On-line vs. real life personas

[almostsexy]

Here's an interesting question I just thought of while on the CHUD message boards today.

I try to be pretty polite on these boards, perhaps even moreso than I am in real life, because I don't like the idea of the anonymity of internet chatting "enabling" me to act like I'm someone I'm not.

Although nothing like the atmosphere at AICN, I have noticed a pretty serious amount of rudeness at times on these boards, and it seems pretty widespread among both people who have been posting for years and total newbies. Reasonable threads will degenerate into snark-fests at times within a handful of posts. A lot of times I wonder if these same posters are like this in "real life."

So here's my question (this is addressed to everyone here): Is your on-line persona similar to the way you act when you're interacting in the real world, or are you more likely to say things/act in a way that you wouldn't otherwise? I'm specifically talking about how you treat others, as opposed to using bad language, which is ubiquitous on the net, but often isn't tolerated in the workplace, for example). I'd love to get input on this from anyone who posts here. Thanks.

I look forward to your responses.

[Patrick Ripoll]

I'm probably not as polite.

[Moltisanti]

I'm nicer in real life. Plus I have breasts. Glorious gigantic breasts.

[mattcruise]

I guess I am more likely to speak my mind on certain topics on the internet than in real life. I still feel the same way about such topics, but I feel i'm better at voicing my opinion better in writting than in speech. I think is also may create situations where I say something I am less likely to say in Real Life.

Also the internet it's easier to talk about topics with a different point of view than the other person, however I often avoid it here because I have noticed that a lot of the people who don't share my views, are rude about it and not respectful at all.

In real life it can create unconfortable situations in places you don't want to be uncomfortable at. Like work or school, you just don't want to deal with that conversation everytime you see that person, or worse having a arguement with a friend ( I had one about Abortion once... yeesh, with my best friend no less).

[JohnShade]

I'm the same online as in real life. If you're an asshole or an idiot, I'll call you on it. Otherwise I mostly joke around or talk sports, books, or movies. I'm as polite, both online and offline, as the person I'm talking to is to me. I don't think any of the posters here who insult other posters without provocation would do anything of the sort in real life.

[Schwartz]

I try to make the effort to be extra polite on here, though not always successfully, because being a prick on the internet is about the stupidest, saddest thing I can imagine. Unless you're really, really good at it, like Devin. I'd say, overall, the biggest difference between on-line and real life is that here I'm less obviously drunk.

Edit: But also more obviously masturbating. Isn't that ironic?

[almostsexy]

Don't worry Moltisanti, I've always pictured you with breasts while reading your posts, as well as imagining your reading them out loud to yourself as you type in your mellifluous contralto voice, cigarette holder dangling languidly from your voluptuous lips....

But seriously, I also avoid discussing politics Matt, mostly because I come here to talk film, and my ignorance would get me creamed in the politics board. But yeah, I don't like talking politics with my friends in real life either, as I'm anti-partisan and not really liberal or conservative.

Like you John, I suspect most people use the anonymity of these boards to act in ways they wouldn't otherwise, but I just wanted to hear from posters themselves.

[Ali]

Whine, whine.

I don't think people are being unreasonable. People who act like asses get made fun of, other people laugh at them. I just call that a good time.

[Russ Fischer]

I have more hair in real life.

[almostsexy]

Whine, whine.

I don't think people are being unreasonable. People who act like asses get made fun of, other people laugh at them. I just call that a good time.

Hey Ali Mohamed. I see what you're saying, but that wasn't really what I was asking. My question is just whether or not you personally act differently on-line than you do in "real life." I would love to hear your opinion.

[Ali]

I don't know, if anything I'm more restrained around here than I am in real life.

But what I was pointing out is your constant repetition of how everybody is "rude" and "snarky".

[JohnShade]

Whine, whine.

I don't think people are being unreasonable. People who act like asses get made fun of, other people laugh at them. I just call that a good time.


This isn't true, though. In real life, unless you're entirely confident the person won't fight you, you don't confront them, and if you make fun of them, you're careful it's not within earshot. The vast majority of those here who make fun of others without being personally provoked would not do so in real life, or else they'd only do so to their fat wives once they were safely on the road driving back home from the movie theater. The prospect of violence is, for all too many people, the only thing that keeps them from being incredibly rude to everyone all the time. Very few people actually have manners. Sad but true. Like your "whine whine whine" bit. You wouldn't have said that to the guy in person, because he'd have punched you in the face.

[almostsexy]

I don't know, if anything I'm more restrained around here than I am in real life.

But what I was pointing out is your constant repetition of how everybody is "rude" and "snarky".

Hey, thanks for your feedback. By your use of the phrase "constant repetition" I'm assuming you mean my posts about politeness in other threads as well as this one, and that my comments are out of any and all proportion to any rudeness I might perceive.

Would you say that I am wrong that people are rude on the boards, or just that it's not something that I should be bothered by (like when Devin said "politeness doesn't matter,"
which I must admit did exercise me rather inordinately)?

I just don't see a reason to treat people less than respectfully, just because I can't look them in the eye. Maybe I'm just naive and people are much ruder in real life than I acknowledge.

Also though, I want to think that JohnShade is wrong in saying that people only act politely towards each other because they fear reprisals of some sort. I'd like to think people generally want to get along with each other in a respectful manner without oblique motives. But maybe John's right; depressing thought though.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

[Ali]

I didn't mean to sound so harsh. Crap, I know I'm going to sound like the internet "tough" guy but you just have to a bit of a thicker skin around here than you would in real life.

[almostsexy]

I didn't mean to sound so harsh. Crap, I know I'm going to sound like the internet "tough" guy but you just have to a bit of a thicker skin around here than you would in real life.

Sometimes I think I come off like the Mary Poppins of the internet, which is pretty funny.

Incidentally, in the year or so I've posted on the boards here, I'm not conscious of anyone really ever getting nasty with me, and I am not easily offended anyway. The only time I've ever gotten really mad on these boards had less to do with "rudeness" and more to do with smug, self-congratulatory posturing. One of the trickiest things about the internet is that you can't hear the tone of voice in what people are saying, which is a huge cue as to whether they're joking, being sarcastic, or in dead earnest.

I'm just fascinated by the myriad ways in which people's behavior is affected by the groups they are a part of. Sometimes I'm not even sure people are aware of it.

[Slater]

I have more of Russ Fischer's hair in real life.

[Uth Vaspetad]

I'm much nicer online.

[Nicholas Reed]

I'm actually more obnoxious IRL than online.
Mostly because the majority of my friends are too, so I must escalate in order to compete.
S'like a Cold War nuclear stand off of asshole-ness.

[Vader]

Moltisanti's a fat fat man?

And I'm much much more of a pussy in real life. I run from bees.

[Ray Abed]

I actually pee and shit in real life. Go figure.

[almostsexy]

I actually pee and shit in real life. Go figure.

Hey, thanks for all the responses, guys; much appreciated.

