I'd never be saying this in person

[andrewducker]

Re: this entry by despotliz. (Yes, it's friends-locked - it's just full of comments that are more frank than you'd expect from a bunch of people that don't know each other that well if they were chatting in real life).

[Poll #852741]

Comments

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

I've made it a personal rule not to have conversations online that I'd be too embarassed to have in person. My litmus test for whether to post something online, is thinking about whether I'd be prepared to say to the face of all the people who might read it.

Yes, this means I don't post much online.

[dougs.livejournal.com]

My personal rule is logically equivalent, but very different in tone; to be prepared to have conversations in person that I'd be okay about having online. If I'd say it online, why not say it in person?

Yes, this means that I say far too much in person.

[andrewducker]

I'm working towards that - using online conversations as a confidence booster and way of learning more social interaction skills that I can then use in real life.

It's a long process, and the bootstrapping phase took about 10 years, but I'm getting there :->

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I tend to think of real life interactions as the more real/authentic of real life versus online interactions, and therefore in order to feel comfortable with online interactions which I feel are kind of artificial I need to base them as much on my real life interactions as possible. Real life interactions are fundamental to me, and operate as the model I use to base all my interactions on.

Whereas the approach you and dougs take would indicate that you feel that online interactions are, if not more real, then at least as real and as fundamental as real life interactions, and therefore they can constructively be used as a model for in person interaction.

[andrewducker]

I don't think of online as being more authentic than real life. But I do think it can serve as a valuable "training ground".

I've had loud arguments online that I'd never have been able to deal with in person and debates that are too complex to have without a record of exactly what's been said.

I used to be _much_ lower in my self-confidence, and being able to talk to people online boosted my real life confidence a lot.

I don't base my real life interactions on my online ones, or vice versa. I just interact, and frequently find it easier online where I can stop, think about things, and come back later when I've thought about things/calmed down.

somewhat a rambling

[mirukux.livejournal.com]

the annoying thing about a lot of heated real life conversations is that you can only really stick with one thread of an issue, otherwise things get rather off-topic, although the thing about having an argument is that you have a specific point to make, so if you can remember that and systematically go through the areas of thought relating this point (starting off with the major duh kind of stuff) until the other party gives up, then you're pretty much sorted.

online conversations are good in the way that there is a log of what has been said, and if there's a threaded comment/msg system then all the better, but my main gripe with them is that they're soooo... slooow... where as in real life you can instantly get a responce and be able to gague on the fly others body language and expression to be able to judge if they're understanding the point that you're trying to make.

saying that, if it wasn't for my plunge into the deep end with the lj philosophy communities, i'd have never learnt how to put forth an argument properly or how to weed out fallacies in others statements, although the problem now is that i want to talk about epistemology, metaphysics and morals, yet it's kinda hard to find others who feel the same at after/flat/etc-parties (the main places i get to talk with other people in rl) and don't just go "hey man, it's all relative!".

Re: somewhat a rambling

[andrewducker]

I can relate to all of that (althought you'd have to replace "communities" with "mailing lists" and "usenet groups"). And I rarely get to discuss any of the subjects you listed either. You should put up a post or two on the topics you're interested in, and I'll leap on your entirely erroneous chains of logic :->

Re: somewhat a rambling

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I find that sort conversation amusing/engrossing (but without the jargon terms, cos I am not a pro, not can I be @rsed, nor do i think they are necessarily necessary). You are right, it is rare in real life. Though one yacht trip had one very deep discussion on the nature and purpose of charity going on on deck, whilst I was having one about the subjective nature of reality in the companionway. good stuff when it happens.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

There are very few things I get embarassed about (my own incompetence, mainly), and I the level of conversation I can manage on that topic is pretty much the same in person or online, I think. No doubt there might be a slight difference that I can't detect/recall.

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

Not a lot, but I have done. Chief place I have done it is a women's only community and spin off both gender safe space community.

But then I'm not particularly afraid of TMI.

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

On the occasions when I avoid real-life conversations, I do so on the grounds of other people's potential embarrassment, rather than my own. So they're not conversations that I'd be embarrassed about having in person, just conversations that I'm not sure other people would be comfortable with in person.

