I wonder to what extent the anonimity of posting to a list,
the security from physical retribution no matter how inflammatory one's remarks,
contribute to a release from certain patterns of social interaction that
are ordinarily present when interacting in person.--
do not even try to relate this to real world groups. i behave in this group in a manner that only works on the net. if I were to actually see you and see who nodded and who frowned at my comments , i would probably shut up real quick :-)
the real vers non real anology is a semantic problem. better is online behaivor vers off line behaivor. my online social behaivor is different from my off line counterpart, because the social clues i am responding to are so different
I am pretty sure there are quite direct relationships between how people behave on the net and how they are in real life. Some behavior gets exaggerated because of the lack of direct feedback -- but that just means this behavior is easier to see. Other people work so hard not to portray their usual selves that they show a sort of mirror image
I behave at funerals in a manner that only works at funerals, much different than I behave at other spectator activities such as symphonies or football games. I behave differently around my mother than I do around my cronies on the loading dock. And of course, I behave differently on the net. But in each case my motives are more or less the same: I strive to contribute to the activity in a way which will be rewarding for me and not too abusive on others.
The more folks protest that "this is different," the more one can see the glaring similarities, especially if one has a lot of experience actually working with groups
I had orignally hoped that there would be some lists that operated more on a "don't agree, don't disagree, don't daydream basis."
The netdynamic principle I was searching for was something about how these groups are made up of people who for whatever reason may be attracted to this medium because it seems to offer the freedom to behave without the "cumbrances" of *reality* (whatever that is for each of us); and there may just come a time when reality re-enters (in the form of a f2f connection or in the form we might like least: That we find ourselves behaving *exactly* like we always do -- except I still think this isexagerrated here) -- And that this is something we may want and not want at the same time
Some of it, of course, is really just rudeness. But sometimes people are rude because they want to call attention to themselves
Why is this behavior being tolerated?
So, to type, perchance to play:
The computer is bleeding and I need to wait a bit I think to let it calm down and stop printing gibberish (or is it expletives). I tried to abort the message but hit the send button by accident. Yeah, by accident.
To a person whose primary tool is a hammer, most problems look like nails
At first, of course, I was going to change everyone. Once I spoke, people would naturally see the wisdom of my ways, and everyone would flock to my point of view. As often happens in real life when I take this approach, the results were dissappointing.
By far, the best functioning, most interesting list I'm on is the Harley digest. 500+ riders in 19 countries discuss everything from rank newbie questions to incredibly arcane stuff about how to rebuild a transmission.
Communication is a subset of the stucture of an e-list, structure is one construct which can be used to describe netdynamics. A small part is vital, but cannot subsume the whole.
This entire message is about as intelligent as a sea monkey farm....
there are aspects to digital dynamic that have no rl counterparts. and those are the ones that i like to think about
Return to Index