I'm not sure what this one means though; are you drawing a parallel to illustrate that the answer to my question was so obvious as to not merit a less obfuscate response (and thus, not worth asking at all), or were just feeling scatological.

In any case, I'd love to get your take on this topic. Thanks.

I just thought of another possible interpretation; do you mean to say that you feel it's an arbitrary distinction in either case??

[Robert K.]

Probably nowhere near as articulate in here as in real life, because English is my third language, but I like it here, because these boards are filled with lots of interesting people. Even the mean ones can be very amusing and hilarious.

[Ray Abed]

Don't read too much into what I wrote. I just don't pee or shit while typing.

I'd say 90% of my 'net personality is evident in my family, work, and social life. The other 10% is locked up in a sperm bank.

[Schwartz]

I'm actually more obnoxious IRL than online.
Mostly because the majority of my friends are too, so I must escalate in order to compete.
S'like a Cold War nuclear stand off of asshole-ness.

I know exactly what you mean. Recently, I crashed with a friend of mine from college for a month or two, and we got involved in an old-school "your mom" conflict that just escalated and escalated, getting more and more childish and disgusting for weeks and weeks. Then when I moved back to a different set of friends, I was still at Defcon 3 from this little fracas, and so I would still throw out horribly insulting remarks about people's mothers completely unprovoked from time to time. The problem? One of my new roommates I hardly knew beforehand, and another's mom died when we were in high school. Not cool.

Almostsexy, I hope this helps you in your study of human group interactions among geeks.

[almostsexy]

I know exactly what you mean. Recently, I crashed with a friend of mine from college for a month or two, and we got involved in an old-school "your mom" conflict that just escalated and escalated, getting more and more childish and disgusting for weeks and weeks. Then when I moved back to a different set of friends, I was still at Defcon 3 from this little fracas, and so I would still throw out horribly insulting remarks about people's mothers completely unprovoked from time to time. The problem? One of my new roommates I hardly knew beforehand, and another's mom died when we were in high school. Not cool.


Yow. See, this is exactly the sort of thing I live in fear of. I use quite a bit of profanity in real life (I try not to on-line), and in proper company can joke about some pretty offensive things, which I won't mention here, but it has backfired on me painfully a few times. But sometimes I feel like I'm so polite on line that I come off as either blisteringly insincere or supremely condescending, so it's all up to interpretation.

Almostsexy, I hope this helps you in your study of human group interactions among geeks.

Well Schwartz, so far every response has told me something about the person who posted, even the ones that seem to be deliberately obscurantist. I'm far enough on the outside of everyday human society that much of human behavior mystifies me, so it's always nice to have people who are willing to help me out with my weird surveys. It's appreciated.

[PatrickBateman]

I believe I am a lot meaner when I am not jacked into the Matrix known as the internet.

[JGButler]

I'm pretty much the same. Although I do tend to swear a lot less when I'm on the boards than in real life. Usually that's reversed with people.

[Neal]

I'm actually a dog in the real world. I came here to understand better my human companions. I've learned so much. My personality is pretty much the same, but I do considerably more butt-sniffing in real life.

[fabfunk]

I'm a lot less nice in real life, as I try to be really agreeable around here. Then again if any of you knew me in real life, we'd definitely get along.

I supposed that makes a twisted sort of sense in this case.

Also, I'm sure one of you would go gay on me. I have that affect on straight guys. In fact, I know exactly who would go gay on me.

[Martin Savage]

It's seem a trend. I'm also a bit more rude in real life. It's bug some people, but it's more honest than saying nothing.

On the board at at least try to be decent, even when confronted to people who need a much needed self gratification by insulting everything.

I also like to freak out pedestrians who crosses the street at the innapropriate time and place when I drive around town.

[PsycheOut00]

Probably nowhere near as articulate in here as in real life, because English is my third language, but I like it here, because these boards are filled with lots of interesting people. Even the mean ones can be very amusing and hilarious.

Same here. English is my second language so much to my chagrin, sometimes I refrain myself to posting on certain threads as it'd take me a week to fully (or quite adequately) express my opinions. Which is a bitch.

Oh, and sometimes I also have to leave some posts unanswered due to the fact that I tend to log in while I'm at work (ahem).

And I'm sure I'm not that pretentious sounding in real life. It's just that I like writing. And I tend to choose my words... carefully... and I never repeat myself.

[Ryan S~]

What you read is what you get in real life...except I'm far more sarcastic in real life because I can get the tone right. On the internet I could never get the sarcasm vibe correct so I just don't do it.

[Martin Savage]

English is my second language so much to my chagrin, sometimes I refrain myself to posting on certain threads as it'd take me a week to fully (or quite adequately) express my opinions. Which is a bitch.

Oh, and sometimes I also have to leave some posts unanswered due to the fact that I tend to log in while I'm at work (ahem).

I have the exact same condition. My written french is just light years ahead of it's english counterpart. Still working on it.

[Matt Goldberg]

I have more vagina in real life.

[JGButler]

On the internet I could never get the sarcasm vibe correct so I just don't do it.

I hear ya. I'm actually witty in real life. But it's more of a quick wit that I can't seem to transfer over to typing. So I dodn't really try.

[Sister Gracie Lou]

I am much more talkative than one might gather from my low post count.

Oh, and I am not really a nun.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

I think I'm pretty much the same in real life as I am online. I've never really thought about what I say vs. what I type.

[Ryan S~]

Oh, and I am not really a nun.

There goes that fantasy...

[Van Jones]

On the internet I could never get the sarcasm vibe correct so I just don't do it.

That's a good point. I'm probably a bit more sarcastic irl, but it's really hard to do that when it's just words on a screen.

[Richard Dickson]

In real life, my words actually come out in italics. It's kind of cool.

[Schwartz]

I'm almost constantly sarcastic in real life, and usually on-line also, although I admit I have very little idea of how much of it actually gets across.

[Johan Brock]

I am almost the same in reality. Really talkative, yet quiet most of the time.

Oh, and my speech is more coherent than online.

[Alex B]

My "real life persona" has more cowbell.

[Sebastian OB]

One of the trickiest things about the internet is that you can't hear the tone of voice in what people are saying, which is a huge cue as to whether they're joking, being sarcastic, or in dead earnest.

This is what I see asmy main failing as an internet "personality". I don't take myself too seriously and my comments (to me) are meant to (usually) be off the cuff and humorous, but I've been told I can come off condescending. I do make a point to never resort to name calling. I think I'm reasonably polite, as I am in real life.

[Sebastian OB]

Man, I wish I could get that quote thing to work right consistently. Does anyone else have problems with it, or am I the only idiot?

[Boe]

You forgot to put a / in front of "quote" in brackets at the end.

[Patrick Ripoll]

Slightly off topic, but does everyone else visualize the everybody as their avatar? This is very true for me, especially with Moltisanti.

[almostsexy]

Yeah, Aquafresh, I've found that there's just not much you can do about the whole sarcasm/joking thing. If you joke around here with someone you don't know, maybe they'll get that you're joking, or maybe they'll think you're antagonizing them.

