Category 5, if they have a deep, complex, undercurrent of psyche that leaks out while they are participating. I think the difference is intent - the Category 5 person knows that they are putting out their inner light to shine; the Category 6 person does not know they are letting their inner light leak out under the door to their mind.
Category 7 : The Mad What can you say? Some people are just fucked.
And of course, we can talk about Category 8.
Category 8 : The Open Book These are truly remarkable people, in that they have no fear of stalkers, no fear of harassment, no fear of losing their job, their friends, or their family; and no fear of their whole identity known and scattered about the net. These people probably exclaim with joy that they receive 400 pieces of spam mail a day, since they would never even dream of using a throwaway mail account. Either that, or they simply just have a strong, overwhelming, totally encompassing desire to be as clear and open to the view as a crystal mountain pool. And that’s just the way they are.
Having listed the various categories by which one might choose to group people who have online personae, we can then focus on the Category which I believe is in question here - Category 5.
Breaking Down the Category 5 Persona: Let’s use my favorite item of all time, the bulleted list, to list the attributes of the Category 5 persona:
-
They present a persona online which does not represent them IRL. They do so purposefully, but not to deceive - rather, to tell the truth.
-
This persona may not represent them in several ways - it may not represent how they see themselves religiously, spiritually, mentally, politically, physically, professionally, and romantically.
-
They do not do it to harm anyone, but harm may result, if the real them is, in fact, a harmful influence or entity.
How do you tell if a Category 5 person is “for real”? That is, that they are not in Categories 1-4, or 6-7? There are some simple tests, I feel. -
Consistency - does their persona stay the same? And not just on one Board, or one online forum or area - are they essentially the same person wherever they go, or wherever you find them? When you mail them, or PM them, do they generally act the same? That is - do they act liberal on one Board but arch-conservative on another? Mormon on one, and atheist on another? Flaming gay on one, and bible-thumping straight on another?
-
Longevity - where possible, does the person have a long-term history? Have they been online for more than a year, or longer, and generally presented the same “face” over that entire time? Now remember, people do change, grow, and evolve over time. So don’t expect people to be, as Shakespeare put it, “…an ever-fixed mark, that looks on tempests and is not shaken…” When you see posts or mails from the person, do you ever and regularly get a “gut feeling” that :something just isn’t right"?
-
Slip-ups and mistakes - you can separate out the people who are play-acting by looking for the mistakes. And longevity helps for this. Consider the following situation - say a transgendered female has been posting online as a female for years and years, never once “slipping up” and calling themselves male, or referring to themselves as anything but what they truly are. Think of the effort, the long-term and daily effort that it would require to maintain a façade like that, if the person was not what they knew they were. That person would have to “get into character” for every single post, e-mail, chat session, ICQ message - everything. Tens of thousands of interactions with hundreds of people, day in, day out, and always being consistent. It boggles the mind, and there really are only two types of people that act in that manner:
- the real and truthful, who never have to think twice to “get into character”.
- the truly insane.
But let’s go on. I’ve tried to establish what I feel is some background here first.
Those are definitely not positive experiences, and I feel they may colour how you are viewing all online interactions - possibly?
I understand what you’re saying here, but I feel that you have been dealing with the wrong sort of people, and this has colored your view.
If I understand you correctly, however, I feel that you are sort of equating having a dream and not acting on it with not being honest about the dream itself. I mean, your words above do not say that, true, but is that what you are kind of saying?
I contend that so long as a person is at least honest about their dreams, to themselves and to others, they are not deceiving themselves. Not living the dream is not really being dishonest (you aren’t saying that; I’m trying to make a statement here).
I’m not going to comment on the “rape” word from the other thread.
So what you are actually saying here, if I read this correctly, is that:
- A Category 5 person would appear dishonest or deceptive to you IRL, because you would not see the feelings and thoughts (which, by the definition of being a Category 5 person, are obfuscated from most IRL interactions), and therefore they are not “who they are” online.
Well…I sort of explained this above in this lengthy post. I agree that the Category 5 person would appear “honest” from that standpoint, but they would nonetheless be honest - at least online.
So I understand what your issue is here (I think).
I consider myself an archetypal Category 5 person. There are many reasons that a Category 5 persona may not say things IRL that they say here:
-
Fear of loss of friends: Being totally honest with your friends at all times and for all reasons is not a good thing. Sometimes you need to be able to rant and rave, to say why you are hurt or upset at their ill treatment of you, and why they do things which you do not care for. This is part of the “blowing off steam” process, normally, and it is both healthy and preferred to do this without your friends knowing this. Hopefully, upon the conclusion of a general Festivus Celebration (the “airing of grievances”), you have come to terms with your feelings, had good advice from others, and can act positively on this advice, such that everyone wins in the end. Now, sometimes, it is best to approach the friend(s) directly, and sometimes that is the best advice you will receive. But getting to that point is the first step.
