We Are Essentially 'Virtual People' Online
Not really virtual, but it's as close as I could come to coining a conceptual term for it.
A new Café friend recently emailed me and asked a question about how she might convey a message of gratitude to another Café friend in a comment post without making a Big Deal out of it. I didn't remember reading her friend's thread she was alluding to, but I have been considering it for a couple days. I was having mind-pictures of their possible relationship, and how it was necessarily almost totally based on words on a computer screen, and each of their perceptions and memories of those words and expressions. Yikes.
My musings led me further to wondering about the kerfuffle some of us have been engaged in at the Café recently, and about some of the elements that might be at play when we attempt to dialogue here, and the facts that influence what are really, just typed-on-a-keyboard messages and comments.
Anonymity must play a huge part in it all. We can present ourselves as anyone we want to be; no one knows our names, our social or economic statuses, our work, our physical descriptions, our ages--unless we reveal them. And as some wag pointed out a few weeks ago: I use my own name; but how do you know I'm not making it up? .But in the end, we don't have to be accountable for ourselves past the online communities we hang out in, at least until we change our screen names.
Lots of us choose avatars to represent ourselves, and they must mean something to us. Some are icons we're all familiar with, some are art projects, some are hideous, some are flagrantly in-your-face, and some are cartoon characters or animals or birds. And we can change them at will; but we choose them for a reason.
One of the most common truths about online communication is the lack of inhibition, or typing things we probably would not say in person. When we speak in person, we can get some cues from our listeners as to how they might be taking our comments, myriad possibilities of facial expressions, body language, any of which could influence our words. Online we can be pissy at will. We can also feel dissociated from blogging life, as though it's something we can walk away from; almost as though our words have no consequences in real life, whatever that is. (smile) The loss of inhibition has upsides and downsides; it can move people to share more of themselves without fear of judgment from family or friends. It can cause us to be generous and charitable, but it can also loosen our cruel sides, and we become more critical and harsh, or worse, than we are in our daily lives
We bring a lot of ourselves to the table at the Café; we perceive what we read through our own lenses, and we can react in the moment in ways that are colored by our past experiences, good, bad or whatever. For instance, say if I have a chich with Mr. Authoritarian Voice, whose voice do I hear in my head? It might be someone whose authority I either battled or succumbed to in my past, and I react even more strongly in the present. Or I can get an attitude: recently I asked a blogger what she meant by something she wrote, and he (turned out he was a "he") answered that he was talking about the immorality of tearing those sweet babies out of their mothers' wombs." I swear to God, I still can click to open his blogs, looking for something else he might have to say, something I might even agree with a little, though I seem to be catching on to this futility (another smile). You can imagine scores of other examples.
I've noticed that, try as I may, I can react to certain avatars the same way, whether it's the actual avatar or associations with the content that the avatar has come to represent to me. It's hard to take each remark on its own merit.
I find it frustrating that there aren't many ways to convey how my words are intended, and I suppose others of you may feel that way. Or I might not type all the words I meant to type, hit Submit, and only find out later I Screwed Up; meanwhile maybe people had commented to that which I hadn't meant at all. It happened this morning, and I even had thought I was clear enough about what I had said. Unless a person has the time to baby-sit a blog and the comments, the blog can take on a life of its own. We project ourselves onto the writing; I think that fact is inescapable. We can validate each other, attack each other, or even help each other see other parts of an issue. Often I need time to pass before I can comment, and so often the thread is just closing when I post. Most of you seem to answer each other jig-quick, like a reflex; for me, my first reaction is not always that worthy...of course, you may not like my second or third, but...there it is. (smile)
I hear experts say that lots of people claim they are more nearly their "true selves" online. Gads, I hope not, and I doubt it. I've been wondering how much different any of us are from who and what we project at the Café, whether it's intentional or not, and if we shouldn't be checking out some of the possible dangers of that?
If I say to my husband, "So-and-so said this to me online, harrumph! " I have to wonder if I'm not just a leeetle bit over-invested in this other Reality.
This is my entrée after a hiatus here; I have been upset by attacks lately. I didn't like the conservatives' attacks all that much, but when the Lefties started jumping me, I really didn't like it. I had been thinking that I didn't have to be in lock-step with every belief on the left, or that there was plenty of room for discussion, anyway.