I find that this is especially a problem for newer posters because they're largely unknown, and the Old Guard of the site are quick to assume that they are being trolled and react unkindly.

And possibly not without reason, either. It seems like this site (I've read news here since 2000, but only started reading the message board in 2004 or 2005), has had problems with especially mean-spirited, perhaps even malevolent trolls from a rival, jealous website. So I can see how that would color the perspective of some long time posters.

[Alex B]

Slightly off topic, but does everyone else visualize the everybody as their avatar? This is very true for me, especially with Moltisanti.

That's put an image in my brain that no amount of lobotomy will cure.

Wait, did you mean that he spends an inordinate amount of time 'courting' you because of your Van Damme avatar, or did you just mean that you associate him with his avatar?

The majority of sarcastic comments thrown around on this board are usually directed at someone. I always felt that was a pretty cheap way of calling someone's bullshit out, unless you do it very well and it's a valid criticism. It doesn't really matter in this case whether it's successful sarcasm or not, because the intention was to piss that particular person off, and that's usually pretty easy to do around here. You just state an opinion that differs from that person's. I know it's a gross generalisation, but I find that it's actually quite difficult to have an open-minded discussion with a person around here, because someone inevitably takes it to heart, or gets defensive that their opinion is being challenged or scrutinised.

[Patrick Ripoll]

Wait, did you mean that he spends an inordinate amount of time 'courting' you because of your Van Damme avatar, or did you just mean that you associate him with his avatar?
I mean I picture him with sunglasses and a cigarette.

My Van Damme avatar was the first thing I could think of and find on google image search. I was gonna change it to one of those sweet European movie posters (I forget the exact country) but then a bunch of other people beat me to it and I didn't want to cramp on their style.

[Moltisanti]

Slightly off topic, but does everyone else visualize the everybody as their avatar? This is very true for me, especially with Moltisanti.

I don't look too much like Shane from "The Shield." I look closer to Lem, but I act more like Dutch.

As for your avatar I say stick with Van Damme. If you're thinking of a change you could go with the HARD TARGET look, maybe TIMECOP.

[SAIRUS]

On the net, I'm more a nerd 1st with tech geek speak and whatever.

Real life, I'm just your normal run of the mill guy. My humor online is more various and experimentary, and I use more solid stuff in the flesh.

Oh and I don't say LOL or TTYL in real. Anyone who does that gets a punch in the mamories.

[Sebastian OB]

You forgot to put a / in front of "quote" in brackets at the end.


Thanks.

[almostsexy]

The majority of sarcastic comments thrown around on this board are usually directed at someone. I always felt that was a pretty cheap way of calling someone's bullshit out, unless you do it very well and it's a valid criticism. It doesn't really matter in this case whether it's successful sarcasm or not, because the intention was to piss that particular person off, and that's usually pretty easy to do around here. You just state an opinion that differs from that person's. I know it's a gross generalisation, but I find that it's actually quite difficult to have an open-minded discussion with a person around here, because someone inevitably takes it to heart, or gets defensive that their opinion is being challenged or scrutinised.

People do seem pretty quick to anger on these boards (but that might be true of most boards in general). For me, the key thing has always been to stay as cordial as possible, and to engage people's arguments, and not the tone with which they address me. I've found that if I remain civil with people who are not being entirely amenable themselves, they'll usually adjust their tone accordingly, or if they're more troll-ish and just looking for someone to get upset, won't respond at all.

I'm just pretty good at not losing my temper.

Sort of off topic, but would you guys say that there has been a marked drop-off in the quality of discussion over the years this board has existed, or are things about the same?

[Sebastian OB]

Sort of off topic, but would you guys say that there has been a marked drop-off in the quality of discussion over the years this board has existed, or are things about the same?

It seems about the same to me. It really depends on the thread. For instance, as of late, the X-Men 3 threads have been really retarded, in my opinion. Solution: avoid. But, like you, I've only been a poster here for a year or so. Before that, I merely lurked.

[Belethedheliel]

I'm equally snarky irl, if not moreso, but since 90% of my time I'm working, I don't get to express it so much. Perhaps that's why I'm so friggin snarky when I can be. And I swear a lot more in real life. I write better than I speak (both because of better forethought and my tendency to speak rapidly with less than ideal enunciation) but I still don't manage to communicate ideas as well as I wish I could.

Oh, and as for avatars, I'm definitely not a nekkid Raoul Bova. I'm a woman, but if I have to choose a picture, what else would I want to look at (or force others to view), than the wonderful creation that is Raoul Bova?

[Samurai Mike]

Although I do carry a sword, and regularly kill people with it, I am not actually a samurai.

[almostsexy]

My dad collected swords. Me and my brother were always picking them up and hacking away at each other with them when we were kids.

This gave my dad convulsions; not so much because we might hurt ourselves as because some of the swords were pretty valuable. He also collected armor, and when I was a kid I got to go out for Halloween as a Roman Centurion with a metal breastplate and edged weapon and everything. Swords are pretty great.

[Samurai Mike]

Yes. Yes they are.

Regarding your question, I would say I'm pretty non-confrontational both here and in real life. I've never been one to have a go at anyone, or bear a grudge, or get wound up. It means I'm often seen as the diplomatic one, and my friends are always commenting on my apparent air of casual niceness. However, it often means I can be a pushover when I really should stand up for myself. These occasions usually involve females...

By the way I'm a Kiwi.

[Rene (Mr.Eko)]

I'm pretty much the same in real life like I am online. I talk a lot about movies and moreso about dvds. Warhead 3479 will vouch for me on that. I do talk and think way faster than I type sometimes. Also I'm really sarcastic, and I try not to offend people, but there are some people who are just easily offended.

[warhead3479]

I'm pretty much the same in real life like I am online. I talk a lot about movies and moreso about dvds. Warhead 3479 will vouch for me on that. I do talk and think way faster than I type sometimes. Also I'm really sarcastic, and I try not to offend people, but there are some people who are just easily offended.
It's true...he does.

The way I chat/post messages on forums online is the same way I am in real life; I'm not a prick unless you act like a prick to me, which in turn causes me to become a prick. In all honesty, I don't really see the need to act like an asshole online...that's just immature -_^

[Geoff Foster]

This is an interesting question. My online persona is a fiction. How much of a fiction I’m not quite sure. None of us is what we seem. We all make fictions of ourselves in an effort to please or influence people in some way (or not – in some cases). We wear certain clothes, buy certain items, drive certain cars and say certain things – mostly to project an image that we want other people to notice and interpret as our ‘real’ persona. I think the fear is we feel our lives are so humdrum and pedestrian in comparison to other people (who we forget are projecting similar fictions) we can’t compete without tinkering with our images to make them more appealing. And these images or fictions are re-written dynamically to suit the explicit and implicit rules of whatever social group we’re operating in at any one time. On my site I behave differently to the Geoff Foster that exists here, in the same way that someone behaves differently in a house that isn’t his own. On another site I’m different again. At work I swear like a trooper. In front of my mum I wouldn't dream of saying 'fuck' (I suppose you could call this schizophrenia). I spend a good bit of time sifting through my own fictions - or memories of those fictions - in an effort to better understand myself. I'm not sure how much headway I'm making, to be honest.

