chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (08/07/86)
In article <124@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >A topic that intrigues me greatly is the emergence of person- >to-person relationships mediated entirely by electronic (non- >television) means. >Is there a newsgroup that supports a discussion of this topic? I think net.social is most appropriate and have cross-posted this reply to it and net.singles and added a followup-to: net.social. >If not, are there people interested in discussing the topic? *Very* much! I would not hesitate to say that the field of electronic, person-to-person communication is probably the single most important aspect of computers today. Sure computers can do a lot of other marvelous things, but the the medium of Electronic Communication (EC) provides a vast amount of potential for human growth in socialization. I know from personal experience that netnews and other forms of EC have had tremendous effects (for the better) on my social life. There is of course a danger that you can get too wrapped up in the potentials of EC to the point where other forms of communication (such as face to face) are unused. But if you are careful to watch out for that, EC can be a wonderful tool. I have a lot to say on this subject, but I'll wait to see how others respond before I continue. -- My mailbox is always willing to accept letters. Yours in better understanding, Chris Andersen (chrisa@tekig5)
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (08/08/86)
> chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: >>A topic that intrigues me greatly is the emergence of person- >>to-person relationships mediated entirely by electronic (non- >>television) means. >I would not hesitate to say that the field >of electronic, person-to-person communication is probably >the single most important aspect of computers today. That's an interesting suggestion, and I'm glad Chris brought it up, because quite frankly although electronic communication is very important to me, I hadn't thought of it as important to computerdom. I've met several dozen (at least) fascinating individuals via the net. I have only met four of them face-to-face; I'd like to meet the rest very much. Now that I've graduated from Reed and don't have that particular social circle around me, I appreciate netfriends even more, and my mailbox is usually satisfyingly full. One major problem of EC, of course, is distance. I'd love to spend more time in close physical proximity to my netfriends, but living on opposite coasts -- or even adjoining states -- tends to make that difficult. Should I get interested in developing a closer relationship with a netfriend, this will make things even more bizarre... Every once in a while the net hears about folks who met via the net becoming items, or engaged, or even (heavens forfend!) married. I'd be interested in knowing how they managed the distance problem. Ellen Eades -- "Holy Ovaltine, Batman!" -- Burt Ward
ztf@lanl.ARPA (Zozzles The Freep) (08/08/86)
In article <1009@tekig5.UUCP> chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: > . . . >There is of course a danger that you can get too wrapped up in the potentials >of EC to the point where other forms of communication (such as face to face) >are unused. But if you are careful to watch out for that, EC can be a >wonderful tool. > . . . Even when one is _not_ too wrapped up in EC (as Chris puts it), it is quite interesting to watch other people's reaction to this form of communication vs. face-to-face. I've known at least three women who very much prefer the latter form of communication. One of them is so vehemently opposed to answering via email that she'll call me back or visit me rather than posting. However, I'm not suggesting that there is a sex-based bias as to who prefers what, but I feel that it is an interesting question nonetheless. ----- zoz
ins_alal@jhunix.UUCP (cloudbuster) (08/08/86)
In article <1009@tekig5.UUCP> chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: >In article <124@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >>A topic that intrigues me greatly is the emergence of person- >>to-person relationships mediated entirely by electronic (non- >>television) means. ...... > >There is of course a danger that you can get too wrapped up in the potentials >of EC to the point where other forms of communication (such as face to face) >are unused. But if you are careful to watch out for that, EC can be a wonderful >tool. > > Chris Andersen (chrisa@tekig5) And as an example of this: I struck up an electronic friendship with someone around a year and 1/2 ago. After we had been corresponding for around 6 months, I decided that the next time I saw him in the terminal room that I was going to go over and talk to him. I sat down, introduced myself, and was promptly (more or less) ignored. He mumbled a few things, I tried to talk to him, ended up making small talk (ugh!), and he never once looked at me, just kept staring at his terminal. After about 5 minutes of this, he made some excuse to leave. Next day, I received another letter, just as usual, as if nothing had ever happened. I still haven't figured out why people are much shier in person than over a computer. Perhaps it has something to do with faceless anonymity... -- Laurah Limbrick @ Johns Hopkins University arpa: ins_alal%jhunix.BITNET@wiscvm.WISC.EDU uucp: ...{ihnp4!whuxcc | seismo!umcp-cs | allegra!hopkins} !jhunix!ins_alal "Help this blackbird--there's a stone around my leg..."
anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) (08/12/86)
[Sorry, I don't know how to control these citations yet...somebody writes about EC (electronic communication)]: > Even when one is _not_ too wrapped up in EC (as Chris puts it), it is > quite interesting to watch other people's reaction to this form of > communication vs. face-to-face. I've known at least three women who > very much prefer the latter form of communication. One of them is so > vehemently opposed to answering via email that she'll call me back or > visit me rather than posting. But please tell us *why* she'd rather talk face-to-face, if you can, because it seems clear that some people prefer one, some the other, and some don't care about *how*, as long as they can communicate. I think these reasons can tell us something about ourselves and about what's happening around us. For what it's worth, I guess I could ask my colleagues and report back on that. At the moment, there's a love/ hate relationship going on here over e-mail within the shop (I got 186 messages last week!; it takes a significant bite out of a busy day, because many of them I must respond to). Nevertheless, people's attitudes, reactions, before/after, etc., etc., are what I want to know something about. -- ==UUCP: {harvard,seismo,topaz, =========================Jess Anderson====== | akgua,allegra,ihnp4,usbvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!anderson 1210 W. Dayton | | ARPA: anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu Madison, Wi 53706 | | BITNET: anderson@wiscmacc 608/263-6988 | ==If there is no other, there is no I.===================(Chuang Tsu)=======
diana@enmasse.UUCP (Diana Carroll) (08/12/86)
In article <3349@jhunix.UUCP> ins_alal@jhunix.zuucp (cloudbuster) writes: > >And as an example of this: I struck up an electronic friendship with >someone around a year and 1/2 ago. After we had been corresponding for >around 6 months, I decided that the next time I saw him in the terminal >room that I was going to go over and talk to him. I sat down, introduced >myself, and was promptly (more or less) ignored. He mumbled a few things, >I tried to talk to him, ended up making small talk (ugh!), and he never >once looked at me, just kept staring at his terminal. After about 5 >minutes of this, he made some excuse to leave. Next day, I received >another letter, just as usual, as if nothing had ever happened. I still >haven't figured out why people are much shier in person than over a >computer. Perhaps it has something to do with faceless anonymity... > >-- > >Laurah Limbrick @ Johns Hopkins University > I can relate to your email friend there. When I was in high school I discovered bulletin boards (!) and made a lot of email friends. It was a long time before I could bring myself to meet them face to face. I was just out of Junior High, very self-concious, and certain I was ugly, stupid, and always putting my foot in my mouth. (Probably all true, but now I can deny it sucessfully. :-) However, I have always been told I am a good writer, so I made a very different impression in E-relationships (to coin a phrase) than in face-to-face . . . at least, I thought I did, so I did >not< want the people I met on the boards to know who I really was. As I became more comfortable with myself, I started to like meeting people that I had previously only written to. In fact, for three years, my enitre social life, including 5 successive SO's, and my best friend, were from the boards. That, I think, is the "too wrapped up" mentioned earlier. It wasn't till I got to college that I was able to meet people in a "normal" way. I had such a low opinion of myself that I felt sure I needed the buffer of EC. I figured that if I wrote to them for a while before I met them, then they would see that deep down I was really a good person, despite my lack of social graces and physical appearance. So, too answer your question, maybe this friend was still using EC as a buffer, as wasn't ready for the contact. I can understand it. ---------------- Diana Carroll diana@enmasse.UUCP decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!enmasse!diana "And you want her And she wants you, But no one, no one ever is to blame" -HoJo ----------------
chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (08/12/86)
In article <3349@jhunix.UUCP> ins_alal@jhunix.zuucp (cloudbuster) writes: >[about an instance where she met someone face-to-face who she had talked > to previously only on the computer and how it didn't work out to well]. I've had a few experiences of meeting people after long correspondence and it's running about 50-50 on the succes of those meetings. The worst was a women I got into a long conversation with over a CB program on my schools computer that went on for several hours. We decided to meet each other the next day and it was a terrible experience. For some reason we just could not talk to each other and after about 30 minutes of mostly silence we hemmed and hawed our goodbyes and we never really talked after that (I think I might be to blame for this since my expectations were so high). But not all experiences can be bad. I've gotten along smashingly with several of those I've met face-to-face (though even then I notice that I'm still a better conversationalist on the computer). I'd suggest that if you want to meet someone you've talked with a lot over the computer, then don't be afraid to do so. But don't go into it with to many expectations about what will happen. Play it by ear. -- My mailbox is always willing to accept letters. Yours in better understanding, Chris Andersen (chrisa@tekig5) P.S. August 26 is my last day on the net. If you want to keep in contact, then reach me before that date.
