Ship of Fools: You are What You Bleat: Online paralleling Reality

Thread: You are What You Bleat: Online paralleling Reality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026986

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A recent study reveals truth in what many have thought: A bastard online, a bastard offline.
I would take this further and say this applies to all personality types. Obviously a bit less so for the introverted and not a perfect mirror.
As I type this, I realise I have a relatively recent OP of a similar nature. But the troll study begins to add weigh to the notion of online being an extension of "real life" rather than a seperate world.
Does this study begin to confrm what you believe, do you believe opposite? Does it make you stop to reconsider how you are viewed online as an indicator to who you truly are?

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I'd tend to agree with the findings. I think it's very hard for us to completely reprogram our responses for different spheres of our lives and that basically our personality types will show through to some degree.

There was also a study done on moral choices and behaviour in video games which shows that most people, most of the time will make good moral choices despite consequences. Link here: http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/08/playing-the-hero-why-we-make-good-moral-choices-in-video-games/

So really, I think the internet/virtual environments are just a larger and more impersonalised village market place. If our tendency is to be nice and considerate and reflective that will show through. If we don't care much about others and equally do not feel cared about that will reflect itself in trolling and abusive comments.

Of course there's also the whole dimension of how the internet and Facebook/Twitter encourage in us a narcissism that may actually mean people are becoming less sensitised to the feelings and emotions of others removed physically from themselves.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm a lot more outgoing online than I am in real life. But that is only because typing gives you time to think through what you want to say before you say it, rather than the conversation having moved on before you get a chance, IRL. But I'd like to hope that the goodwill behind my thoughts are the same whether online or not. I know it might be naïve, but in most cases I assume that others are the same.

There is, of course, the occasional piss-taker that deliberately creates an alternative persona for use online. Some of them are more obvious than others.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm a lot more outgoing online than I am in real life. But that is only because typing gives you time to think through what you want to say before you say it, rather than the conversation having moved on before you get a chance

I am considerably more emotive face-to-face, though I have laboured to increase that online. Part of the difference is lack of immediate, and visible, reaction. I would say that I am generally more polite online in words, though the lack of tone might make it seem otherwise. However, the core of me, my beliefs, principles are the same.
I think we show more of who we are than many care to believe. In protracted interaction, at least. I think one would need be a bit of a sociopath to maintain a separate identity.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think the absolute A-#1 way the internet allows me to be inauthentic is it allows me to make some smart-ass remark when I am actually gutted by something -or-other. I have literally typed ROFL! with tears streaming down my face.And I think it confuses people when I run out of snappy remarks.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

What's been said so far here seem to suggest that you're allowed to be 'more' yourself than you normally are, not less. i.e that you would say what you say online in normal circumstances given the right time to think.

Kelly, I've been exactly where you describe in hiding my true emotional responses to others online. But then, from what you were saying that's to hide the effect someone has had on you and not hiding yourself to have an effect on them. And I think we all do that when we want to not hurt, offend or ruffle feathers in face to face situations. The internet just makes it easier.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, if you're going to be a troll, presumably it's because you enjoy it and the reaction it creates. So it stands to reason that you enjoy getting the same type of reaction in real life.

Having said that, it's been remarked to me more than once that I seem warmer and friendlier in real life than I do on the internet. I have a lovely smile, and you can't see my lovely smile and generally expressive face online.

Also, while I can and do say some fairly blunt things in real life, I'm probably a little less likely to say them directly to the person I'm being blunt about and am likely to use a tone of voice that conveys a bit of well-meaning warmth. On the internet it's a bit difficult to soften the hard-edged pixels.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Also, there's the element of geography. Almost everyone I encounter in the real world is Australian and understands Australian cultural values, where informality and straight talking are usually assets not liabilities.

Online I'm most likely to upset someone who comes from a culture that emphasises polite formalities more than Australian culture does. Which, to be honest, covers a lot of places.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I am no different online from offline.

Impulsive, ordinary, opinionated, cheerful and slightly whacky.

[Smile]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

For me, WYSIWYG.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
For me, WYSIWYG.

ISTM, this is not perfectly possible online v. in person. So much of our communication is more than our actual words that the subtleties are lost. As is context of acquaintance. Some of this can be offset by longevity in a forum such as this, I think, however still not as well as face-to-face.
On the other side of the equation, for me, online allows for perhaps a bit more openness in some regards because of the anonymity. Still exploring this, so perhaps not as coherent as could be.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Because of the time it takes to type most posts, we also get some opportunities for editing. Don't know about the rest of you, but I compose some posts, look at them, think "no, that doesn't cut it" then delete them.

Not so easy to do in RL bleating. So I guess you get a more "expurgated" version of me here than say, my wife does. But it's still me.

I haven't got the imagination or the capacity for subterfuge required to be either a successful troll or a kind of Walter Mitty self-projection. Also, you need a very good memory if you want to do anything like.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, it is not just good memory, but constant vigilance.
Much easier to simply be honest. Or at least not lie.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think the absolute A-#1 way the internet allows me to be inauthentic is it allows me to make some smart-ass remark when I am actually gutted by something -or-other. I have literally typed ROFL! with tears streaming down my face.And I think it confuses people when I run out of snappy remarks.

Yes, I was pulled up once for saying something was 'amusing' - in a very similar situation. Extreme irony, borne out of painful experience, doesn't always translate well on the page.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I think what we write reflects who we are - opinions and personality, etc, but what our readers actually read might be different.

I wrote something on facebook the other day and someone told me to stop being so aggressive - but that's not how I wrote my words, I wasn't intending to be aggressive, I wasn't feeling aggressive. The missing factor of course is tone of voice, facial expression and body language.

Emoticons go a little way to help, of course, but a amily face doesn't always make a sentence 'smily' - and sometimes I've known people to use a smily face to pretend they were being nice.

Humour, irony and gentle sarcam doesn't always travel across continents and sometimes might indeed come across as aggression, hostility and anger.
None of us would hold aggressive conversations on the subjects we discuss (hell excepting) so I think we have to assume that most of of are typing in the way we speak. If we come across as other than that, maybe it is in actual fact the lack of sound and vision that causes it.

There have also been times - on Facebook mainly - when I have written something that was a bit 'hasty' and I have felt really guilty and have removed it. So regret still comes into play. The difference of course here is that once it's written it has to remain and we can't erase our lack of judgment.

[ 28. February 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A recent study reveals truth in what many have thought: A bastard online, a bastard offline.
...
Does this study begin to confrm what you believe, do you believe opposite?

This study indicates a strong correlation between sadistic personality traits (gaining enjoyment out of inflicting pain and humiliation on others) and trolling.

That's a nice confirmation of the wisdom of the old internet advice: "don't feed the troll."

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
What's been said so far here seem to suggest that you're allowed to be 'more' yourself than you normally are, not less. i.e that you would say what you say online in normal circumstances given the right time to think.

I'd largely agree with that. On the internet we don't have to filter our comments to allow for the immediate reaction of the people in the discussion the way we do if they're literally there in the same room as us. We can tell someone exactly what we think about them/their opinions/etc. without any immediate consequences.

Of course, at the same time internet conversation (on a board like this where most of us have avatars rather than pictures of ourselves) doesn't have any of the other filters that we might use in face-to-face interactions. Specifically, we can't treat people differently based on our preconcieved notions of whether someone with their age/sex/gender/skin tone/hair colour/accent/dress style/etc. is a person we'd want to spend time with. It's the great leveller - we truly do interact based solely on our personalities and stated views rather than on superficialities.

Anonymity is internet communication's greatest weakness, but it's also its greatest strength. When the trolls attack I wish the internet could be more like the "real world". But the rest of the time I tend to find myself wishing the "real world" could be more like the internet.

[ 28. February 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
This study indicates a strong correlation between sadistic personality traits (gaining enjoyment out of inflicting pain and humiliation on others) and trolling.

No. The study that late 20s males who admit to trolling are also likely to admit to dark sides of their personality (and the Dark Tetrad questions are pretty transparent here). In both cases it may be simply that people who take pride in trolling also take pride in being seen to be machiavellian/cruel etc.

I don't think you can generalise this any further.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the great leveller - we truly do interact based solely on our personalities and stated views rather than on superficialities.

I think this is naive. Whatever the medium of interaction, we always construct a persona for it, and there always is a communal process that establishes what a "proper persona" should be like for this particular social setting. Judging by these communal standards alone is what we call "superficial" or "prejudiced". But such social guesstimates are also eminently useful, and hence they will never disappear in any regular social environment.