[almostsexy]

This is an interesting question. My online persona is a fiction. How much of a fiction I’m not quite sure. None of us is what we seem. We all make fictions of ourselves in an effort to please or influence people in some way (or not – in some cases). We wear certain clothes, buy certain items, drive certain cars and say certain things – mostly to project an image that we want other people to notice and interpret as our ‘real’ persona. I think the fear is we feel our lives are so humdrum and pedestrian in comparison to other people (who we forget are projecting similar fictions) we can’t compete without tinkering with our images to make them more appealing. And these images or fictions are re-written dynamically to suit the explicit and implicit rules of whatever social group we’re operating in at any one time. On my site I behave differently to the Geoff Foster that exists here, in the same way that someone behaves differently in a house that isn’t his own. On another site I’m different again. At work I swear like a trooper. In front of my mum I wouldn't dream of saying 'fuck' (I suppose you could call this schizophrenia). I spend a good bit of time sifting through my own fictions - or memories of those fictions - in an effort to better understand myself. I'm not sure how much headway I'm making, to be honest.

Wow. What a great post. I don't even know where to begin. Thanks for the well-thought-out response.

I think along similar lines as you, Geoff, although I don't know if I would go so far as to call different facets of our personas "fictions." I kinda follow the existentialist tenet that we are neither more nor less than the sum of all the things we do in our lives, that it's the actual and not the potential that really defines us.

As for your statement "None of us is what we seem," I would amend it to read "None of us is merely what we seem to be at any given moment." To that end, we are constantly defining ourselves based on what we choose to do. And thus, these different personas we adapt are not so much a "fiction" as a re-definition of the self.

I would posit that the real "fiction" is the idea that there are more or less valid personas; whichever one we occupy is the one we legitamately are at that moment. This is what bothers me most when I see so many posts on this site involving people being really, really nasty to each other. I would imagine many rationalize this by calling it a fiction, if they think about it at all, which seems unlikely. The selves we post as are as much our legitimate self as that which we take to work with us, or to dinner with mom (and I too, would never dream of swearing in front of mine, believe me), or to call each other nasty names and accuse each other of secretly being virgins on at aint it cool news.

Some might even postulate that this anonymous self we access on these boards is an even more valid or immediate one, insofar as we can say what we think or feel almost entirely without reprisal (as JohnShade mentioned earlier), or having to run into them at work or at the mall and wonder what they really think of us: the cloak of anonymity provided here allows us a reprieve from the social niceties expected in the "real" world. I think this is why I try so rigorously to be really polite and cordial here - because it would just be so easy not to.

I guess my initial post was a poll of sorts, to see how many people thought about this, and if so, where they fell in the spectrum of persona.

Thanks for the great post, Geoff. It gave me something to think about, and helped me figure out what I thought on this topic, and helped (momentarily, at least), deal with why I started this thread in the first place.

This was a super-long post, but if you do read it, I would love to hear your thoughts on my perambulations and circumlocutions. Thanks for all the great responses, everybody!!

[Martin Savage]

This is an interesting question. My online persona is a fiction. How much of a fiction I’m not quite sure. None of us is what we seem. We all make fictions of ourselves in an effort to please or influence people in some way (or not – in some cases). We wear certain clothes, buy certain items, drive certain cars and say certain things – mostly to project an image that we want other people to notice and interpret as our ‘real’ persona. I think the fear is we feel our lives are so humdrum and pedestrian in comparison to other people (who we forget are projecting similar fictions) we can’t compete without tinkering with our images to make them more appealing. And these images or fictions are re-written dynamically to suit the explicit and implicit rules of whatever social group we’re operating in at any one time. On my site I behave differently to the Geoff Foster that exists here, in the same way that someone behaves differently in a house that isn’t his own. On another site I’m different again. At work I swear like a trooper. In front of my mum I wouldn't dream of saying 'fuck' (I suppose you could call this schizophrenia). I spend a good bit of time sifting through my own fictions - or memories of those fictions - in an effort to better understand myself. I'm not sure how much headway I'm making, to be honest.

Thanks Geoff, you made my nose bleed.

[Geoff Foster]

Wow. What a great post. I don't even know where to begin. Thanks for the well-thought-out response.

I think along similar lines as you, Geoff, although I don't know if I would go so far as to call different facets of our personas "fictions." I kinda follow the existentialist tenet that we are neither more nor less than the sum of all the things we do in our lives, that it's the actual and not the potential that really defines us.

As for your statement "None of us is what we seem," I would amend it to read "None of us is merely what we seem to be at any given moment." To that end, we are constantly defining ourselves based on what we choose to do. And thus, these different personas we adapt are not so much a "fiction" as a re-definition of the self.

I would posit that the real "fiction" is the idea that there are more or less valid personas; whichever one we occupy is the one we legitamately are at that moment. This is what bothers me most when I see so many posts on this site involving people being really, really nasty to each other. I would imagine many rationalize this by calling it a fiction, if they think about it at all, which seems unlikely. The selves we post as are as much our legitimate self as that which we take to work with us, or to dinner with mom (and I too, would never dream of swearing in front of mine, believe me), or to call each other nasty names and accuse each other of secretly being virgins on at aint it cool news.

I think that’s a fair assessment. People modify their behaviour and write what is a fictional representation of their perceived estimation of themselves to suit whatever social group they enter in to. Human beings are social beings and the coercive forces of a particular social group wield tremendous influence over us. At the end of the day most of us just want to be liked, or seen as special. And if conforming to the implicit and explicit standards and expectations of the group will achieve such ends we’ll very often change our behaviour and image to suit.

What I find weird is the way my message board fictions sometimes ‘leak’ into each other. As stated, on my own site I behave differently than I do here. But occasionally, when I’m alt-tabbing between the three boards I use most often, I find a bit of the Geoff Foster from here appearing in the Geoff Foster there, and vice versa. It’s disorientating and occasionally problematic because you’re suddenly operating beyond the conformity of the group. And that’s when other members – who have grown used to your methods and habits – start wondering whether someone’s hacked your account. I’ve had some funny experiences with this kind of thing. A few bad ones, too.

[DOOM!]

DOOM's real-life persona differs only in that when DOOM is displeased in real life, people die and things explode.

DOOM!

[Belethedheliel]

What does it mean when people refer to themselves in the third person?

[Geoff Foster]

What does it mean when people refer to themselves in the third person?

It means they're doomed.

[almostsexy]

What does it mean when people refer to themselves in the third person?

Intense megalomania, perhaps. An unceasing desire to make the Fantastic Four look bad in public??

That's a good point though Belethedheliel. DOOM!, do you really talk like that outside of message boards (I mean, I've done weirder things, so it's not outside the realm of possibility).

