anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) (08/09/86)
A recent posting referred to meeting face-to-face a person
one had previously known only by wire, and being taken aback
by the correspondent's reserve.
I think this is a key factor. A person addressing the screen
(as it were) can be significantly different from the same person
addressing your face. Obviously, you *see* one another, and you
have many nonverbal clues that complement your interchange. The
electronic exchange is nearly *all* verbal, and your self-image
is less a factor, as long as you are articulate enough.
I recently struck up an electronic "friendship" (although it
is too early to call it that, in my view), and I find that I
have very lively images of what that person might be like in
the flesh. My images are very positive, based exclusively (so
far) on the quality of the messages we have exchanged. But it
could easily be that *something* would override those positive
images if we actually met.
One of my working hypotheses is that in electronically-
mediated relationships, "person" should be understood as
"persona" (by contrast, in direct relationships, person is
more than persona). I am more than one persona, and perhaps a
different one (no, not schizophrenic) with each recipient.
For the purpose of discussion, I wonder about:
1. Are people more interesting in their electronic
manifestations than in their "real" ones (at least often
enough to mean something)?
2. What are the specific advantages of the electronic form?
3. Its specific (nonobvious) disadvantages?
--
==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)=======chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (08/12/86)
In article <140@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: > One of my working hypotheses is that in electronically- >mediated relationships, "person" should be understood as >"persona" (by contrast, in direct relationships, person is >more than persona). I am more than one persona, and perhaps a >different one (no, not schizophrenic) with each recipient. Interesting theory. However, it doesn't apply only to electronic communcations. These different persona exist all the time but it's not until the person begins to *really* express their feelings that these persona's begin to come out. Many times in normal social interactions, people are too cowed to actually come out and let their persona flow. The few times I really see it happen is at parties amongst only close friends and at sf conventions (which is one reason why I like to go to cons.) On a computerized forum, you are basically *forced* to unleash your persona or keep quiet (most net readers choose the later). >1. Are people more interesting in their electronic > manifestations than in their "real" ones (at least often > enough to mean something)? Many people's persona's are very interesting *if* they are allowed to come out. in "real" life they aren't always allowed to do so, they may be a very 'quiet' personality in social circumstances despite the fact that they may be quite outgoing in their writtings (I'm something like this). >2. What are the specific advantages of the electronic form? It allows people to focus their persona in a less threatening atmosphere. It also allows you time to think out your viewpoint. There isn't anyone there waiting for an instant response. >3. Its specific (nonobvious) disadvantages? It can focus your persona *to* much. You can get caught up in the spirit of the conversation and lose perspective. Using an example that really happened, I used to be a very introspective individual (still am, but not as much as in the past) but when I got onto net.singles last summer I thrived in the good feelings I saw in the postings of many individuals their. I sort of broke down and bled my feelings for everyone to see (including those who really didn't want to see it). I got several positive and suportive messages from some very special people that helped me a lot to pick myself up and rebuild my self-esteem. Which was great, except that I was only on the computer for the summer. Once I had to go back to school and stop using the net, I found that that support net had been holding onto me *to* strong. Suddenly, when that support was taken away. I fell apart all over again. Fortunately I was able to pick myself up again and learn how to be more self-supporting, but I did learn a lesson: friends can offer good advice and a warm shoulder to cry on, but you can't depend on them to hold you up forever. Hmmm, I guess that's really a danger associated with any group of people, not just on the net. But you get the idea. -- 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.
anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (08/14/86)
Greg Woods writes: >...it is easier to talk about intimate things ... Can you give a list of instances, please? >with people I do not know well... Can they be characterized in any general way? >by e-mail than in person. [Good point comes next about the distance of e-mail allowing for reaction time, which face-to-face does not.] [Good point comes next about face-to-face immediate feedback is a big help in day-to-day matters.] Chris Anderson writes: >...we never really talked [while meeting face-to face >a person known previously only by computer]....I think >I might be to blame for this because my expectations >were so high. Do you recall more detail about these expectations? Can you (delicately, I suppose) characterize what it was like qualitatively compared to your earlier expectations? >...I'm a better converationalist on the computer. Better in what way? How do you account for that? Are you sure it's not just your impression (that is, have you checked it out later with someone you also knew face-to-face)? [Personal aside: Chris, you goin' away for good? I liked what you were saying, so say a lot more before you go, OK?] For the purposes of the discussion, responses and speculations from others than just these two posters could be illuminating. What I'm trying to get at is: what is that *really* differentiates these two modes of one-on-one dealing ? Is there something significantly different (in the electronic mode) about the one-to-many relationship, and so on. Chris's last point, about loss feelings when he left the net, brings up an additional issue: what are the dangers of electronic relationships? For example: Scenario: You're a shy person made bold by favorable responses of your net friends. Someone flames you mercilessly. Is your experience qualitatively different from the analogous "real" one? [What the hell should we *call* these two modes? ER mode for electronic relationships? 3D for "real" ones?] -- ==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)=======
chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (08/14/86)
In article <162@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: > >Chris Anderson writes: > >>...we never really talked [while meeting face-to face >>a person known previously only by computer]....I think >>I might be to blame for this because my expectations >>were so high. > >Do you recall more detail about these expectations? >Can you (delicately, I suppose) characterize what it was >like qualitatively compared to your earlier expectations? Trying to learn about the nitty-gritty details huh? Personally I don't think they matter that much. The important point was that I allowed my expectations to rule my behaviour (something I've been guilty of a lot in the past). When I do this I tend to become very manipulative and this usually makes others around me uncomfortable. What were my expectations? I'm not really sure. I'd hesitate to say that it was purely sexual in nature (though that was a big part of it). I think it was basically that I wanted to start up some kind of relationship, even a friendship would do. >>...I'm a better converationalist on the computer. > >Better in what way? How do you account for that? Are >you sure it's not just your impression (that is, have >you checked it out later with someone you also knew >face-to-face)? All right! I'll confess! I took the strawberries! I can't take any more of this grilling! and please turn of that light!!! :-) ahem...your asking me to quantify something that I'm not even sure if I can qualify. For all I know I may not be any better of a conversationalist on a computer then I am in person; maybe using a computer just allows me to hide those moments when I can't think of something to say (I hate it when that happens in a normal conversation). >[Personal aside: Chris, you goin' away for good? I liked > what you were saying, so say a lot more before you go, OK?] Hopefully not for good. Gotta finish my last year of college. What happens after that is still a mystery. I probably won't be able to do anything with news at school because (1) access to the network is very restricted at RPI and (2) even when you have access its only through a *very* limited newsfeed. (I am thinking of setting up my own limited newsfeed through the mail, but I need a partner to pull it off.) >what is that *really* >differentiates these two modes of one-on-one dealing ? >Is there something significantly different (in the electronic >mode) about the one-to-many relationship, and so on. Perhaps there is no *real* difference between the forms other then our perceptions of it. Like I said, I may not be any more of a conversationalist on the computer then I am in real life; the computer just gives the impression that I am. >Chris's last point, about loss feelings when he left the >net, brings up an additional issue: what are the dangers >of electronic relationships? Difficult to say. In my case the feelings I had were just a specific example of someone having to leave a group of caring individuals and strike out on his own. The fact that that group happened to be scattered all over the world was really secondary to the entire incident. The major factor the computer played in the whole thing was that without it, I would have never gotten involved in the group in the first place (though who knows that I wouldn't have found another group in my local area?) >For example: Scenario: You're >a shy person made bold by favorable responses of your >net friends. Someone flames you mercilessly. Is your >experience qualitatively different from the analogous >"real" one? Depends on how sensitive you are. Last summer when someone would flame me I would feel it very deeply. Now after using the net for quite a while I would probably have a less severe reaction to a computer flame then to a face-to-face flame (I'm not really that good when it comes to vehement confrontation). -- 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.
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (08/16/86)
Several people have mentioned awkward first-time meetings between people
who had only known each other electronically. I've had several similar
experiences until I realized that if we wanted to just see what we looked
like we may as well just mail photographs.
Conversation requires a subject to talk about. Electronic communication
often either centers around at least one subject, or (particularly in
real-time CB-type conferences) until a subject is brought up the people
are doing other things not visible to each other. If you meet in person
with a subject in mind, conversation begins more easily.
I think the awkward meetings are an artifact of the reason for the meeting.
If the meeting's purpose is mainly to be physically near and see what each
other look like, both people might not have thought of anything to talk
about past "Hello".
.......
Any adolescents listening? You'll find the same awkwardness during some
dates, particularly if you don't stumble across topics of mutual interest.
Similarly, I prefer to host parties of at least three couples, to increase
the chances of several topics wandering around the rooms. I do also
prepare by remembering recent movies and news items of popular interest, in
case small talk is needed to get things rolling again.
--
Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn Ed Comp Corp {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N 93 08 W (612)481-3507 {{caip!meccts},ihnp4,philabs}!mecc!sewilco
Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid.
The alert question everything anyway.primer_2@h-sc4.harvard.edu (jeremy primer) (08/16/86)
In article <552@mecc.UUCP> sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) writes: > >Conversation requires a subject to talk about. Electronic communication >often either centers around at least one subject, or (particularly in >real-time CB-type conferences) until a subject is brought up the people >are doing other things not visible to each other. If you meet in person >with a subject in mind, conversation begins more easily. Some of the most interesting conversations involve no particular subject at all. This includes conversations between strangers. >Any adolescents listening? You'll find the same awkwardness during some >dates, particularly if you don't stumble across topics of mutual interest. >Similarly, I prefer to host parties of at least three couples, to increase >the chances of several topics wandering around the rooms. I do also >prepare by remembering recent movies and news items of popular interest, in >case small talk is needed to get things rolling again. This is hopelessly boring and safe, and almost guarantees that nothing will happen at the party that hasn't already happened before. You sure won't find out what anyone's actually thinking about. Count me out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Primer primer@h-sc4.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics primer%h-sc4@harvard.ARPA 1 Oxford Street primer@harvsc4.BITNET Cambridge, MA 02138 ...!harvard!h-sc4!primer