greenwoo@mizar.usc.edu (al greenwood) (01/12/89)
>considering the changes in the way that people think about the systems
Something which I wish was discussed more in this group. The Psychology of
Computer Use and of Computer Communications will determine not only how
new technology is viewed but how it is used..
This is my area of research, and Ive been hoping to link up with individuals who are already involved and working in this area..
I do have a question for everyone.. The one study done in this area.. states
that Computer Communication causes users to like each other less.. Do you agreewith this?vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (01/13/89)
In article <14616@oberon.USC.EDU> greenwoo@mizar.usc.edu writes:
)I do have a question for everyone.. The one study done in this area.. states
)that Computer Communication causes users to like each other less.. Do you
)agreewith this?
Is this users who knew each other in advance, or who were meeting for
the first time via computer communications? From personal experiance I have
to disagree with this as it stands. However, it can be generalized and made
more accurate. That is, Computer Communications causes users to become more
polarized. If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over
computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will
more quickly become confidants. Computer communications, be it real-time or
e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of
communications. This has lead to such extremes as the flame-wars we are all
familiar with to a friend of mine who recieved a dozen long-stemmed roses from
a gentleman she met via BITNET' Chat the day after they met.
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"Self-discipline implies some unpleasant things to me, including staying away from chocolate ..." Oleg Kiselevweiser.pa@XEROX.COM (01/13/89)
"The one study done in this area.. states that Computer Communication causes users to like each other less.. Do you agreewith this?" Not in the slightest. The biggest effect for me has been to get me in touch with hundreds more people of whom I would otherwise have never known. Some are jerks, true, but that is true everywhere, not just with computer communication. They can always be ignored. But the many other fine people I first meet on the net by far make up for any negatives. As for people I first met in person, and later worked with electronically, without the computer communications I would have lost touch with these people, but with it I have stayed in touch. It has not usually made me like them better, but also no worse. -mark
greenwoo@mizar.usc.edu (al greenwood) (01/13/89)
> That is, Computer Communications causes users to become more >polarized. If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over >computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will >more quickly become confidants. Computer communications, be it real-time or >e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of >communications. This has lead to such extremes as the flame-wars we are all >familiar with to a friend of mine who recieved a dozen long-stemmed roses from >a gentleman she met via BITNET' Chat the day after they met. > Oh most definitely, I have strong reservations about that "one" study, and am planning to run one that demonstrates the above interactions. (sometime...) The question is what is causing this lack of inhibition.. lack of sight, anonymity, a form of deindividuation.. Are these dampers something outside of us that the computer will not transmit... or are they internal rules for our interactions which we for some reason ignore or dont apply to the computer. A friend suggested that the tenuous link with reality that computer comm. has contributes to this. (I mean where exactly is this conference located, and how we imagine others to be...) Nobody imposes rules on a fantasy..
pk2@ukc.ac.uk (P.Kathuria) (01/16/89)
In article <14656@oberon.USC.EDU> greenwoo@mizar.usc.edu (al greenwood) writes: >>[...] Computer Communications causes users to become more >>polarized. If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over >>computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will >>more quickly become confidants. Computer communications, be it real-time or >>e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of >>communications. >Oh most definitely. >The question is what is causing this lack of inhibition.. lack of sight, >anonymity, a form of deindividuation.Are these dampers something outside of >us that the computer will not transmit... or are they internal rules for >our interactions which we for some reason ignore or dont apply to the computer. > >A friend suggested that the tenuous link with reality that computer comm. has >contributes to this. (I mean where exactly is this conference located, and how >we imagine others to be...) Nobody imposes rules on a fantasy.. I can't help replying although I have no research to back up anything I say, only a year's experience of BBs, chat programs and multi-user adventure games (usually packaged together), which I hope to make use of by collecting transcripts and writing a paper. My background is psychology and computing. To Al's original question, yes, I'd disagree too; I tend to like people quicker over the computer but I can also dislike them quicker too; there is still a sizeable portion of just-okay people in the middle. My feelings are that having done away with handwriting, fashion, looks, voice, mannerisms and even gender, all one is left with is the context and what is said to build up an idea of someone you are communicating with. For instance, one can make some assumptions about people who write here from their organisation and the fact that they have access to news. Besides this information, what people say becomes all important. However this medium can still mislead people. In bulletin boards and e-mail people write as much as they like without being interrupted, some are meticulous about the appearance and accuracy of what they write and some are not. But because it is all people have to go by, I believe that these become more salient, and these are factors in addition to the actual content of a message. What I think is most interesting is communicating real-time in chat programs or MUAGs. Because of the medium and number of people involved, messages are usually restricted to a line at a time (because the subject of the conversation(s) change often and someone may reply before you) and so people talk in a new way. Some develop their own shortened vocabulary to make conversation as close to the spoken word time-wise as possible, as well as use smileys