woods@hao.UUCP (08/13/86)
Might as well jump into this. I happen to like both methods of communication for different things. E-mail seems ideal for communicating either very personal or unpleasant things. For example, it is easier to talk about intimate things with people I do not know well by e-mail than in person. If I am displeased with something my SO does on a long-term basis, I often find it easier to mention it by mail. That way, she has time to read it, get pissed, think about it, and calm down before we talk about it (or, she can blow off some steam with a reply flame which I then have time to think about, etc.) While these emotional reactions can be considered normal, they do tend to get in the way of the communication process in face-to-face mode (which is more immediate). On the other hand, most day-to-day things are far easier to talk about in person, where the immediate feedback is a big help rather than a hindrance. It is also true that face-to-face is in many ways more pleasant and easier (it has taken me 10 minutes to type this, I could have explained it verbally in less then 2). My $0.02 worth. --Greg
tim@unisoft.UUCP (08/14/86)
In article <347@enmasse.UUCP> diana@enmasse.UUCP (Diana Carroll) writes: > ... >It wasn't till I got to college that I was able to meet people in a >"normal" way. I had such a low opinion of myself that I felt sure >I needed the buffer of EC. I figured that if I wrote to them for a >while before I met them, then they would see that deep down I was really >a good person, despite my lack of social graces and physical appearance. ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmm... the invisible woman? - Tim
anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) (09/01/86)
[long: ~100 lines]
I am posting this to net.social and (this once) to net.singles,
but please direct followups to net.social.
Last month I posted an inquiry about electronically mediated
human relationships. It seemed to spark some interest, and I got
about 1000 lines of responses from various people, some by e-mail,
some on the net. Since then, I've been trying to generalize and
synthesize what people had to say with what I myself suppose to be
the case.
I'd like to continue along two lines, hoping to expand the base
of information touching on the subject: (a) published research
about the social effects of computers on interpersonal relation-
ships, and (b) further first-hand accounts from people on the net,
detailing their own experiences.
In the first category, please suggest books or articles you know
about (and please provide comments if you have read the materials
yourself) that contain pertinent information.
In the second category, please consider the following assertions
in the light of your own experiences and comment upon them. Note
that I am (so far) making no claims of validity or scope for any
of these assertions, nor am I (yet) trying to deal with their
ambiguities or contradictions. However, in gathering this sort of
information, one of the things I am looking for is qualitative
experiences *and* plausible explanations for those experiences.
This means that the more detail you can give (the whys as well as
the whats), the better.
It will probably be better to e-mail to me than to post, unless
you can't e-mail for some reason. In the end, however, I am plan-
ning to post a summary of my results to the net (I feel certain
the interest will warrant this). In the summary, I am not planning
to give names or other identity clues, but even so I'd rather have
the maximum level of detail you feel comfortable providing. If
you would rather not have your experience summarized, please put
a note to that effect in your message so I can easily respect
your wishes. I can still use such information to modify the
generalizations to come. Here we go --
Note: throughout, I'll use EC to mean electronic communication
and ER to mean electronic relationship.
1. EC is easier because you are not physically seen by the other.
2. ERs are easier because you remain in control of what the other
knows about you.
3. EC has a positive effect on your social life.
4. You can get too wrapped up in EC.
5. EC is important not only to persons, but to computing more
generally.
6. The element of distance in ERs is a liability.
7. EC and ERs lead to bizarre experiences.
8. Your EC personality differs from your "real" personality.
9. It is deflating to meet a person you have known though EC.
10. Some people really dislike EC and want only "real" contacts.
11. After some experience with EC, your attitudes towards "real"
people are different.
12. People are much bolder in EC than in person.
13. Good writers have an advantage in ERs.
14. EC is a buffer in interpersonal transactions.
15. EC is better for very personal things.
16. EC is better for very unpleasant things.
17. EC gives you time to react before responding.
18. EC is not very effective in mundane matters.
19. It is easier to converse via EC than in person.
20. Meeting in person loads the situation with expectations; EC
avoids this.
21. EC is less threatening.
22. In EC and ERs, you find warmth and responsiveness that is
harder to find in face-to-face transactions.
23. Withdrawal from an ER can be very disturbing.
24. EC helps the correspondents shuck their defensive armor.
25. EC helps you know the person to a significant extent
beforehand if you should meet face-to-face.
26. EC fosters letting your expectations rule your behavior.
27. EC makes it easy to be manipulative of others.
28. ERs are much better than no relationships.
29. EC is deficient in not providing for nonverbal clues to
the states of the other person.
30. ERs will profoundly affect the nature of human society.
Obviously, detailed comments on all these questions would be
a huge chore. I don't know how best to address that problem,
and am assuming that respondents will do what they care to do
about it.
--
==UUCP: {harvard,seismo,topaz, =========================Jess Anderson======
| akgua,allegra,ihnp4,usbvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!anderson 1210 W. Dayton |
| ARPA: anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu Madison, Wi 53706 |
| BITNET: anderson@wiscmacc 608/263-6988 |
| When animals face death, they do not care what |
==noises they make.======================================(Confucius)========