Belethedheliel, what's the derivation of your name, if you don't mind my asking. It has a lot of "e's" in it.

[almostsexy]

Human beings are social beings and the coercive forces of a particular social group wield tremendous influence over us. At the end of the day most of us just want to be liked, or seen as special. And if conforming to the implicit and explicit standards and expectations of the group will achieve such ends we’ll very often change our behaviour and image to suit.


Hey Geoff. Somehow I missed your post.

I've really never been very good at conformity, and I fear that it's lead many to think I'm rather snobbish.

In the way use the word fiction/fictional, I presume you are prescribing a primacy to the life we lead outside of the internet that supercedes the authenticity of the selves we inhabit here, and that there is an inherent tendency towards disingenuousness, or at the very least, a less immediate relation to each other than we would have in the "real" world.

Would you say that's because of the anonymity provided by the board, or just the "artificial" nature of our interaction (given that we only have the words we type, but can't use tone of voice, body language, or any other sensory cues that are so vital to communication and co-existence)?

You also said something interesting which I've quoted above. Would you think then, that newer posters are more likely to adopt characteristics of posters who have been here longer in an effort to fit in (in terms of tone, language choices, etc.)? A sort of mimetic camoflauge?

Edit:

You know what, I just re-read your last post, and that's exactly what you're saying. Sorry. Sloppy reading on my part.

[Geoff Foster]

Hey Geoff. Somehow I missed your post.

I've really never been very good at conformity, and I fear that it's lead many to think I'm rather snobbish.

Well, we all conform to some lesser or greater extent. I suppose it depends on how big the gap between your perception of yourself and the nature of the group is. If the group is fundamentally alien to your nature, chances are you’ll take one look at it, decide the gap is simply too vast for you to be able to bridge with a re-write of your personality, and off you’ll go – never to return. On the other hand you may think it’s the place you’ve been looking for all your life and immerse yourself wholeheartedly. In the middle you’ve got another group of people who join for some reason or another and flit in and out of things – and re-evaluate their association with the group - according to their needs.

In the way use the word fiction/fictional, I presume you are prescribing a primacy to the life we lead outside of the internet that supercedes the authenticity of the selves we inhabit here, and that there is an inherent tendency towards disingenuousness, or at the very least, a less immediate relation to each other than we would have in the "real" world.

Would you say that's because of the anonymity provided by the board, or just the "artificial" nature of our interaction (given that we only have the words we type, but can't use tone of voice, body language, or any other sensory cues that are so vital to communication and co-existence)?

I hesitate to use the word disingenuous because there’s an aura of negativity about it. There’s nothing ‘bad’ about appearing other than your perception of yourself. It’s perfectly natural. I also think you have to consider the nature of the medium. Message board communication can be pretty awkward. As mentioned, you don’t speak like you write and conveying emotion is difficult to impossible at times. Very often you’re relying on the group to augment the bits you can’t convey in words with the bits you can. If you are tightly bonded to the group this isn’t a problem. People instinctively know if you’re attempting irony or sarcasm or whatever. If you’re not tightly bonded to the group implicit meaning is more difficult to identify. Hence misunderstanding.

Does this make any sense?

And no - I don't think you're snobbish.

[almostsexy]

Does this make any sense?

Oh hell yes. I finally get what you've been saying. All this time I've been thinking about the forums here as merely an aggregate of interactions between individuals, but ultimately that's only a part of the picture. While individuals are interacting with each other, we also have individuals starting or responding to threads/thread posts within the context of a group of individuals, and a group is an altogether different entity. It's kind of like going to high school all over again.

As you might have divined, I am very recalcitrant to identify with groups and somewhat insular, which leads to the development of certain blind spots. In this case, I have only been thinking of individual interactions. But the "group" of this message board has its own identity, just as tangible and "real" as that of the individual posters. But the "group" is no less nebulous and resistant to categorization for its palpable presence, (i.e., it's an entity, but not an individual). I haven't been taking that into account in my thinking, although I'm sure it's been a huge factor in my general reluctance to post on these boards (I've posted as many times in the last week as I usually do in a month and a half or so).

Thank you for pointing this out to me.

Very often you’re relying on the group to augment the bits you can’t convey in words with the bits you can. If you are tightly bonded to the group this isn’t a problem. People instinctively know if you’re attempting irony or sarcasm or whatever. If you’re not tightly bonded to the group implicit meaning is more difficult to identify. Hence misunderstanding.

This passage seems very "obvious" to me now, but I had not been thinking along these lines (did I mention I'm somewhat insular?) Of course! familiarity is crucial as well. Someone on the boards who knows me can address me based on past experience and general impression. Posters who interact with me for the first time have no experience of "me" to draw upon, so they have to extrapolate experience from the "group" entity, apply their perception of me to it, and then decide how to address me (Am I a troll, or a shill, or whatever). And this is the same set of deliberations posters have to make all the time.

Your post has been immensely helpful, and happily, has answered the question underlying my initial post.

Wow. Thanks Geoff. That was pretty great. I need to think about this some more just let it soak around in my brain, but I think it will definitely help me empathize with posters who seem quick to ridicule others.

[Charlie Brigden]

I'm not nearly as much of a dick as I am online.

[Richard Dickson]

I'm not nearly as much of a dick as I am online.
I think that's true for everybody. There's a safety in the relative annonymity of the internet that leads to people saying things here they'd never say face to face.

[Werbal_Kint]

Fuck you!

[Charlie Brigden]

I think that's true for everybody. There's a safety in the relative annonymity of the internet that leads to people saying things here they'd never say face to face.

True, but there are people here I'd certainly say stuff to whether I'm broadbanding it or sitting across a table from them.

[Richard Dickson]

There are some things, but I really doubt a group of us would get together and someone would say, "You should be beaten to death with a rock." Oh sure, we say we will, but when there's a face attached to the rhetoric, it's a lot harder to pull off the swagger.

[Ade Brooks]

I tend to be quiet until I get to know people in the real world most of the time. When you're typing to a screen you have to talk, nodding etc won't work. Funnily enough that's how I met my wife. Online, not nodding etc.

My wife did point out to me once that I swear a lot on here, but I do that in real life too.

[Alex B]

This is gonna sound sycophantic as hell, but what the hell does Geoff feed his brain?

Is it blondes?

[Brad Millette]

He subscribes to "Faux Intellectual Monthly" and owns the entire "Sounding Smart for Dummies" library.

[Ade Brooks]

I think he feeds on the carcasses of dead and/or banned Chewers.

[Alex B]

No, you're thinking of Millette. He's probably munching on Ninja Hamster's rump as we speak.

[Ade Brooks]

Christ, I'm glad I'm not hungry tonight.

Thank God for beer!

[almostsexy]

He subscribes to "Faux Intellectual Monthly" and owns the entire "Sounding Smart for Dummies" library.


I think I would request Brad drop the "faux" prefix from that sentence. Geoff Foster seems pretty darned smart to me.

