[MD] Food for Thought

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Dan]
I would have to say: most certainly. It's like we're on a one dimensional plane
here. There are so many sensory perceptions lacking that it's often difficult
to formulate a proper opinion. We take so much for granted as we go about our
daily affairs that I think it takes something like this forum to appreciate all
the social patterns anchoring our existence. And those social patterns are part
of what makes us all "real".

[Arlo]
This seems to me to be more a argument for a greater expansion of an identity,
but not a matter of "real" or "virtual". Also, there are those who argue that
online interaction is not only NOT less rich, but also "hyperpersonal". From an
online bit by Howard Rheingold, "Walther, assistant professor of communication
studies at Northwestern University, has conducted experiments involving groups
who work together on identical tasks in cyberspace and in physical proximity.
Walther's findings indicate "it took longer for online groups to feel as
knowledgable about one another's personal characteristics and develop
interpersonal relationships as it did in unmediated groups, but in the longer
term, these relationships became even more intimate and sociable than those of
face-to-face partners.". The circumstances under which an online group starts
to share increasingly intimate information about their personal lives and
feelings seems to take a while to develop. Part of this "hyperpersonal" effect,
Walther hypothesizes, comes from people's tendency to present themselves in
their best light when using only written words to convey their personalities,
and part of it, he believes is due to a mutual idealization of one another in
the absence of visual and auditory cues."

As to your last statement, "We take so much for granted as we go about our daily
affairs that I think it takes something like this forum to appreciate all the
social patterns anchoring our existence. And those social patterns are part of
what makes us all "real".", I agree wholeheartedly, except probably to the
reverse of what you intended. I don't think there are any less "social patterns
anchoring our existence" here than I would find sitting at my local tavern with
my riding brothers. The "social patterns" here on this forum "make me real" as
much as the social patterns of tavern discussions. There is a different
dynamic, and different constraints and affordances, but I don't find it less
real.

[Dan]
To an extent I agree. And Turkle would no doubt agree too. Unless she has read
Robert Pirsig's writings, that is. Then I think she might see that both
identies are equally "real" when seen as cultural (social and intellectual)
patterns of value. I don't think this diminishes the value of the construction
process. It simply enlarges the view.

[Arlo]
Agree.

[Dan]
Right. And not only would I have to agree, so would everyone I know and even
some that don't. That's what gives social patterns power. I don't think a
person can rid themselves of social patterns of value by moving, even if to a
foreign country. We carry our routines with us. We are so interrelated to our
environments that it's hard to say where we start and end.

[Arlo]
Agree again. Habit is, by definition, difficult to overcome. The identities
we've constructed in the past, that we are constantly representing and
enforcing, tend to be those that we have ourselves become fully convinced "are
us". What's actually more interesting for me are the cases where people move
and are NOT accepted in their previous identity (consider something like the
"cool kid" moving to a new school where he's unpopular). In these cases, the
person isn't even trying to recast a new identity, but the negotiation process
has failed in the new social setting.