and atmospheres to qualify what they are saying (e.g., [smile], [wave], [hug]). I have made some good friends on this medium (and psychological research would explain this in terms of disclosure), having spent many hours talking. At times I had to pinch myself to remind myself that there was a real person somewhere typing at a terminal like me; sometimes it's like talking to oneself because there is no threat. Although early on the model one builds up of someone is disjointed and conflicting, over time I think one can have a good enough idea of what someone is like in 'real life' to know whether you'll get on or not. Most importantly, I believe people are more honest over this medium because nothing will embarrass them but their own regret; there is no feedback unless someone purposefully replies (I'm comparing this with silences over the 'phone, a look that passes over the face). Because of this I value it because it forces us to accept people for who they are inside rather than base any model on the conventional, and often misleading, first physical appearance. ---* Paola Kathuria pk2@ukc.ac.uk or com0pk@cms1.leeds.ac.uk ... whose paradise is a bag of jam doughnuts and a can of squirty cream.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/17/89)
I liked someone I met on a computer system so much I married her. Just one data point, mind you. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) (01/19/89)
In article <2771@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I liked someone I met on a computer system so much I married her. Just one >data point, mind you. And then there were two. [Anyone plotting this?] -- Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217
pbond@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Patricia Bond) (01/26/89)
I've been reading the mail on this subject with interest and agree with everything that's been said. One additional dimension that needs to be taken into consideration, though, is personality. I think that this form of communication attracts a certain type of person. For those of you who are familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I would hypothesize that Introverts (and especially Introverted Thinkers - like me) would be more inclined to use e-mail than other types. I could go on and on (and stretch this idea further and further) but I would rather see if this brief comment sparks any interest before continuing. Otherwise it really would be like talking to myself! Pat Bond (INTP) (pbond@note.nsf.gov) My ideas are my own. Nobody else would want them anyway.
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (01/26/89)
In article <6254@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> pk2@ukc.ac.uk (Paola Kathuria) writes: >In article <14656@oberon.USC.EDU> greenwoo@mizar.usc.edu (al greenwood) writes: >>>[...] Computer Communications causes users to become more polarized. I disagree. I think that much of what passes for human-to-human communication is on the level of 'what's on TV tonight, honey ?' and 'wow, how much did you pay for that rad new car' and 'what's your sign, I'm a Libra' - that is, noise in place of signals. Idle chatter to keep from facing the awful void between the ears that intrudes when one doesn't 'occupy' oneself. If someone was so dedicated as to type up all of this so that we could read our own words back, we would be nauseated at the lack of depth revealed. But in order to keep people from thinking about what we say, we have learned to enhance our speech with mannerisms ostensibly 'understood' to be clearly associated with certain states of mind we wish to communicate. Thus is it that people will offer the most incredible excuses for their lack of thought ... because they are in the habit of covering it up with a facade of muscular contortions approximating an apologetic smile or the like. This doesn't work over the network. With email, you have to communicate solely through abstract symbols, there is no other unofficial channel for influencing the interpretation. People whom are thrown onto these relatively sparse resources for the first time are in for an unpleasant learning period. People whom are attempting to understand you have nothing but words to go on. They are quite enough, used properly. If you are interested in communicating yourself and another is interested in understanding your communications and you both speak the same language, there is nothing to keep you apart. If, au contraire, people whom are used to misusing - abusing - language in order to *avoid* being understood encounter circumstances like these, there is little they can do to avoid being what they want least - to be completely understood, in depth and detail. I'm not bashing art or emotion, understand. I'd hope nobody will make the mistake of categorizing me as coldly intellectual. But those are separate topics. I've never had any trouble expressing emotions with words, given the necessary time and support from others. I'm bashing rhetoric, the supposed effort to communicate emotion, usually at the expense of meaning, usually disguised as thought. >>The question is what is causing this lack of inhibition.. lack of sight, >>anonymity, a form of deindividuation.Are these dampers something outside of >>us that the computer will not transmit... or are they internal rules for >>our interactions which we for some reason ignore or dont apply ... ? Common sense. It's hard to ignore your gut reactions ... >is still a sizeable portion of just-okay people in the middle. My feelings >are that having done away with handwriting, fashion, looks, voice, >mannerisms and even gender, all one is left with is the context and what >is said to build up an idea of someone you are communicating with. Indeed. >Most importantly, I believe people are more honest over this medium >because nothing will embarrass them but their own regret; there is no >feedback unless someone purposefully replies (I'm comparing this with >silences over the 'phone, a look that passes over the face). Because >of this I value it because it forces us to accept people for who >they are inside rather than base any model on the conventional, and often >misleading, first physical appearance. Indeed. >---* Paola Kathuria pk2@ukc.ac.uk or com0pk@cms1.leeds.ac.uk >... whose paradise is a bag of jam doughnuts and a can of squirty cream. -- richard -- * Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim * * * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (01/26/89)
Well, personally, I am an INFP (very close to T), and I use e-mail
often, and probably say things that I would not say in person, but not
much. I've always been a fairly helpful person.