[andrewducker]

I think that textual interactions have a certain amount of buffer - they feel somehow safer, as you're having them from the privacy of your own home. This makes it easier for many people to talk about things they might not if they were doing so in front of someone else.

[ninox.livejournal.com]

I've never been able to decern a difference between online conversation and in person. Sometimes people look confused at me if a raise a topic as a continuation of an online conversation. That I find weird. You are still passing on the same information, regardless of format. The security blanket of the net is you might not necessarily have to deal directly with those that you interact with, therefore for some it lifts normal caution.

I'm less likely to argue online, as darn it - people can quote you more accurately. I do find text a good form of communication if you don't particularily want to disturb someone, or it's a quick message before you rush out the door for to do something else. Pity it's not so effective the other way as I am terrible at charging phone, remembering switching it on. Call me an interested on looker to the information society.

Far prefer conversing in person. I find it strange what you said about the internet as a training ground. Though I consider you Andy of Borg in many respects, you are quite capable of social interaction but since advent of more advanced IT packages, I'm not entirely sure it has fully benefited you in the way you ineract. I find that online communities attract a certain persona type which may give you a slightly biased view. I believe there has been plenty of studies completed on the user types.

[andrewducker]

I believe there has been plenty of studies completed on the user types.

Cite!

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

you forgot the grammar corrections :-)

[andrewducker]

I don't correct people's spelling and grammar online. I write fast enough (and rewrite in my head) enough that I make mistakes of my own, and I don't think that correcting grammar in online discussions does much beyond distract people from the actual content.

[ninox.livejournal.com]

Yeah I know but I only really care a work then I'm pendantic too!

blog demographics

[ninox.livejournal.com]

OK.

It is generally accepted that the computer realm is a male orientated domain. Over the last few years there has been a narrowing of the gender gap. Loads of papers have been published on the gender differences in the use of IT. Here is one example - chosen mainly because you can access the full text. In global terms this is considered part of the so called digital divide.

A quick search for stuff relating to blogs brings up this. This states that blog users are more likely to be more likely to be young, male, well educated, internet veterans. Andy you are a stereotype *grin*

So initially the group may be considered biased on ground of ICT competence. Logically you need to think about how people join the various communities and discussion lists i.e. people they know (usually friends due to something in common), links and communities. These they have followed through common interest. It is a case of like attracts like as with the formation of many social sets. You therefore tend to unwittingly bias the formation of any community group and therefore any discussions within. I know that you try to generalise as much as possible to open up discussions, but generally a survey of your friends group is likely to show similarities in nature.

[wychwood]

I've had quite a lot of online conversations I wouldn't have had in person! To be fair, it's partly because the people I've been talking to aren't people I know offline; if I *did* know them IRL, I might talk to them there as well.

On the other hand, particularly with fandom stuff - it's a lot easier to talk about sex-related issues when you don't have to look the other person in the eye! It's not that I'm necessarily ashamed of saying whatever it is, but IRL I get uncomfortable really quite easily.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

I said "yes", but I really mean "too inhibited" rather than "too embarrassed". Online I don't blush, stammer or giggle, and I'm not too intimidated by people's physical presence to state my views as strongly as I see fit.

[andrewducker]

I'm not too intimidated by people's physical presence to state my views as strongly as I see fit.

A power that can be used for both good and evil, as can be seen in internet forums wide and far.

(And something that applies to me too)

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

hmmm, maybe, as a person with slightly scary body language and I should/do make use of the opposite effect....

[darkoshi]

Ditto on that for me.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Much prefer to talk face to face than online. I get more out of the conversation and there's less chance of anything being misinterpreted.

[shannon_a]

Only ever so vaguely. I don't think I say things online that I wouldn't say IRL, but sometimes I'd prefer to talk to someone online over in-person because I just don't want to deal with the back-and-forth.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

The thing I find most difficult about online conversations is that you can't judge how the other person was feeling:

(a) When (s)he made the post / comment
(b) When (s)he reads the response

Thus, I find it qutie easy to have abstract debate online, but more difficult where the subject affects one of the participants. In other words, I'm really shit at knowing what to say when someone posts about a sad event in their life, because it's so much more difficult not to be trite when you can't see your audience and your 'throwaway' comment is there semi-permanently on the internet.