Although I suppose you could argue that I'm j
ust identifying with him as my "faux-intellectual" high-ideal.

[Geoff Foster]

Wow. Thanks Geoff. That was pretty great. I need to think about this some more just let it soak around in my brain, but I think it will definitely help me empathize with posters who seem quick to ridicule others.

No probs. There's a lot of interesting research been done on the human need to belong to social groups and conformity within groups (the conclusions of which are pretty mind-blowing). This (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html) is a great primer that answers a lot of your questions. This (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226589366/qid=1142079303/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4216491-5060029?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) (a summary of which can be found here (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory09.htm) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence)) will change the way you look at the world.

[Andrew Clarke]

There are some things, but I really doubt a group of us would get together and someone would say, "You should be beaten to death with a rock." Oh sure, we say we will, but when there's a face attached to the rhetoric, it's a lot harder to pull off the swagger.

I don't know, I have a pretty large cock.

[Tom Fuchs]

In real life, I speak in Helvetica 11 point.

[almostsexy]

No probs. There's a lot of interesting research been done on the human need to belong to social groups and conformity within groups (the conclusions of which are pretty mind-blowing). This (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html) is a great primer that answers a lot of your questions. This (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226589366/qid=1142079303/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4216491-5060029?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) (a summary of which can be found here (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory09.htm) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence)) will change the way you look at the world.

Hey Geoff.

I think I see where you're going with this. Now if we can only create a spiral of silence for some of the people who post at CHUD... (just kidding).

I wonder if the anonymity provided here counteracts against that phenomenon. The theory does seem to presuppose a unified media voice for a topic and population though, doesn't it? It would seem that any region that allows for a dissenting media viewpoint would counteract or diminish the inculcation of the spiral within a populace. It seems very telling that this theory comes from someone who lived through a time when absolutely no dissenting voice was brooked.

And Mr. Tom Fuchs, isn't Helvectica sort of a "girly" font?? (smiley face thing here to indicate I'm just joking)

[Brad Millette]

A lot of us don't post anonymously, y'know.

[almostsexy]

A lot of us don't post anonymously, y'know.

You're right. My real name's Chris Ferreira, I'm a struggling guitar teacher in Seattle. I'm not really that secretive, it just never occurred to me to use my real name as my screen name.

As for "anonymous:" this is poor word choice on my part. I've been somewhat carelessly substituting the word "anonymous" for what I really mean, which is literal physical proximity.

I'm really talking about face-to-face in-the-same-room proximate interaction. I know I've harped on this pretty much to death (as Ali Mohamed pointed out up above) in my posting, but just to clarify, this message board is sort of an abstract, which I think allows people to "act out" in ways that they might not if they were in the same room with a person.

(Edited here for clarity) There's a sort of "reciprocity disconnect," if you will, that I feel is intrinsic to internet name-calling. To me, insulting someone on the internet feels inherently dishonest. Here's a weird example: It's as if Person A was at Person B's house, got really mad at B but didn't say anything, excused themself and drove home, and then called B's house, called B a "dick" (or whatever) and then hung up really fast, and disconnected their phone. (Does that make any sense? This was a really difficult concept to articulate).

That doesn't mean that everyone does this, or that many people do it most of the time, but I guess it does preoccupy my thinking. Not that I expect it will ever change, I was just interested if other posters noticed this/thought about it.

So obviously, this "reciprocity-disconnect" can be bad (breakdown of the social niceties I invest so much in); but it can also obviously, be a good thing, if it allows people to be honest with each other and say what they really feel, when they might not in a face-to-face situation.

It's this perceived disingenuousness that bothers me, more than just the rudeness. I guess I'm getting hung up on a principle.

I am curious though, why did all of you guys who have pseudonyms drop them and decide to use your real names?

[Brad Millette]

Because I got really sick of people assuming I had a huge hard-on for the Matrix movies, and I couldn't think up another snappy nickname.

[Andre Dellamorte]

There are some things, but I really doubt a group of us would get together and someone would say, "You should be beaten to death with a rock." Oh sure, we say we will, but when there's a face attached to the rhetoric, it's a lot harder to pull off the swagger.

I think actually it goes the other way more. If someone said "I don't think retards had souls" to you in person what would your IRL response be? Or if someone you worked with wanted to talk about squirting and became known as "that dude who always talks about porn and freaky sex shit." These then would be the people you would either tell to shut up all the time, or never ever be in a room with.

[Tom Fuchs]

I think actually it goes the other way more. If someone said "I don't think retards had souls" to you in person what would your IRL response be? Or if someone you worked with wanted to talk about squirting and became known as "that dude who always talks about porn and freaky sex shit." These then would be the people you would either tell to shut up all the time, or never ever be in a room with.



Everybody knows retards have souls. Retarded souls.

[Geoff Foster]

Hey Geoff.

I think I see where you're going with this. Now if we can only create a spiral of silence for some of the people who post at CHUD... (just kidding).

I wonder if the anonymity provided here counteracts against that phenomenon.

It’s a good question and I’ve no idea about the answer. Internet message boards are, from an anthropological and sociological perspective, virgin territory. They do offer some potential for research because you’ve got a large sample (if you pick a popular board) and there’s no need for data capture - everything’s sat on the server in tables waiting to be imported into a spreadsheet. Whether anyone will bother remains to be seen. Designing experiments to test cultural or sociological hypotheses is pretty difficult.

I have a bit of an interest in this kind of thing, although it's through comp.sci rather than cultural studies.

The theory does seem to presuppose a unified media voice for a topic and population though, doesn't it? It would seem that any region that allows for a dissenting media viewpoint would counteract or diminish the inculcation of the spiral within a populace.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Amongst other things Noelle-Neumann looked at two West German general elections during the 60s and 70s. She discovered that political conversations in the run-up showed a consistent pattern of the holders of the perceived majority opinion growing increasingly more vocal and insistent at the expense of the perceived minority. The key word here is perceived. The levels of support for both parties expressed privately by individual citizens remained roughly constant. What changed was the individual's perception of the majority opinion, and therefore their expectations of which party would win. The "minority" became less and less willing to speak their minds publicly, thus reinforcing their minority status and further undermining their willingness to speak - a self fuelling cycle.

Today the consequences of this and subsequent research jump on you like a ten-ton elephant whenever there’s an election. If a political party can convince everyone it holds the majority 'popular' opinion (even when it doesn’t) the average opposition voter in the street a) will find it increasingly more difficult to voice contrary opinions and b) is more likely to think the other guy will win. People who think their votes won't prevent the opposition party from winning might choose not to vote - which may give the opponent a whopping advantage in a tight election. I should say that the Republican Party is the undisputed master of such tactics.