BTW, on a side note, do you have software to run the Myers-Briggs test
or at least the Keirsey Temparament (sp?) Sorter on UNIX or MS-DOS?
Thanks.
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu R.I.P. Individual Freedoms - 11/8/88doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (01/27/89)
PB>From: pbond@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Patricia Bond) Love that address, Pat. NSF . . . Not Sufficent Funds . . . Great for a gov't site going under the name of "note" :-) :-) PB>I've been reading the mail on this subject with interest and PB>agree with everything that's been said. One additional dimension PB>that needs to be taken into consideration, though, is PB>personality. I think that this form of communication attracts a PB>certain type of person. For those of you who are familiar with PB>the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I would hypothesize that PB>Introverts (and especially Introverted Thinkers - like me) would PB>be more inclined to use e-mail than other types. I could go on PB>and on (and stretch this idea further and further) but I would PB>rather see if this brief comment sparks any interest before PB>continuing. Otherwise it really would be like talking to myself! PB> I would agree with you about "introverted thinkers". Some objective testing/studies on this topic would be very worthwhile. Who uses e-mail/conferencing and why?/ Who doesn't? And why? =doug -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-4-11 DAS: [DEZCDT]doug Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: doug@isishq.math.fidonet.org (519) 746-5022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) (01/28/89)
In <8901251745.aa08408@note.nsf.gov> pbond@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Patricia Bond) writes: > For those of you who are familiar with > the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I would hypothesize that > Introverts (and especially Introverted Thinkers - like me) would > be more inclined to use e-mail than other types. This ENTP doubts the correlation is that close. I think you could make a case for correlation with Thinker and perhaps a weaker one with Intuitive. For those of you unsure, BTW, ENTP="Extroverted-Intuitive-Thinker-Perceptive". Yes, it's a weird combination -- statistically one of the two rarest at around 3% of the U.S. population, if I remember the Myers-Briggs stuff correctly. I mention this because my (informal) observations suggest that most top hackers are either ENTP or INTJ like Ms. Bond. The latter type is more common than ENTP but not by much, possibly because we live in a largely ESFJ (Extrovert-Sensory- Feeling-Judging) culture. Don't think this is all psychobabble, either. The Myers-Briggs inventory is very effective for job-matching, even on 'unusual' types; I can still remember being startled down to my shoes when, after quickly testing out as an ENTP, I flipped to a recommendations section that predicted (correctly) that I was best suited to 'loner' roles in open-ended technical research projects (my experience since then has been that the more numerous INTJs make better team and application programmers than I do). -- Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews) Email: eric@snark.uu.net CompuServe: [72037,2306] Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718
paola@zen.UUCP (Paola Kathuria) (02/03/89)
In article pbond@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Patricia Bond) writes: > >I've been reading the mail on this subject with interest and >agree with everything that's been said. One additional dimension >that needs to be taken into consideration, though, is >personality. I think that this form of communication attracts a >certain type of person. Could someone please remind me what personality inventories results actually mean? I ask because I seem to recall from my psychology degree yonks ago that personality-type theories had been replaced by theories which allowed for an underlying or observing self. Otherwise, are we really being asked to believe that people exhibit the same personality type in all situations? Having said all that, I must confess that the people who seem to use talkers the most are the shy people who have trouble making friends in the 'real world' or as a form of escapism (from floundering degrees usually). -- Paola Kathuria, Software Engineer, [paola@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!paola] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048