Internet vs. In-person

[Nazz]

This idea has come up quite a bit here lately, and I have to agree that internet communication is not real-- well ok, maybe that's a bit strong-- at least not as real as face to face. What's left out in cyberspace are the more subtle inflections and tones and the "body language" of it all. I guess that's why most of us append our text with selections from the "evil emoticon empire", as Mark put it. (I love that one one!)

But there is a degree of reality in cyber communication; after all, we're using real words and phrases to communicate. To me it always seemed a challenge to express myself as clearly and (hopefully) concisely as possible, with some degree of tact, though not at the expense of core honesty. Easier said than done. When I joined the LK, suddenly I was surrounded by all kinds of different personalities and philosophies-- loose cannons, shock artists, absurdists, right wing nuts, militant socialists, you name it. I'd never been a part of anything like it. I wondered-- how many of these people I could actually find a way to communicate with? It seemed quite the fascinating challenge.

I've met maybe six of the people in person that I've met online, and they were never quite everything I expected from reading their text. When I met Zlatko, he remarked about how I seemed a little different in person than he imagined from my online writing. Yes, it seems the ol' text box, absent any other context, can definitely build up "caricature" perceptions of the person(s) on the other end of the box..

[Lightning Rod]

you can't take anything at face value even face to face
some people are good at body language
just like they are good at written language...or not
some people give great email
some people like the phone

I don't assume that any one of these methods of communication is better than the other. It's according to what you prefer.

I know this strange little community is odd at times and people throw fits and it gets too late at night etc. But I think it's healthy.

Maybe I'm pulling a John McCain here and pronouncing the economy healthy, but I don't think so. Wish you could see my body language. (it's pure comedy...not the language part, the body part) (no emoticon)

[mousey1]

Most definitely. I am quiet as a mouse for the most part in the real word. But I have things I like to say and I like to have a laugh and a joke and some fun. But mostly I'm quiet, doing my own thing.

If I were in a room with all of you there is a good chance I would mostly be listening, laughing, blurting out some nut-bar remark quickly and hopefully concisely. There would be no long-winded speeches, which I seem prone to do here, because I am always worried I'll lose my audience before I get to the good stuff. Plus of course I try to read the faces of my audience and if they look bored well shit I'm shutting up quick. No way that can happen here, you got no faces or eyes to roll!

So I am real, but I am a different real probably than I appear here. I am pleasant, maybe a bit sarcastic in wit, but I've a smile to smooth rough waters should I find myself in them.

When I first came on line I continued to be just me, typing away my personality as I saw it and I found myself defending myself upon occasion! New to me for sure. I am not a controversial person. I avoid confrontation unless dragged into it but then I can stand my ground.

I'm more likable in person I think. But I am always real.

[mousey1]

Oh and I'm smarter on line. I have the time to be. To form my thoughts and choose wisely. Sometimes!

[Nazz]

No, not "better", just different, L-rod. Text-only cannot convey the subtler components of face-to-face nor match its immediacy. On the other hand, text-only offers a chance to compose thoughts more thoughtfully and coherently and transmit them with perhaps more completeness and economy. All forms of communication are real to some extent.

[Doreen Peri]

Well, it's certainly not "real" to only communicate in text. Human beings were made to communicate exclusively in text. I wrote a long post to stilltrucking today about this on his artlog. I'll find it and copy it here in a little while.

Many more miscommunications can happen when communicating in text than when communicating verbally. It's a valid form of communication, sure, but not nearly as complete as in person.

[Nazz]

No way that can happen here, you got no faces or eyes to roll!

Good point, mousey! True.

Come to think of it, I'm probably more likeable (and perhaps quieter) in person too.

[mtmynd]

i think either firsty was full of it or he meant 'not real' in the sense that there is no one place to go and look at the internet... it's everywhere at all times as long as one's computer is connected to it. we cannot hold the internet. we cannot feel, smell, taste or hear the actual internet. only what it contains can be seen and heard. that is currently the internet's limitation - visual and aural.

books, magazines, teletypes (are they still around?), the telegraph (ships still use them i think)... these are all text-centric means of communications that have been around for a long time. what is not real about them? just because you cannot see a person's face does not make a person unknown or even worse, unreal. blind people? is the world unreal for them? hardly.

the internet requires one to write what one means. anything short of that has a greater possibility of being misunderstood. but that is the same for authors, is it not? how does any writer convey their story, their observances, their ideas or lives and make it as real as they can without revealing body language to the reader? it's done everyday and has been that way for centuries... the Chinese wrote on scrolls, writers of the biblical times wrote on parchment and papyrus, to show some examples.

sorry, but saying the internet is not real is nonsensical. i think many readers instinctively know if what they are reading is b.s. or honesty. it's a sense that reads between the words. how else does one enjoy reading a great book if it wasn't written with honesty and candor? or a great piece of poetry? the list of what is delivered to us in text is limitless.

[stilltrucking]

Cecil, I think what firsty said was "cyber space" is not real.
I don't think he said the internet is not real.

I think there is a difference.

I could be wrong about what firsty said, we would have to ask him. But he left without a word of good bye.

I prefer people to say good bye instead of just leaving.

wireman did not deserve to be treated that way.

[Doreen Peri]

I don't know if firsty said it or not but it's what I've been saying the past week or so because of all the nonsense that's been happening on this website. If we were all in the same room, it wouldn't be that way.... none of this would have happened. People say things on the internet they would never say in person.

Below is a copy of the post I made on stilltruckings artlog earlier today.

________________

Doreen I don't know where you get that idea about the internet not being real. Sounds like something Firsty used to use as a tag line.

Could you please explain what you mean?

What do I mean by it?

• There's a LOT missing trying to communicate with text only. Human beings communicate many other ways. Voice, touch, body language, all are real. Text is just text. You can't hear the inflection in someone's voice on this machine. You can't tell if they're laughing or crying. There's so much missing.

• People can and DO, every day, read between the lines and interpret what's being posted differently than the author intended. I've watched it happen for many years and I am guilty of the same.

• Even WITH in-person body language, voice inflections, human emotions, touch, etc., it's difficult to interpret what people mean, unless you know them very well.

• Nobody on the internet really knows anybody else very well because unless you've spent in-person time with a someone else, you can't really get to know them.

• We all have different writing styles and some are more skilled than others in writing what they intend to say in an easily interpreted way. There are also as many readers as their are interpretations.

All that said, though I read Lucy, firsty, pelerine, Wireman, Lightning Rod, and several others including several other people from other websites who I eventually met in person (30 or so people in total) ...... though I read their posts for years on the internet, I really didn't even know them one bit until I met them in person. And even after you meet someone in person, you still barely know them until you spend a lot of time with them.

This is why I get fed up sometimes with sitting in a room by myself typing away on the internet and I want to talk on the phone to people to get to know them better (because as I said voice and vocal inflections are very important parts of communication). I also want to meet as many people in person as possible because..... as my list above shows..... the internet isn't real.

I'm sure there's a better way to say it than "the internet isn't real" but that's the best way I can say it at the moment. It's missing too much. We weren't created to communicate by text only.

Over and over for many years, I've seen arguments and debates on the internet, personal slights, words flung out like they mean nothing and they DO mean something..... and I've seen people misinterpret text and misjudge others..... label them.... or otherwise make decisions about their characters in error. It's not human and it's not fair.

That's my take on it and I'm sticking to it.

[Nazz]

the internet requires one to write what one means. anything short of that has a greater possibility of being misunderstood. but that is the same for authors, is it not? how does any writer convey their story, their observances, their ideas or lives and make it as real as they can without revealing body language to the reader?

Yes, Cec. The challenge of writing... to get as much of the full picture or experience across as possible using only textual language, subject to the quirks and leanings of one's own "style" of course. It takes some time and effort; it's all too tempting to rush the process..

[stilltrucking]

It is real, Doreen it surrounds this planet like an extro biological womb. I don't know if it would be better if we were in the same room or not.

I am just not sure if would be better if we were all in a room together or not. Maybe. But I am not sure.

Maybe you can get away with insults if you give them with a smile.

[mtmynd]

Doreen : "Even WITH in-person body language, voice inflections, human emotions, touch, etc., it's difficult to interpret what people mean, unless you know them very well. "

Knowing them well does not make it much easier to believe you know someone. You may get to know another's habits, how they laugh, what they enjoy eating... many things we become familiar with in people we are around daily, but we don't even know ourselves well enough to control ourselves completely! If we don't even know ouselves how can it be expected to know another? Can't be done like you'd like to believe it could.

[Nazz]

Another phenomenon to consider is familiarity. The more familiar people are with each other's personality traits and quirks, which is a familiarity acquired gradually through many repetitions of communication, the more possible it becomes to trade "jabs" with one another (in non-threatening ways). You can see this in real life, and I've also seen it on the net. Most of us here have been talking to each other for years now on these boards, albeit sporadically at times, so you might think that we'd have each other's quirks a little more mapped out by now. Or are we perhaps getting a little too familiar with each other's textual proclivities? Hmmmm....

[mtmynd]

mnaz: "Or are we perhaps getting a little too familiar with each other's textual proclivities? Hmmmm...."

'too familiar' or 'tired of'...? hmmm... when we see, hear, touch, taste and/or smell things often enough, it ain't uncommon to get tired of it.