-
Fear of ostracism by Family: I have a good friend on here who is very, very worried that her family, who acts devoutly religious, will ostracize her and disown her because he has lost her faith. So online, she always posts, acts, and carries on how she feels inside - she has lost her faith, and is trying to find a new belief and value system to hold dear. However…if she told her mother this IRL, there would be Hell to pay. It would cause untold stress and pain, and could jeopardize her college career. So…she has a very good reason for not being “honest” IRL. But being honest online.
-
Fear of loss of Job or Career: We all know, especially in this economy, how easy it is to “stand out” in the workplace, and get downsized. Think about all the things that a malicious co-worker, boss, supervisor, or company legal person might seize on to find a reason to determine that “the company and you should part ways”. Think of gay people who are not out of the closet - sure, in theory, you can’t be fired at most places just for being gay. But we all know damn well how easy it is for an employer to create a hostile workplace, such that you are “forced to quit”. Someone who would out someone based on their sexual preference or sexuality, religion, political beliefs, etc. is a disgusting person - and yet, look around you online. There are a lot of disgusting people online, who will seriously hurt you with an anonymous e-mail with no more hesitation than they would use in squashing an ant.
That’s true, but not limited to the Net. Whenever I go on-site to see a client, they are never how I expect, no matter how many mails, letters, conference calls, etc. I’ve had with them in advance.
Well sure - and maybe that’s because you now are not seeing the real them. The real them can speak their mind, they can be assertive, they can be open and honest. Who can possibly list all the reasons that people are hesitant, shy, indecisive, reclusive, or scared - downright frightened - IRL? To quote Augustus (via Robert Graves), “words fail me.”
The Net allows you to be yourself. The Net allows you to not be hesitant, shy, or afraid to speak your mind. The Net allows a gay man to express his feelings to those who will not hurt him. The Net allows a harried mother to talk about how afraid she is that she will hurt her children, out of frustration, and to get support and direction about how to deal with these hurtful feelings. The Net allows a Catholic to talk about losing her faith, or a Jew to express why he hates his overbearing Rabbi brother. It allows a 15-year old girl to abstractly ask people out there, in the great wide world, outside of her tiny, isolated circle of friends in her farm town - if life is really worth living? - without fear of being immediately hospitalized and institutionalized, by those that don’t understand.
All of these people above may not be able to speak IRL, or to be as they are inside, IRL. But they can here.
Well, don’t look to me to defend the indefensible. Unlike some noted trolls, I will not do that. The key is determining which Category of online persona you are dealing with, and to use any and all appropriate caution when having any IRL interaction whatsoever, including, but not limited to, mails, phone calls, presents, public meetings, and private meetings.
Part of the problem of the Net is that, when someone is a Category 5 persona who has opened their thoughts, feelings, and dreams up to the World, speaking honestly from inside, other people can and will take advantage of this. And at this point, the Category 5 person is in danger. Once you are able to get all of these things out there and be yourself, you are very vulnerable, and people can take advantage of you.
Caution. Caution. Caution. If the people who want to be your friends beyond online are “real”, look to see if they are consistent, have longevity or a history, do not keep making “odd mistakes”, and do not give you that “bad gut feeling”, that you should trust so much. Especially, before any sort of IRL meeting, do not go unless you are 100% certain that it is safe, that you have backups, other friends there, or that the person in question has been personally vouched for by an IRL common-acquaintance that you know and trust.
These things don’t have to be tragic, nor sad, nor even uncomfortable. So long as you recognize the different Categories of people, and you use caution at all times.
And on this we agree. But I contend that there are more “real” people here than “unreal”, and that with experience, you can tell the Good from the Bad.
I am a real person. Here, and now.
D_Nice, thanks for a very interesting thread. :throws open window: “I WILL NOT be a virtual person!” Definitely not a japatlgt. whatever the hell that is 
You may not, but that’s your failing. I do. I, for one, am constantly aware that the words next to a screenname were written by an actual person, sitting at an actual computer at his or her actual job or in his or her actual house.
Again, your failing, not mine. This is not some gigantic Infocom fantasy. These writings do not appear from a vacuum.
But as I said at length on the previous page (and which you didn’t respond to), I don’t think it’s really possible to thoroughly know anybody, at all. We make choices and we compromise based on what information we have available. I do not regard the words on my computer screen as merely data. Again, they represent the thoughts and feelings of real people, not some superadvanced Eliza-style interaction routine. This board is unique in that its participants understand there’s an expectation of honesty and forthrightness. It’s something you can’t get from Usenet, obviously but the members of this board do rightfully resent attempts at deception and manipulation, because it’s not how this environment works.
