[MD] Food for Thought

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought
>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:52:32 -0500
>
>[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."

[Dan]
If I read you right, the relationships grow more intimate and social online 
yet those relationships are based on idealized personalities, which of 
course accounts for Turkle noting that many times people who meet online are 
disappointed when (and if) they meet in person.

So we're back to the original question: how do you know people you meet 
online are who they say they are? Is this idealized personality really that 
person? And if so, why the disappoint in "real" life?

>[Arlo]
>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]
But why go to the local tavern? I mean, you could sit home in front of the 
computer tipping a few and chatting with friends online. What's the 
difference? Is it the "whole" experience?

>
>
>[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.

[Dan]
I should think that the negotiation process rarely fails altogether. Rather 
there's a series of stages a new kid might pass through, eventually settling 
into a comfort zone. One's "true nature" eventually shines through.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan