Your Relationship with the Dope: How Solipsistic?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Sorry for the 10-cent word.

In this thread, **twickster ** makes the following statement:

I realized that this is me, too - if a thread is “low-intensity,” I check usernames far less frequently. Solipsism is defined as “the view confining reality to oneself and one’s experiences” and this feels pretty solipsistic.

I don’t have a judgment about it good or bad at this point; I am just processing it. What are your thoughts, and since I am surely well behind the *technoscenti * on this topic, how is this issue being discussed among those in the know?

2

A slight hijack. I just relearned the meaning of solipsistic. Good for me!

3

Seems the OP may want 10 cent words included in posts so:

To the OP - I tend to have a Quodlibet approach to posting…basically whatever strikes me as being necessary I post, other wise I read, and more than 50% of the time I keep an eye on who is posting what. In short, I’m sort of whimsical with my posting style.

As you and I have spoke in the past on various ideas of or relating to books - I pay attention to your posts in the same way a fellow bibliophile pays attention to what’s on my bookshelves :wink:

4

I hope this doesn’t descend into wordsmanship - not my goal. I love a 10 cent word well-used - that was my intent and I dig your use as well. Didn’t know that one - quodlibet: “a light-hearted composition generally containing a combination of well known tunes” it makes sense…thanks!

And yeah - I always check for your posts in book threads, a number of folks in music, etc. - I am sure we all do that for areas of common interest…

5

Hm, I didn’t mean it solipsistically at all. I just meant, in general, I consider most Dopers reasonably reliable sources of facts and (oddly enough) opinions, so I’m reading for content. I don’t generally need to consider who’s saying what in order to discount this person’s words or to give that person’s opinion additional weight – if I read something and have a WTF reaction, I’ll check to see who said it, and (often) say, “Well, DoperX, whaddya expect,” or “Hm, DoperY and I are usually more in tune than that – wonder what that’s about?”

6

I am not trying to use the word “solipsistic” to mean “self-centered/ego-only” - it can also mean “regarding other individuals only within the context of what they can and can’t do for you” - not in a selfish way, but in a “realpolitick” practical sort of way: “I need x, y, and z to survive and base my relationships relative to a person’s ability to satisfy those needs.” It may sound cold, but I assert that there is an element of that in each of us.

Regarding a thread as a single entity, and blurring together the individual posts into a continuous body of work positions other posters as threads in the fabric being woven - and you place primacy on the fabric, not the individual threads. To me, there is an element of solipsism in that - you are only regarding posters within their ability to weave that fabric of a single SDMB thread. Again - I am not judging that this is bad AT ALL - merely remarking on a fascinating phenomenon that the Web seems to reinforce…

7

I’m kinda sorta the opposite. In a content thread, I’m more likely to check who posted some information than I am in a free-wheeling, shooting the bull thread. Especially in CS, and especially if it involves food or drink. From experience, I have determined that there are some Dopers who have tastes that parallel mine fairly closely, and if I see a recipe from one of them, it usually gets written down.

But in GD or IMHO, nah.

8

So the differing points of view in a GD thread are - what? Is it like voices in a chorus, trading the melody? Stereotyped positions, where instead of a specific poster, you think “oh, that’s Liberal Guy” or “oh, that’s Yankees Fan” or something?

9

I didn’t phrase that well. In GD, for example, I generally don’t note who is posting what so much as what is being posted. A good argument is a good argument, regardless of who is saying what. Later I might check to see who said what, if there is a point of contention that needs it, but not usually.

In a lighter forum, I feel more free to dismiss a post based on what I know about the poster from their history.

10

I’m very solipsistic here. You’re all bots AFAIK.

11

Got it.

12

Even in the way you’re intending to use the word solipsistic, I’m not sure I’d describe my reading here thusly.

Similar to how I choose books to read in real life, I read the Dope according to my interests – just as I’m more apt to see a movie I expect to enjoy or listen to music that is an example of one or another genre I like. Within any of those categories, though, there are a lot of particular examples, and I try to remain open to recommendations on books, movies, music that I might enjoy, rather than listening to the same album or reading the same book over and over and over again.

Here at the Dope, I’ll pick threads to read that are either about subjects I know I’m interested in (wordplay, gardening, evolution, reality TV, reading, some genres of music, etc.), but also sometimes click on something just because it has an intriguing premise. Of course, I don’t read every thread, or even every forum, because there are some things I’m less interested in than others – so if it’s solipsistic that I don’t read super techno-geeky stuff on computers, or fanwank stuff on comics, or any threads in GD – well, then, I’m a solipsist. But in general, I regard the Dope as an opening up of my world, and not a “confining” of it.

If, however, you just mean that what is being said is more important to me than the identity of the person saying it, yeah, about 80% of the time around here, that is true. I’m just not sure “solipsism” is the way to set up the contrast between content-based and author-based reading.

(Somewhat OT: I’m reminded of the recurring experience IRL, when I’m forced to ask “Wait, were you the person I had that conversation with?” – because I talk to a lot of interesting people about a wide variety of subjects, and though I may remember the topic discussed, I don’t always remember which of the quirky, cuious people in my life I discussed it with.)

I’m sorry – I may be totally missing your point.

13

Well put. I come here for entertainment and new ideas. I can ask anything here and get reasonable, usually well thought out answers. I try to contribute, and as often that I’m right, I’m wrong.

We are a group discussing things around a campfire. But there are a thousand campfires that you can visit at any time.

14

Nope - and I love the simple way you reduced it; sometimes it IS simply that. Guess I can overthink things - not a common Doper trait… :smiley:

15

I really do pay attention to who says what, and there are certain people I’ve connected with more than others. In GD and GQ I’m more of a content-based reader, but anywhere else I really am piecing together the different characters who post. I’m not only interested in what people know, but in what they feel and what they are passionate about and who they are. The Straight Dope is like this huge sampler platter of humanity, and I dig that. So I’m going to go with ‘‘not solipistic.’’

16

I’m so solipsistic that the rest of you are not even bots. You’re just imaginary constructs for me to tear to bits.

17

Solipsists unite!

18

Really? Seems to me that if you don’t know exactly what you’re saying (even if asking a question to find out something you don’t know) you’re going to be ridiculed or belittled. It’s still an internet message board, after all. It takes an awfully thick skin to survive around here, I’d say.

Or maybe that’s because I’m the one always being ridiculed… hmm… Na.

19

Hmmm. I tried to answer a question about GPS and how it finds north. I do know a bit about GPS and GIS and completely flubbed the answer. I was challenged. I thought about it and admitted that I was wrong. Didn’t think it through. And did not address the OP’s question.

I don’t think I was ridiculed or belittled though. I don’t think that you need a thick skin to be here. It does help to be able to say “I might be wrong”. Or I might disagree.

It’s very easy to misinterpret a joke or little bit of sarcasm as a personal attack.

Solipsistic is a new word to me too.

We are all idiots sometimes. :smack: A little jibbing and jabbing is OK to get grounded again.

20

Sorry but I have no mental capacity for associating posting trends or writing styles with some abstract nickname floating around in cyberspace lol. I’m always amazed when posters will comment about other poster’s posting habits, good or bad, or when a poster will talk about some previous post they made as though everyone is intimately familiar with their personal life. At best, with the more unusual nicknames, I’ll remember that I’ve seen that name before. Now if we had some sort of avatar, it might be a different situation - my memory is more visually associative.