[almostsexy]

I’m not sure what you mean here. Amongst other things Noelle-Neumann looked at two West German general elections during the 60s and 70s. She discovered that political conversations in the run-up showed a consistent pattern of the holders of the perceived majority opinion growing increasingly more vocal and insistent at the expense of the perceived minority. The key word here is perceived. The levels of support for both parties expressed privately by individual citizens remained roughly constant. What changed was the individual's perception of the majority opinion, and therefore their expectations of which party would win. The "minority" became less and less willing to speak their minds publicly, thus reinforcing their minority status and further undermining their willingness to speak - a self fuelling cycle.


Sorry for the lack of clarity. To paraphrase Samurai Cat: "I will endeavor to express myself with considerably more felicitousness."

(Please keep in mind that I haven't read the book, but just read the summations at the website and at wikipedia, so this might be an overly-reductionist critique, but here goes).

If the spiral is a function of the media reinforcment of one side of an argument over another, it seems like the media would have to have a concensus on the issue.

To be more specific, let's take handguns (I come from a family of gun-worshippers). For the sake of this argument, suppose Anytown has a voting population of 10,000, and the population is split evenly on the issue of whether or not handguns should be made illegal to own within the town.

According to the theory, whichever side has the media's public endorsement is going to have the advantage (in terms of the Spiral of Silence theory), because though the town itself is split evenly, one side will have the perceived advantage.

Now assume that this town has two local television stations; each owned by separate interests. It seems that each side would have to "own" both stations opinion on the issue in order to obtain an advantage. If one station said "ban handguns," and the other said "don't ban," then (all other things being equal), the two factions would be at an impasse. It seems that, in order to start a media-spiral, one faction would have to have captured a predominant number of media outlets within that voting district, and that with the wide array of media for spreading information, developing a media monopoly becomes increasingly difficult.

What do you think? I know my brothers would say this is shockingly naive, as it's well-known that the "liberal commies" have a stranglehold on American television media.

I hope this is somewhat clear.

[Geoff Foster]

According to the theory, whichever side has the media's public endorsement is going to have the advantage (in terms of the Spiral of Silence theory), because though the town itself is split evenly, one side will have the perceived advantage.

Now assume that this town has two local television stations; each owned by separate interests. It seems that each side would have to "own" both stations opinion on the issue in order to obtain an advantage. If one station said "ban handguns," and the other said "don't ban," then (all other things being equal), the two factions would be at an impasse.

In theory I suppose. But this is a bit of an unrealistic case. Things are rarely in a perfect state of equilibrium.

It seems that, in order to start a media-spiral, one faction would have to have captured a predominant number of media outlets within that voting district, and that with the wide array of media for spreading information, developing a media monopoly becomes increasingly difficult.

You're right in saying there are more media outlets, but how many does the average person expose himself to? I read two papers a day and visit six or seven websites (bbc.co.uk, thetimesonline.co.uk, theguardian.co.uk, informationclearinghouse.info etc.) But I'm in the minority. Many of the people I work with watch or listen to one news bulletin, and almost always it's a big outlet. Controlling every news source is unnecessary. You only need two or three of the big ones.

In the UK you could spend all day working through Murdoch's prodigious output.

[almostsexy]

In theory I suppose. But this is a bit of an unrealistic case. Things are rarely in a perfect state of equilibrium.



You're right in saying there are more media outlets, but how many does the average person expose himself to? I read two papers a day and visit six or seven websites (bbc.co.uk, thetimesonline.co.uk, theguardian.co.uk, informationclearinghouse.info etc.) But I'm in the minority. Many of the people I work with watch or listen to one news bulletin, and almost always it's a big outlet. Controlling every news source is unnecessary. You only need two or three of the big ones.

In the UK you could spend all day working through Murdoch's prodigious output.

Forgive my free associations; socio-political realities aren't my strength. I was just following a line of thinking. But you're right, I would imagine whoever controls television, (for now at least) seems to be able to broadcast to the biggest audience, I would think.

My brother did an informal poll at his workplace a few years ago, and was disturbed to learn that most of his colleagues voted almost-solely based upon television ads. This unnerved him greatly, and I can see why.

However he's convinced that the television news medium is own by the liberals pushing their pro-communist agenda, while the conservative radio media is our last line of democratic defense. I'm not really that political but these seem like pretty gross generalizations.

Interestingly, a lot of my friends where I live now find themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and feel than tv news is beholden to corporate interests. Sadly, the two groups seem to be very divisive and mistrusting of each other. As someone who doesn't fall into either camp, it's kind of distressing to see this "us vs. them" philosophy become all-pervasive.

Sorry if this thread got too negative.

[IndridCold]

With my friends or at work I can get sarcastic which is hard to do online, I tend to enjoy gallows humor too and some times that doesn’t come across right online. I try to be polite on line and off, just the way I was raised. That and I’m a big pacifist. Just don’t bring my momma into it.
I find it interesting that people who don’t know someone out side a small picture and a few words feel the need to attack someone else. Such as on AICN, were the message boards seem to only exist for people post how much they hate someone.
By the by, very cool thread.

[Ali]

I know I've harped on this pretty much to death (as Ali Mohamed pointed out up above) in my posting

Sorry about before, I didn't really mean it. I was feeling crabby, which makes sense since I actually had crabs at the time.

[almostsexy]

I find it interesting that people who don’t know someone out side a small picture and a few words feel the need to attack someone else. Such as on AICN, were the message boards seem to only exist for people post how much they hate someone.
By the by, very cool thread.

Yeah, I was definitely wondering about that when I asked the question. Maybe it's just a normal "acting out" response, getting to say things to people you couldn't really ever say in a "real-world" context. A way to open the release valve on all the stuff we find ourselves constrained from saying in the classroom, workplace, or home. In that sense, maybe all the ad hominem attacks are sort of healthy.

But yeah, I was quite pleased that so many of the people that posted were "on-topic" and quite amicable. Thanks everybody!!

Sorry about before, I didn't really mean it. I was feeling crabby, which makes sense since I actually had crabs at the time.

No hard feelings. From reading my initial post in this thread, I can see how it might easily be interpreted as a diatribe against the site in general. I really was just trying to establish a context for the real point of the thread, which was to get feedback from other posters.

[bgirl]

I am the same but some people on here are animals! You might notice it with the people who post all the time, which makes me think they are like that in real life and its why they posts so much because misery does not like company and face to face interaction is something some people do not get enough of, but I think everyone here has a good sense of humor and interesting things to say, so you may never know, even if they respond to this thread.

[almostsexy]

Well, I'm already largely resigned to the fact that I'll never know for sure. But as I said way way bove somewhere, even the people who respond less than sincerely still told me something, you know?

Maybe because I'm so distanced from it myself, I find human behavior endlessly fascinating. As for why people act out like this -- that's a very complex question, or at least a very simple question that would require a very complex answer. Part of it is surely the "anonymity" factor, and I think another factor is the distance between posters, the abstraction of this board might possibly be sort of de-humanizing. It's one think to tell someone to go "f---" themselves or wish a disease on their mother when they can't really reciprocate in any significant way, but I suspect it's also a lot easier to type those words into a black screen than to say it to another human being, even if you were guaranteed that there was no danger of reprisal. Since they can't see the reaction of the person they're attacking/insulting, their societal inhibitions aren't triggered as readily. Just a thought.