Anyway, I am just one of the Virtual People, but I will try to remember that we are all really human beings and act accordingly.
You may get a little grief for raising these thoughts but I for one thing it is a good thing to talk about talking about things. So if you are accused of raising a “meta” question and wasting time on a “political blog” then so be it. At least your “virtual” persona has more than one facet.
Speaking of personas I think every person everywhere is always striking a pose. I don’t swear in certain people’s presence and I swear freely in others. I talk politics and religion with some and not with others. And so on. I have not concluded yet that I suffer from multiple personality disorder. There are many things about which I am not certain so while I may assert a point of view on some matter I feel free to change that point of view after learning more. I am more careful now in my advanced age about speaking easily about things but I have many times in the past had to say “I’ve changed my thinking on this.” A lot of that learning came from conversation with people with whom I strongly disagree.
On the matter of civility in writing I think you have it about right when you speak of inhibition. I choose my words carefully and then I feel obliged to stand behind them. I can tell when some comment or even a whole post is loosely formed and I usually ignore it all together since the writer would probably want to rephrase or recant if taken seriously. On the other hand I am all for fun in writing. The definition of a “wit” is someone who says what everyone else already knows but says it best. In this regard I recommend Quinn Esq as the resident wit at the Café.
The best issue you raise is the one about being understood or misunderstood. It is fascinating how my written words seem so clear to me and are so totally opaque to a reader. This is the great value of writing to a heterogeneous audience. One quickly learns what words express something clearly and what words are just coded babble. Long live the art of writing.
If this were a real café and each of us patrons it would not come as any surprise that each of us has different moods on different days. “Bob lost his job yesterday and is bummed. Mary is in love again. Tom is giving the same Libertarian rant as always.” It may be a little different in the environment of an internet café but I have not yet seen anything that I didn’t see many times in the café life of North Beach in San Francisco or the other chatty venues of the 1960’s.
Most of the people here are decent and serious and considerate which is the way it is in the “real” world. On the other hand there are just some people on the bus that you shouldn’t talk to. So welcome back if that is appropriate but don’t talk to those guys over there. They’re crazy.
September 13, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment, larry. I like wit, too, though mine falls short sometimes! I agree in principal about persona and even Masks; I have failed at them, and usually say "fuck" in front of our christianist realtives...not so much of a monitor on my mouth. I tend to be MORE careful online, but I think that once agian, I am an anomaly.
I have been so surprised by the level of relationships that seem to have develped here: friendships, enemy-ships, and frenemy-ships, if I can make up some more words.
I applaud y our learning; I do, too, but I suppose I learn best from those who want to educate me, not condemn me. It may be that I'm too sensitive, but I hadn't ever thought of myself that way. You are dear to share so much here.
September 13, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, look at all the typos...jeez.
September 13, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So my name and avatar doesn't fool you either, eh?
Well, there's been some discussion for the past few years about on-line video games where people have a tendency to be the ugly, red-haired, alter-ego of themselves.
Then again, talking points boards allows people the option to air what they really think in private to an audience they'll never face in real-life. Think of it as a proofing soundboard to see if you really understand the issues and can articulate those thought in a manner that is acceptable to an unknown audience.
Of course, there are those who just want to be mean-spirited and cast as much grief as they can on unsuspecting people too naive to realize they're being gamed by a class clown.
So it really doesn't matter if you're being truthful about who you are or hide behind a fake name and avatar ... it's what you say and how well it's accepted by the community you mingle with really counts. No one really cares if your name is Frank or Francis - they like what Tahutamous, that crazy Pharaoh, has to say.
September 13, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I think you're missing the point I was raising, but I can't quite put my finger on it. More that it is almost another reality here, and how easy it is to get caught up in it. Not so much about fake names and avatars, but what you choose to be, and how ironic it all is sometimes. Once again, i'll have to think about it some.
Hell, no, beetle, you are still the stuff of my nightmares! Yow! Scary biscuits! I am cobblepot on some sites, i swear id on't know why. Some asshat site demanded a screen name, and i typed that. A year later i had to go in search of which character that actually was. But those compund names just slay me! Beetlejuice is one!