This is a text-based medium, on a computer, so one important aspect of the SoF persona we all project is our mastery of the written English language and the technical means of communication. These are the equivalent of good looks or a strong physique or high social status in a more "real world" setting. The content of what one has to say can easily become secondary to these presentation abilities.

However, I do not believe that there is a "true me", and that the forming of various personae is a kind of masquerade that I cannot stop. Rather, the establishing of personae just is part of my "true me". It is part of what it means to be human, the projection is not artificial. It is the natural response of a human being to other human beings. It is hence in my opinion pointless to seek for some means to see a person "in the raw", and there is nothing particularly great about a setting that reduces our ability to project a persona . That does not show us the "true person", but rather an artificially limited expression of self. It is in our social projections that we become ourselves. It is how we occupy the interpersonal space that to a large part makes us who we are.

Concerning the OP then, this research is rather trite. Of course we can find considerable consistencies between the personae people project in different social settings. We have a word for being able to project inconsistent personae at will over a length of time. It's called "acting", and most people are not good at it. That is shown by the fact that we give a lot of money, power and prestige to those who are really good at it (Hollywood stars, politicians, managers, lawyers, ...). Most people on SoF will be what they are on SoF (in and through an appropriate projection) simply because they aren't good actors.

The real interesting thing is rather that internet trolls can exist. The specifics of the social setting we have constructed allows this. This really is quite fascinating. For example, why does "don't feed the troll" almost always fail, even though it really should work? We might learn some interesting lessons there.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Most people on SoF will be what they are on SoF (in and through an appropriate projection) simply because they aren't good actors.

True for a lot of us. I think the temptation to act is greater because of the anonymity; the choice not to is probably a mixture of integrity and economy.

quote:
The real interesting thing is rather that internet trolls can exist. The specifics of the social setting we have constructed allows this. This really is quite fascinating. For example, why does "don't feed the troll" almost always fail, even though it really should work? We might learn some interesting lessons there.

It is interesting isn't it? Although there are times when trollishness is "in yer face" from very early on, sometimes it isn't that way. It can be hard to spot the difference between the trolls and the rest of us, presumably because the best ones are just better at acting a part. Most of us have been caught out. The best deceptiveness is ... well ... very good deception!

I'm pretty bad at the early spot. Other team members are a lot better.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the great leveller - we truly do interact based solely on our personalities and stated views rather than on superficialities.
I think this is naive. Whatever the medium of interaction, we always construct a persona for it, and there always is a communal process that establishes what a "proper persona" should be like for this particular social setting. Judging by these communal standards alone is what we call "superficial" or "prejudiced". But such social guesstimates are also eminently useful, and hence they will never disappear in any regular social environment.

I wasn't thinking of personas (which I would group under "personalities" in my initial comment), but rather about the way people who wouldn't normally talk to - or indeed, would actively avoid - someone based on how they look is unable to do so here. I can attest from personal experience that over the last eleven years I've gained friends through Ship discussion who I might never have even wanted to talk to had I first encountered them in a face-to-face situation. It's been a real eye-opener for me, and a valuable learning experience.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by IngoB

quote:
why does "don't feed the troll" almost always fail, even though it really should work?

I viewed, rather than read, the initial story and did not find a satisfactory take online. In the one I viewed, it stated that a reaction was unnecessary. The narcissistic tendencies cause the troll to view their activities as disruptive, therefore satisfying, even with no apparent reaction.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Yes, I was pulled up once for saying something was 'amusing' - in a very similar situation. Extreme irony, borne out of painful experience, doesn't always translate well on the page.

I wasn't really describing one situation, I was describing a trend. Sometimes, for instance, I will go from a RL problem to the internet and cheer myself up making wacky comments.

I feel I have boxed myself into a corner, though because it's created a situation where I find people seem to have zero tolerance for me setting any boundaries. Not for the most part, of course, but enough for me to wonder what is going on. It seems like when I say "ENOUGH" sometimes it only leads to more concentrated, more intense attention.

My conclusion is that I have pretended I don't care to the point that people actually think I don't care-- or prefer that I don't.