But we do live through real-life events. This board collectively mourned when WallyM7 passed away. I know that I, among many others, am rooting for jarbaby to successfully conceive a child. I offered Tuckerfan some serious advice about job hunting, and about adjusting his resume, in another forum a few days ago, and I have my fingers crossed that he’ll land a good position. And so on, and so on.
On this board alone, I know of four marriages that resulted from people interacting with and becoming interested in each other first through a textual basis. I myself met my wife via the Internet, though not on this board. And I’ve made one good friend by noticing the views he espoused in his posts, and emailing him. I wouldn’t have if I didn’t feel confident that I knew where he was coming from.
Really, I’m more sad than anything that you aren’t taking advantage of what’s really available here. I’m sorry that you feel the words offered by the people of the SDMB to be nothing more than a time-filler for your bored moments. That’s your choice to make, of course, but it just seems like such an unfortunate waste.
I just wanted to say that although I have seen well-written posts, and I have seen well-thought-out posts, Anthracite’s is one of the most detailed, thoughtful, shrewd, and accurate I’ve ever witnessed. Thanks.
I am here with a made up name. (Hope it is not a disappointment to anyone, but Triskadecamus is not my real name.) I have a dead end email address for that same made up name, which you can write to, although I am the only one who will answer you there. I don’t give out biographical information on the web. I don’t do it. It has nothing to do with not wanting you to know about me, it has to do with not getting inundated by garbage from the Internet.
Now, just yesterday I posted a description of my first kiss. That was as intimate a thing as any that I could expose to another person. In fact, I can’t remember ever telling a person in real life about that. It was very intimate, and completely true. Even the name of the girl was true, although limited to her rather common first name. So, how do I explain the illogical nature of that juxtaposition? I don’t. It is how I deal with the extraordinary fact that I communicate regularly with half a million people I have never met. I do it by following a set of habits I developed over two decades of exposing my personality to the world at large, while protecting my life from the small percentage, and large actual number of vicious and exploitative people who use the same resources I use. My habits are not moral laws, or even social rules. They are habits born of experience.
A long time ago I belonged to an on line club. It was a real time message board, with several types of messaging, and a lot of special features (special for the day, it was text based, and twenty four hundred baud modems were all the rage) to encourage people to express a certain rather ordinary, but socially uncelebrated aspects of personality in which I had some interest. The nature of anonymity on this board was that it was assumed to be, and particularly guaranteed to be protected by the management and all members as a condition of membership. We were all in agreement that any deliberate breech of that confidence was grounds for expulsion, and possible legal action. It was a written agreement to that effect, and I mean written on paper, and signed in ink, nothing cyber about it.
So, we were all hiding behind masks. It was understood that you might not be the sex, age, or race you purported to be, although you were not expected to change your identity once you had assumed it. I was known by a pseudonym, not Triskadecamus, by the way. I was quite active on the board, but never participated in the off line meetings which were occasionally organized. I became a very familiar person to a hundred or more other members. I gained a reputation over years, and a bit of a mystique as well. I became who I pretended to be, on line. It was very enlightening.
I tell this story to explain something about on line roles. You are who you were born as. You have traditions, habits, and physical limitations. The weight of generations of social inertia compel you to be what you are expected to be. When you make a mask, you make it up yourself. When you play a role, you choose to act a certain way, solely and entirely because it is what you wish to do. When you make it all up yourself, then it all comes from inside you. You might try to fool yourself by saying “Oh, I was only pretending to be like that, it isn’t really me.” But if it wasn’t you, then who the hell was it? There is a host of people in your real history who influence and impel your every spoken word, and deed. But in your heart, where you secrets are kept, and you build your fantasies, there is no one but you.
Vonnegut only said half of it. You are who you pretend to be, but you are only pretending to be who you really are.
Tris
“As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.” ~ Josh Billings ~
There seems to be some confusion between the ideas of “being someone you are not online” (for whatever reason), and being an extremely incomplete version of who you are.
Even the simplest conversations can be perceived completely differently in written vs. verbal communication. We are a species that speaks, and ideally speaks while looking into each other’s faces. The sound of our voices and the looks on our faces add at least 50% more information to any given sentence, even the most innocuous. Multiply that missing information by even one thread of many posts, and the inadequacies of using online communication to “know” someone become obvious. Most especially in public online communication.
For the record, I met my first significant other via the Internet. That relationship lasted 8 years, which is pretty good as relationships go, or so I’m told (although the last three or so left a bit to be desired). I also met my current girlfriend via the Internet.