September 13, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I got your point. Note where I bring up alter-egos, people too shy to be themselves and those mean-spirited types. The problem with virtual reality blogging is that a persona does get lost in all those bits that hit the wire. As for hiding behind a false image I can't argue that, else I'd be labeled a hypocrite, but it's all in the name of fun. It's not so much what I represent, but what I say that really should matter. Perhaps it's a natural, inborn instinct we have for the need of a frame of reference to believe in some one or thing. Some can leap the chasm while others are not sure if it's wise to do so. Still others have personal doubt because of the uncertainty of the individual behind the avatar - they tend to place a higher value on the face value of honesty which an avatar robs them of.
September 14, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the avatars can be fun! Or they can be provacative! I was not meaning that we hide behind them, but that they become part of our virtual online character in terms of how people react to them.
For instance, I could post my own face as my avatar, but then it would scare the horses, distracting from my message.
I don't even think that some people use the anonymity online to BE someone else consciously, but some take advantage of it. It sounds like that isn't the case for you; that's cool. I was asking if people would check themselves out, and you did.
For instance, lalo's avatar: I couldn't get what it WAS, then someone commented about it, and how perverse it was; now it irks me to see it. Maybe lalo wanted us to be irked, or maybe I too easily bought into that interpetation, but now I'm stuck with it.
September 14, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what you're saying, it sounds to me like lalo is playing out his/her alter-ego and mean-spiritedness in both an avatar and comments. So let me ask you this ... how do you pronounce potato and tomato? Cheers!
September 14, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you handsome, silver-tongued devil!
Do you remember the SNL sketch christopher walken did with a little soft-shoe? "You say poe-tay-toe, and I say poe-tay-toe..."?
September 14, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, I always appreciate your thoughts and your comments. I've been blogging for only a short time, and I've only been on TPM for a few months, but I've done the forum route for many years. I couldn't begin to guess who is real and who is not. There are saints and there are pricks and all those in between. There are the truly smart ones and then there are the ones who won't be convinced that they aren't all that smart.
I have to say that I've found more of them on the smart side here on TPM, but there are some who personalize everything and/or pounce on every little error or honest mistake. I stay away from them. I just can't be bothered. If I'm going to go to the trouble to give a long answer it'll be only to those comments that advance the conversation. I have no problem ignoring the pricks. Nothing I can say is going to change them, anyway.
But that doesn't mean I'm always careful with my words. Passion is the name of the game, and sometimes it gets out of hand. When we come onto these forums we know we're not in polite company. Anonymity adds fuel to the fire, but sooner or later we're about as real as we would be anywhere.
We all want to be liked, but more important, we want to be understood.
September 13, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, ramona. I had done so much imagining about the Virtual idea of it all, I wondered if anyone else had considered it much. As in: when the flame-throwing starts and deepens, are we really shooting the flames at unresolved parts of ourselves or people in our pasts? Or even archetypes we despise? It seems sometimes as though we stop being able to Hear Each Other through some veil; I'm trying to suss out why the veils might be so available. Ahhh, I'm getting tripped up trying to turn the pictures in my mind into words. You and many others are probably much the same in TPM life as in your everyday life. I like the passion, too, and I have popped off a few times at people here, too; once I felt squirrely about it afterward, other times I felt just fine.
September 13, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Wendy, for casting a discerning gaze on this issue which in internet terms is new, if it is timeless in other versions of forthrightness versus obfuscation.
September 13, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome, wendy. You have such a sane and level head always, and a big heart.
September 13, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject your premise, with curdled, bitter anger. I am precisely who I present myself as being: an angry nonagenarian sporting a bowler hat.
What do you have against fictional Internet identities? That is a rhetorical question, "wendy davis," take care not to answer it!
Feh, I say.
Feh!
September 13, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loves ya, Old Man! My name is really g
Agatha Griselda Merriweather. Please don't spread it around. I am trusting you, you old fart-nozzle.
September 13, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you get out a magnifying glass and look carefully, you will find that your display is made up of tiny glowing points of light.
That is all.
September 13, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, shoot-fire, merrill; ya just gotta expand on that. Hell, i need a magnifying glass to see my f'ing FEET, anymore! "That is all" is sooo native american, yes? Points of light?? She loves light; that's why she looooves birds! They are all about points of light.