[ 28. February 2014, 11:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Some people construct a persona through which they wish to be viewed by the world. (I know I did.) It becomes natural to keep that persona up online. In fact, it is probably easier to keep the persona up online than in daily life. There are not as many ways to see that the person posting online says one thing and does another. When that persona become threatened is when nonconstructive behavior usually occurs.

Many years ago now melon got me to read a book by the guy who apparently invented MUD's (online multi user dungeons - you know, what you see as something quest with ads containing blond faery maidens with big hooters.) After years of sociology like observation he discovered several personality types of players as they began. As players began to have longer stays they tended to merge into fewer categories. As they had enough time they tended to become wise older relative types who helped out the "youngsters."

That evolution is not quite as perceptible here on the Ship. And, I have observed several major players mellow out over time. That observation may mean nothing much as life circumstances probably have more to do with it than some process inherent in posting online.

While it may seem logical that one can hide one's "true self" online, I believe that to be an illusion in part. The same brain moves the fingers on the keyboard that moves the mouth in person. The same personality traits are at work. The poster may be projecting their ideal persona in both places - and that persona gives lots of clues to who that person really is.

Just some thoughts.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

The reason I've made relatively few posts in what is a relatively long time is because I worry so much more about how I say something in writing than I would about how I say it in person.

If I said something to you in person, and it caused you pain, I would be instantly, and genuinely, upset for having pained you, and you would be able to see and feel my upset, I could clarify my meaning, and we could move on, in love.

But online, if I say something that hurts you, I might not be around to see your pain, or I might not perceive it. If I do, you might not perceive the sincerity or immediacy of of my shame, and we might not move on at all.

Every one of you is important to me, so the risk involved sometimes seems great.

IRL, if I'm comfortable, if we're chatting over a beer (real ale) or a glass of wine, I'd probably get through the equivalent of hundreds of posts in a couple of hours. So a year's worth of me on-line is about an hour's worth of me in person.

But except for that, I think I'm me.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

PS I'd like to be more relaxed on-line, but I'm not sure how to start.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
That evolution is not quite as perceptible here on the Ship. And, I have observed several major players mellow out over time. That observation may mean nothing much as life circumstances probably have more to do with it than some process inherent in posting online.

I have also seen some people "un-mellow". Again, I presume it is the result of what is happening to them off the ship.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
PS I'd like to be more relaxed on-line, but I'm not sure how to start.

I would hardly say I present a relaxed persona online, but my perception is that my posts more relaxed than when I began on the ship. My posts are certainly longer and more frequent. For me it has been, in part, a concerted effort.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

That evolution is not quite as perceptible here on the Ship. And, I have observed several major players mellow out over time. That observation may mean nothing much as life circumstances probably have more to do with it than some process inherent in posting online.

If I may offer a slight generalisation. I believe a lot of people arrive at the ship after a period of thinking on their faith - usually as a result of reacting against something - which is probably why a lot of people start off being fairly dogmatic about their own positions.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I agree with Erroneous Monk. And add that once it's on the internet, it's there forever. So I try to be very careful what I say and how I say it, much more than in ordinary day-to-day speech. Because if I screw up, I could hurt somebody even years down the line and not know it or be able to fix it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree with Erroneous Monk. And add that once it's on the internet, it's there forever. So I try to be very careful what I say and how I say it, much more than in ordinary day-to-day speech. Because if I screw up, I could hurt somebody even years down the line and not know it or be able to fix it.

Interesting. Because I find that I don't react as much to old stuff than I do to new stuff. Older comments on the internet are like a history book or archaeological dig - a record of past attitudes, not necessarily current ones, and I might be the only one reading. It usually doesn't feel like there's any point responding because it's not going to be a 'conversation'.

That's rather different to the here and now of a message board, or commenting on a current story, where there's far more chance of others responding to what I say and, if I'm responding to someone else, far more chance of the original poster being around to hear me and what I think of their thoughts.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

True. But I could say something really fucked up about a class of people that would still cause pain years later when one of that class ran across it. Similarly I could come out with some really off-beam teaching about God that someone picks up years later and hasn't the experience to know I'm talking out of my ass.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... The difference of course here is that once it's written it has to remain and we can't erase our lack of judgment.

[ 28. February 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

What! Never? [Devil]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A parallel thought: Studies indicate we think ourselves more capable than we objectively are. This links, perhaps, with the notion that we can project a modified reality online.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0