I don’t think people should agree to get married solely based on their communications via the Internet, but I don’t see anything wrong with meeting people that way, nor any reason why relationships that start out online are necessarily more endangered than those that start out in a bar or in some other context.
As proof of the utter inability to truly know somebody through the message board, I offer my shock at how much Stoid and I appear to agree on recent issues.
I don’t think we’d ever communicated directly, but I have certainly read many of her opinions, and had developed the conception that we were diametrically opposed on just about everything under the sun.
For example, I tend to hold very conservative views, and she seems very liberal.
I think Pres. Bush has done a pretty respectable job on the whole, despite some privacy and “security” things that I strongly disagree with. Stoid seems to think he is the devil incarnate.
I think the 2000 election was a fiasco but finished the way it had to. She thinks it was stolen.
I think there was an attempt to steal it, but it was thwarted by the Supreme Court. She would probably like to cut my head clean off for saying that.
Yet since she spoke up on these couple threads recently, I’ve seen an entirely new (to me) side of her personality - one that I had no idea existed. And how can such a thing be? It’s because neither of us had previously had an occasion to discuss the things that we DO happen to agree on. All interactions here are incomplete - woefully incomplete. And at least a few are blatantly false. How do I know that people like Polycarp and Sue Duhnym are really who they claim to be? I don’t. Sure, some of you may have met them, but I haven’t, and I don’t know any such thing. Based on the online interaction, it happens to be convenient enough for me to take them and those who have met them (whom I may never have met either) at their word and accept it. But would I be pained if Sue turned out to be an unattractive 65 year old grandmother? Or if Polycarp turned out to be an 8 year old boy? Or even if it turned out that gobear was really straight?
Not a bit. No matter what people say here, I take it with a grain of salt, and whether those people are who they claim to be, I don’t care. I’ve met some people who I really like, but I won’t go home and cry if they turn out not to hold those opinions they’ve posited on the board.
And even what I’ve said here about how I feel on this very topic is incomplete and could be misleading. On this thread I’ve consistently found myself at a loss for a way to convey precisely the shade of meaning that I feel, and I’ve failed. There are people whom I respect very much and, and whom I feel that I know, but even that is an illusion - or you might say a self-delusion, because it is convenient in this medium to allow myself to believe that I know somebody in order to facilitate conversation; when in reality I’ve only gotten to know what they have allowed me to know - the online persona.
Until I meet a human being and see a face (with very few exceptions), this is all just words on a screen.
Look, I recognize that there are humans behinds the words. I am hurt if someone is rude to me online; that helps me try to remember to be polite.
But all I know about all of you is what you have told me about yourselves. And I cannot know people simply from what they tell me. That is not necessarily just because people may lie. It is not just because people may try to manipulate with their words. It is also because people barely know themselves.
So, to get an idea on who people are, I watch them interact with their friends and families. I watch them absorbed in their work or their hobby. I see how they treat the server and the elderly neighbor and the cat. All these observations + what they tell me about themselves = people I can reasonably say that I know well.
I dislike some posters and like others very much. The mere sight of some of your screen names warms my cockles. But, no, I don’t feel as if I know (almost) any of you.
Nah, just his minion.
Well, I actually agree with both statements. I do think it was stolen, but I also think it finished the way it had to. Not the * right * way, but the only way that was going to “work”, because of a million factors. Whole 'nother conversation.
And there ya go right there. As I said in the other thread, it has always been reported to me that the live and in person me is a real surprise to people who come to know me mostly via debate boards. Not that I’m not really the “Stoid” of the debate boards, but only that knowing me in that one narrow sphere, only in writing, and most especially when filtered through an opposing viewpoint, can give a grossly distorted picture of what kind of person I really am. True of almost everyone, and doubly so of those of us who are debaters.
So very true. Think of what actors do. The script is words on a page that can be interpreted a hundred different ways by a hundred different actors. Completely different sorts of characters can be created, yet they are all saying precisely the same words.
So it is with real life and message boards.
The written word is an exquisite thing with a beauty and power of its own, but it is undeniably limited in its ability to convey the truth.
Look, I recognize that there are humans behinds the words. I am hurt if someone is rude to me online; that helps me try to remember to be polite.
But all I know about all of you is what you have told me about yourselves. And I cannot know people simply from what they tell me. That is not necessarily just because people may lie. It is not just because people may try to manipulate with their words. It is also because people barely know themselves.
So, to get an idea on who people are, I watch them interact with their friends and families. I watch them absorbed in their work or their hobby. I see how they treat the server and the elderly neighbor and the cat. All these observations + what they tell me about themselves = people I can reasonably say that I know well.
I dislike some posters and like others very much. The mere sight of some of your screen names warms my cockles. But, no, I don’t feel as if I know (almost) any of you.