September 13, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fascinating" as Spock would say. This is good material, Wendy. You're dancing around the event horizon of a pretty powerful philosophical black hole, in fact. Let's call it "the life of the self."
Have you ever read Plato's "Phaedrus?" Luckily it's online here if you want to try it out:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html
"Phaedrus" tackles the difference between speaking and writing - which is pretty profound when you get into the nitty-gritty of it. Following Plato's lead, speaking face to face or by telephone also is profoundly different. Writing a novel or writing a blog comment is different. Twitter is probably quite different than email (I've never twitted, so I'm just guessing.)
So how does this all stand with "the life of the self?" Just think, all human cultures on earth, as far as I know, have used masks. Wearing a mask is transformative - like you become a different person behind the mask. The speech we listen to from mass media is unique, in that it is mostly scripted. Anyway, I'm glossing over ten thousand pages of theory just to get to a point I want to make about "the life of the self."
Why should we believe that there is such a thing as a "true self?" LarryH talks about different "personas" above, so I have to ask if one of these personas is more real, true or genuine than the rest? My argument is no - they're all coequal. But my belief is that our very sense of "self" is the product of our use of symbolic forms, especially language. The linguist Julia Kresteva wrote words to the effect that "our very first act of semiosis (mentally relating a thing, such as a sound, to a meaning) represents the birth of the ego." Is it any wonder that so many of our creation stories say "In the beginning, there was the word (logos)?
So if each narrative event we enter is played out under the authority of different grammars - speaking, writing, telephone conversations, and so on- then is it reasonable to expect that the condition to the self also takes on different form? And is it reasonable to claim that one form, even an imaginary form, has some truck over the rest? Personally, I think of the "self" as a diamond with many facets without one facet being the "real" facet.
September 13, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
neobono, you are so correct when you said ..."speaking face to face or by telephone also is profoundly different... !
A lot of our understanding of language is based on facial clues about the intent we hear. A phone conversation robs us of those facial clues. And so does video conferences - you see the people but not the subtle facial expressions where the emphasis is being placed.
By the way, are you aware neoboho can be rearranged to spell hobo one?
September 14, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least on the phone you have vocal tones and nuances, plus synchronicity. Real time vs. that other thing!
September 14, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neoboho: elegant analysis and thanks for mentioning Julia Kristeva who is worth reading on any subject.
September 14, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self may also be related to our incessant (for many of us) internal dialogue. It is what the sages warn us is imperative to shut out, that it is constantly describing our reality for us, and we miss everything that is going on in spite of our puny abilities to "see." I think that is what i adored about LSD, it allowed us to venture into other realms, other pieces and connections we did not see, but were there all the time. It is also why I loooove dreams. Things are allowed that we Know Are Impossible. I want to be a lucid dreamer before I die, and it has been years since I read the Phaedrus, though Plato could tallk me into anything, I swear to God. Aristophanes was my soul-mate for awhile (giggle, snort.) Thanks, boho. I am watching Benny and Joon on the teevee; I think it's one of the ten best movies ever made. It frees me up the way few films can. Good night.
Don't you wish there were either more words, or less sometimes? I think it's why I invent words so often.
September 13, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bugger, boho! I forgot one thing. It's not that I mind this form of communicating; I am just suggesting that we do some of this with Awareness, with some Consciousness, and still find time to watch the sky and the plants grow, and learn to recognize some birdsongs. And not live in emotional states that are self-abnegating and unrealized. I want to die well, in other words.
September 13, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Author! Author!
(btw, I just found Benny and Joon on Netflix instant download. Cresencia and I will watch it shortly. What a great cast. thnx)
September 13, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You check out Benny and Joon; I will check out the Phaedra! Give my best to Cresencia; I am so glad you have each other.
September 13, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egads, bobo; sorry for this. Two vodkas, and I get this verbose and off-topic. Talk about "lack of inhibition"! Sheesh.
September 14, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder, sometimes, to what extent we're really anonymous. For one thing, if somebody really wanted to know my real identity, there are ways. Josh or one of his peeps could tell them, just using the site's record but really anybody with google and too much time could probably figure it out. I'm not all that well hidden.