[Ade Brooks]

almostsexy,

I doubt you'll ever know for sure, purely because some people will just play around with their answers. All part of the mystery of human nature. I am impressed that you've gotten so many good replies. Maybe you've given everyone something to think about.

However it turns out, it's been an interesting read.

[Ken Savage]

Sorry if this has been discussed before,

I’ve been thinking about this one for a while, about the differences between how someone might act in person vs. their online "persona". Someday I'm sure some bright spark will write a paper on this but meantime I thought a discussion could be cool.

People do treat each other differently online to the way they do in real life, even in a place like chud where Nick et el strive for a "pub/home" concept to the boards. Now I know sometimes people can wind us up but if you were face to face with someone would you really wind them up as much as happens on the web?

I’ve also noticed that people can be discussing a film and a person will chime in with simply how bad it was or you are stupid for liking it. Now in a bar you wouldn’t go up to someone else’s conversation and do that so what motivates someone to do it online?

There is a real nastiness to some comments as well, beyond simple sarcasm and into the realms of deeply personal attacks. Personally I think if you don't like someone ignore them, taking time out of your day to make their life hell seems a little obsessive and pointless. I mean yes you might drive them away but a lot of discussions get ruined because of it.

Any thoughts on this?

[Andrew Clarke]

http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89790&highlight=personas

ding!

[Ken Savage]

It was actually that thread that gave me the idea for this one, what I driving at is reasons why people act different. Prehaps there arn't any and its just par for the course, but I do find it interesting that their is an acceptance of less social behavior if you can't see the other person.

[fatlaurence]

It could be the fact that annonymity and not having to look people in the face allows posters to insult other users without any sort of guilt. If you can't see the person's face, you don't know how hurt they are by your comments, and you can easily ignore their ripostes. It's having your cake and eating it.

Also, with conversations being in print, and with time delays, people often take offence where it's not intended, and fill in the conversational blanks in a manner that suits their mood.

People bring a lot of their personal baggage onto message boards too. So if you're having a shitty day you can snap at someone online and feel good about yourself, rather than shouting at a friend or spouse and having to apologise. This also comes out when people go on huge tangental rants in their posts because they have no outlet for their ire in the real world. No one will cut them off in the middle of a paragraph, and someone, somewhere might listen. They've wanted to say this thing for ages, but there hasn't been the slightest opportunity in real life, so they shoehorn it into a thread via the most tenuous links. One might even identify another poster as "symptomatic" of a social attitude that you despise, and choose to attack them online to get it of your chest, rather than actually dealing with the problem, or the people you know who are guilty of it.



P.S. - I am usually this long-winded in the real world.

[Brad Millette]

It was actually that thread that gave me the idea for this one, what I driving at is reasons why people act different. Prehaps there arn't any and its just par for the course, but I do find it interesting that their is an acceptance of less social behavior if you can't see the other person.

Gosh, so why not just add to that useless thread, instead of starting a whole new useless thread to talk about the same exact thing?

[Spike Marshall]

Gosh, so why not just add to that useless thread, instead of starting a whole new useless thread to talk about the same exact thing?

Useless?

[Brad Millette]

People act slightly different on the internet!

There, the thread's done now. Useless.

[Spike Marshall]

The point of the thread was useless, but I actually think Geoff and (sigh)Almostsexy brought up some interesting issues in the last half.

[Brad Millette]

hahahaha

That's rich.

[Spike Marshall]

Ah Internet tough guy, when the meek get pissed off and abuse code.

[Ken Savage]

Gosh, so why not just add to that useless thread, instead of starting a whole new useless thread to talk about the same exact thing?

Looks like you got your wish sport. And its not usless, there is no local reason why people act differently on the net beyond the fact they think they can't get away with it.

Which makes me wonder if the kind of people that do it on the net are insecure in real life.

[Andrew Clarke]

You are implying that the way we act in real life is somehow more dignified.

[Jason P. Thompson]

Looks like you got your wish sport.He got his "wish" because he was right about not needing to start a new thread about the exact same topic.

[Andrew Clarke]

Brad and Jason, in a tree.

[Brad Millette]

And its not usless, there is no local reason why people act differently on the net beyond the fact they think they can't get away with it.




I'd like to point out that this sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Ken Savage]

I would hope so yes ;)

[Ken Savage]

I'd like to point out that this sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That’s supposed to say logical serves me right for not checking my post.

[Brad Millette]

Seriously, reread that and try to actually decipher what you wrote. There's more wrong with it than just misuse of the word "local".

Think before you type, kids.

[Doug]

The message board as local bar analogy doesn't hold up in a place like this.

[tezmo]

fact: if those with a propensity for the obnoxious on this message board carried themselves in the same way IRL, they would be shit out of friends, work, and would not be long for this world.

[Andrew Clarke]

Obnoxiousness like presenting opinion as fact?

[Brad Millette]

Fact: Elephants are the only animals that can stand on their heads, but cannot jump.

[tezmo]

obnoxious like presenting opinion as an aside to getting in an objectionable or insulting remark.

[Andrew Clarke]

I saw an elephant jump, arsehole.

[Brad Millette]

You're a liar.

[Andrew Clarke]

http://home.online.no/~kgroenn/disney/dumbo/dumbo19.gif

[Doug]

Holeee mack-ah-rahl! I done nevah seen an elephant fly!

[Spike Marshall]

http://chud.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1246536&postcount=361

I used to fear Andrew Clarke, I do so no longer.

[Brad Millette]

Gusset has his flaws, but you called Event Horizon a visual tour de force.

[Spike Marshall]

Yeah but I don't go around deriding other people's choice in films.

[devincf]

Didn't Ken Savage used to be the troll known as EvilBeaker?

[Andrew Clarke]

Holy shit, naked baby photos.

[Martin Savage]

The message board as local bar analogy doesn't hold up in a place like this.

Pretty true.

By now, half the clients would have been shot, stabbed, raped and their bodies mutilated. While the rest is cheering on.

That's a selling point right there.

[Brad Millette]

Pretty true.

By now, half the clients would have been shot, stabbed, raped and their bodies mutilated. While the rest is cheering on.

That's a selling point right there.

No, fabfunk is just a scavenger, not a predator.

[Ken Savage]

Didn't Ken Savage used to be the troll known as EvilBeaker?

I used to post on Scorched Planet till I realised they were a bunch of racists if thats what you mean. But I've never tried to hide that, and wasn't that like 3 years ago? You have a longer memorey than I do, id forgotton all about it.

[Sincanaguaca]

...just saw this thread and I recently read a breakdown of online personas on a college sports website that I frequent. It's sports-centric but it mentioned Chud.com AND I thought it pretty well defined the different categories of posters lurking out there.

http://http://utahstate.scout.com/2/520203.html

Message boards are a love/hate thing with me. Sure love some of the content, sure hate most of it. But what the hell, it beats workin'.