Heck, I've considered, many times, doing the old switcheroo and just posting here under my own name.
But, destor23 is... somebody around here. Destor23 has a history and friends and arguments and shared ideas and switching would break a continuity that I actually think matters (at least to me).
Which, ramblingly, brings me to something more relevant in your post. Does being anonymous really give us license? Yes and no. If my only goal is to spread false information or hurl invective or start fights then yes it certainly does. But if I actually care about my online identity's continuity and place in the community then it doesn't grant me any license at all. The identity, whether or not it bears any relation to what people call me offline, has value that has to be protected. So then no, no it doesn't.
Around the Cafe I've seen quite a few big apologies from former rhetorical bomb throwers who suddenly realize that it's not so great to have 50 or 100 people publicly disregard you.
September 13, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase what Bill Maher said on his show this week when Richard Clarke made a rather candid remark about Cheney: this is the reason it's great to have someone who is out of office on this program.
Being anonymous allows us all to be out of office.
;-)
September 13, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a good one, from you and Maher!
September 14, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is, once you have an "audience," you have successfully created a "persona." It's a construct, a literary invention. If you've ever kept a diary and read it years later, it often sounds like a stranger wrote it: someone who is not you.
You can belabor the accuracy of your persona (iow, you can try to convey your true self as honestly as possible), but the audience will always have its own interpretation of you. For instance, if you change your avatar, you can alter the audience's perception of you. You didn't in fact change anything about you, you simply changed a picture. But the audience will respond differently to a different pic.
September 13, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you; that's part of what I mean: we filter a lot through our ownselves. Some shrinks I read on this subject were discussing lots of levels of "self" online. Their contention was that for every layer we declare honestly and openly, there is a layer we hide. I wouldn't mind figuring out what that means.
I've only ever kept a dream diary, but just a few words used to take me right back there.
Thanks for giving me another thought to think about, gasket.
September 14, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do not know. in a fog right now.
The Persona is all I can think of right now. Kind of in the tone of Neo.
I have come to know a lot of people here. I first commented, read comments, received replies to comments. Then I receive and send emails. Then I even have spoken to some of these friends on the phone.
My name is my name; my town is listed....
Kind of a hermit for six long years.
Do you really 'know' that person in the office? (I ran one for twenty five years. Or do you only know one of his personas?
Deeply complicated or really simplistic?
Drop by once in awhile Wendy.
I get a kick out of reading you.
September 14, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I get a kick out of you," too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsVVmXkt5Ks
Couldn't help it...there are Sinatra versions, too.
September 14, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, Wendy. I don't think I'm different, that I play a persona, here. This is pretty much me. It's not the anonymity/virtuality of interaction, in my mind. What does have an effect is the multi-level nature of the format of interaction. This is at teh same time a community sharing certain interests and discussing them, and a public forum with a perceived or potential larger audience. So you get a mix of posts, some are more spectator-sport - predictions and interpretation of political events or social trends. Some are more activist/participant oriented: calls to arms, condemnations, exhortations. Which leads to different reactions to such posts.
If in a real-world conversation someone espouses some right-wing talking points, or disingenious concern-trolling, I don't get too worked up about it. It's just another idiot spouting off. But if I see such things in a public format - as it is here - hijacking threads, subtle lies and misdirection - that demands a different reaction because it affects public discourse both locally on the site and also beyond, however slightly. Not slapping this crap down, or calling it out for what it is, amounts to condoning it. Because it ends up standing out there as unanswered and so insinuates itself into the framing or construction of future discourse.
Anyway, your post is food for thought...
thanks.
September 14, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I played Shirley Bassey singina "I am what I am" yesterday for a group of virtual friends. I have to turn the song around, "I can't be what I am not"--at least not consistently or for very long. So what you see is what you get, a Sr. academic wearing a black shirt and a Santa Beard, whose name is really Mike. Not the Mike, just aMike.
September 14, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I think we all get that you are you. But come to think of it, what is "A" mike? Pretty modest, eh wot? How's the school teaching going so far? Well, I hope. Them young whipper-snappers need some good teachers.
September 14, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a hoot. I hope they are. No shoes thrown yet, anyhow.
September 14, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink