Social interaction and isolation

[zenotic]

Quite convienant, huh? Mr. N's argument is actually valid, I won't argue it there. There's terminology and such that doesn't quite stick, but fuck, he formed his own opinion

Ixis? Still waiting for a thought out answer bro that doesn't fall back on I'M ACTUALLY SMART ON THE INTERNET. Formulating on what the future may or may not hold does not count in this argument, neither does LOL I'M ACTIGN SMATRT ON THE ITNERNETS, you fucking idiot. Instead of keeping the conversation to a mature level, it has to degrade to blantant flaming and LOL I DIDNT READ IT BCUZ IT WUZ TWOOO LONG BUT I'M GONNA ARGUES ANYWAY.

But, to Mr. N's response: No, I don't see that as the entirity of offline socializing. Poet sessions, concerts, book clubs, sports teams, movies (with friends)... The list goes on. The point I made was how different two people view life based on HOW they connect. If Ixis knew Dis at ALL, he'd realize a bit more about the situation then pure speculation off a post, and then hunting for trolling.

The entire PSYCHOLOGY THEORY WAS PROVEN RIGHT argument is also false, otherwise, we'd have psychological LAWS, not theories.

Once again, I highly disagree on views of I vs E. It's meant as an expression option, not how to live a life. Even if you sit online and talk to people, you're still an extrovert. If you sit in front of a class and paint silently, still an introvert. Like I said, the I/E differences don't come from the medium, it comes from the end result.


Wall of text? Yes. Thought out? Yes. Personal Opinion? Sure.

Arguing over the internet because you can quote sources, claim college level professionalism, and then SCORE BIG WINS on the internet? Fucking retarded.

Honestly, I thought out a majority of this online with Des who, despite not agreeing with me, can actually come up with a valid argument. You on the other hand revolve around I AM RITE posts. This is exactly what the world needs to do without. So far, you've done nothing to discuss the topic but revolve around quite simply put: blantant bullshit to look smart/and or cool. If that's your honest to god opinion, I'll respect it. Do not come into a serious discussion and drop stupidity out of nowhere and expect an intelligent conversation afterwards. I'm entirly willing to actually respect what you have to, erm, say, but I will not tolerate someone who is clearly in a league beyond trying to look pretty.

And for several of you who have messaged me asking if this was a troll: No, it is not. At all. I hate it when people try to argue smart, yet fail to deliver anything relevant to the conversation besides copypasta.

 

[FlippyD]

Mog, you're making stimulating, but not really on-topic posts. That's the main point. Diss was talking about how she felt guilty over not going out as much as her friend. You linked this with the internet which, while close, wasn't the true cause of her problems. She does use the internet a lot, but that's only a side-effect of what she feels her problem is.

My caveat is that you're posting stuff you made up where I feel something more positive to help Diss not feel like shit is what's important right now. Diss is asking about the how she should approach social situations. You posted your own musings, but modern science has already done the work. Your suggestions are interesting, but irrelevant because we already have working knowledge into how and why social interactions work the way they do and why people think the way they do about being sociable or not. (EDIT: let me make a comment here before people start jumping down my throat. Psychology is a constantly changing field, and we don't have all the answers, but we do know enough information that can prove useful to Dissonance's particular dilemma.) I'll admit I was posting my sources to chide you over your armchair psychology, but also to push the fact that more proven theory is needed. If you can't look past that fact then it's no wonder that people think you're just trolling.

If this was like the childhood sexuality thread or processing of the dead, something more ethical and not well treaded territory then it'd be a different story.

It's true I tend to be sarcastic and a smartass when I post at times, but I don't do it to "win points" on the internet unless it's about giving mustache rides to underage girls or some shit. Here in the symposium I at least try to make a point (though, not always successful at that.) I see you're upset, and I apologize. I feel I may have done you a disservice and tricked you into some empty flame war. That wasn't my intention.

People aren't divided into online and offline camps in the way you seem to think they are. True, they are two separate cultures, but it's not a line of how the two perceive the world. I don't carry over my internet behavior into the real world, and I sure hope you don't carry over your behavior (although it would perpetuate the way people assume internet gamers are.)

You are correct that there are no real laws of psychology in the way you're describing, but I'll take the studies of the hardworking men and women who devote their lives to the field over "Random Joe the Plumber internet moogle."

And for the third (and last time) introversion and extroversion aren't a "way of looking at things" or whatever concept you have in you're head. Your opinion on it is wrong. That's not an insult or a jab, you're just stone-cold wrong. That's all. And I never stated that "internet users=introverts, irl folks=extroverts" though I believe I stated that introverts are more drawn to heavy internet use. I never even said the two states come from the medium. This to me really shows that you aren't reading my posts (or anyone else's all the way through I assume,) I used the intro/extroversion argument to prove to Diss that she has no reason to feel guilty about not getting out as much as she fears she should be.

Anyway, I highly suggest you do some research into the field if you are interested.

I'm sorry you have this opinion of me of going about copying things from... Well, nowhere except copying Amazon.com links... If you think what I've written has been plagiarized from somewhere I would be surprised. If this is true show me where I have copied text directly from and I will take down my post.

 

[zenotic]

That my friend is now a well formed opinion, and I will gladly research it to continue a true discussion. Thank you for coming through, I knew you weren't a moron when it comes to such debates. Also, some of your posts in the child thread are actually quite interesting, which is why I decided to immeadiately point out to the masses I'm not here to troll, though it may seem like it some times. Someone came through for it at least.

 

[___]

Just realized my first paragraph doesn't make too much sense. Basically, in a small town you wouldn't get enough stimulus to gain interest in things not possible within that town (nor hear about them.) If all you've got is the diner, the bar, the other bar and the Black Lodge then your preferences in recreational activities will be limited to what's available in those small spaces. You can't get an interest in something if you don't know about it.

You would think so maybe, but that's not always the case. A small community isn't an island unto itself (unless it's some aboriginal tribe in the middle of the jungle or something) so even though there's not much access, there's still desire. You'll find a emogoth kid, a death metal fan, a greasemonkey, a hippie and a Halo player in every town with a population of more than 300 or so but you're not going to find more than a handful of each in anything short of a good sized city, and that's a negative both for the people with alternative interests and the people who are so insulated from them that they think they represent "normal" and there's something wrong with the handful of 'weird' people that needs 'fixing' - usually by ostracizing or worse the modern witch hunt. The internet gives those people an outlet where they're not forced to conform and essentially be miserable.

 

[Andy6000]

wumpi and teloch and kav and hibernate and dissonance and rexxz and HELL even TREG and shadow and atemu i consider very good friends because i know them all SO WELL.

This thread makes me feel bad for being away for so long, because you raise a good point about the level of intimacy an offline relationship has versus an online one.  I came back here today because TREG fucking found me on facebook.  By my name and location, despite having not talked to him for like a year or more.  I didn't have my picture there, or really any huge amount of information about myself.  (Sorry for leaving ;-

In any case...  I'm disappointed with the general negativity in this thread.  It annoys me to see this level of discourteous behavior between two people who at least type well enough to seem intelligent.  There are no 'facts' in psychology, and armchair psychology, given reasonable examples, is almost as bloody valid as 'real' psychology.  If I can read an example, and think back to a situation I've seen that plays out pretty much the same, and I can see the logical connections between it and a postulation, I'll accept the postulation as reasonable.  Please reduce the name calling and snide sarcasm, the symposium should be a mature stage for debate.

Back to the topic...  I live a rather mixed life right now.  I have ONE best friend, who I'd give my damn life for, and he's a guy I met offline, but drag into online things all the time.  I consider our relationship a mixed bag between the two extremes.  Our main activities together generally involve online gaming.  I have about 6 good friends other than my best friend offline, two of which I talk to most the time online, we only meet up once a week for a movie/dinner/whatever.  I have a small amount of friends who are exclusively online friends, who I feel less close to.  Out of my group of people, the people I am closest to I spend vast amounts of time with online and off.  Friends online and friends offline I get to spend less overall time with, they feel slightly farther away from me.

What I suppose I'm saying is that it comes down to trust and how much time you spend with someone.  Both methods of interaction are obviously different, but still point at the same thing.

...  I've rambled on without making a real point again.  I suppose that hasn't changed much about me.  (also, I'm super sad you don't count me as one of your best friends ever)

 

[FlippyD]

No, armchair psychology isn't as valid as the real thing. It's true we don't know everything about how the mind works and we have a long way to go, but it's uninformed people coming up with "self-diagnosed" information based on what they read on the internet that causes so much confusion and problems in the first place.

Seriously, it's like saying "Well, we don't know much about quantum physics, but when I throw a ball into the air it falls down at an accelerating rate, thus particles on the quantum level must act in exactly the same manner."

And... I'd like to make a remark about your point but... I honestly have no clue about what you're trying to say.

Regardless, if people want to talk about online relationships, consider the fact that it is easier to communicate online, and be more open since you don't have any fear of serious social reprisal (or physical reprisal as the case may be.) And...

Y'know, the whole online/offline argument came out of nowhere. I feel like everyone's been having some second argument about "who's friends with who on RMXP" with added drama for effect.

So, back on topic: Should des/biden be more active in life or not? Can and should internet relationships coincide or supersede real life relationships and why? And, if this is this a problem, will it become one of the big issues of the 21st century?

There, go nuts.

 

[Andy6000]

No, armchair psychology isn't as valid as the real thing. It's true we don't know everything about how the mind works and we have a long way to go, but it's uninformed people coming up with "self-diagnosed" information based on what they read on the internet that causes so much confusion and problems in the first place.

Seriously, it's like saying "Well, we don't know much about quantum physics, but when I throw a ball into the air it falls down at an accelerating rate, thus particles on the quantum level must act in exactly the same manner."

Which is what they did a while ago, and what psychology is relatively forced to do now.  There's no method of measuring psychology, just blurred maybes and the like.

And... I'd like to make a remark about your point but... I honestly have no clue about what you're trying to say.

Yes I tend to do that, don't worry about it.

Regardless, if people want to talk about online relationships, consider the fact that it is easier to communicate online, and be more open since you don't have any fear of serious social reprisal (or physical reprisal as the case may be.) And...

In some cases, yes.  Take some anonymous image board, for instance.  No consequences for almost any action.  But here, take Des.  Some of his closest friends are online, and saying something completely out of line would hurt an online friendship as much as saying something out of line could hurt a friendship offline.  Of course, there's hardly any fear of physical reprisal, but I doubt that's what you were talking about.

Y'know, the whole online/offline argument came out of nowhere. I feel like everyone's been having some second argument about "who's friends with who on RMXP" with added drama for effect.

I have like 8000 friends on rmxp bro dont mess with me.  (of course, like 30 of them are still here, but whatever)

So, back on topic: Should des/biden be more active in life or not? Can and should internet relationships coincide or supersede real life relationships and why? And, if this is this a problem, will it become one of the big issues of the 21st century?

There, go nuts.

I feel online and offline relationships can both be just as feasible.  'Skinship' is not a necessary component.  Like I tried to say (like a drunk searching for his car keys), it's all about how much time you spend with a person and the level of trust you might have, not whether you can see the person or whatever.  The only real argument I could field against a 'Digital Dave' as they've been dubbed is that staying inside and communicating through a computer is less physical exercise than walking around or playing sports, and it may be more unhealthy in that sense.

 

[Venetia]

I have like 8000 friends on rmxp bro dont mess with me.  (of course, like 30 of them are still here, but whatever)

i-i'm your friend r-right ;-;

--

Also you know what's interesting to me in all this is that I was feeling really down-in-the-dumps lonely for a while, lonely for friends I mean. Then I started getting active on this silly forum and the number of people here who i genuinely like have ... filled that void. I feel less lonely. But that concept is pretty strange for me, the fact that I can still technically be alone, but seeing familiar avatars and pixelized verdana words on a screen can fill that social void.

Some relationships I have on the interwebs DO supercede some of my real-life friendships. And I'm still on the fence about whether or not that's a good thing.

 

[___]

If you guys want to debate the usefulness of psychology do it in another thread please, it's getting too far off topic. ~N

 

[FlippyD]

In some cases, yes.  Take some anonymous image board, for instance.  No consequences for almost any action.  But here, take Des.  Some of his closest friends are online, and saying something completely out of line would hurt an online friendship as much as saying something out of line could hurt a friendship offline.  Of course, there's hardly any fear of physical reprisal, but I doubt that's what you were talking about.

No, in an anonymous board no friendships are born. It's nothing but pure thoughts, expressions and opinions with the best presented and most agreeable ideas becoming popular. Yes, Des probably won't go out insulting a friend, but you're freer to express your own opinions to other folks on the internet. Once that person gets to know you better it's a different story, but the process of making friends offline is vastly different from online. Online you can just google up Dragonball Z fansite and BAM! You have people you can talk with, and if you want troll them, extoll them, lurk or what have you. It's not completely different, but it is a different atmosphere and it evokes different approaches.

I'm not explaining this well, but the way people behave on the internet is very different from the way they would behave in real life. I believe that's why so many people get in such a hissy fit over folks they know online. I can make friends pretty easily offline, and because of that I only have one "online" friend. The rest are merely acquaintances that come and go. I suppose for a lot of internet users the people they know online are more important than the folks they know offline who they view as acquaintances, though I am ready to admit that's mere speculation. My only justification for that thought it an ex-girlfriend who was very vocal about the differences between the two (an important parable I might share at some point. Hold on while I extoll my pinky and drink more Earl Grey. I'm not being sarcastic towards you here, but I feel like I'm getting a bit too hoity-toity... Let's remedy that.)

I have like 8000 friends on rmxp bro dont mess with me.  (of course, like 30 of them are still here, but whatever)

http://studentpages.scad.edu/~kcampb22/9000.jpg[/img]

I don't know where you thought I was threatening you, but I really could care less about how many people are your friends here. Unless it's on topic about how they affect your online/offline life.

I feel online and offline relationships can both be just as feasible.  'Skinship' is not a necessary component.  Like I tried to say (like a drunk searching for his car keys), it's all about how much time you spend with a person and the level of trust you might have, not whether you can see the person or whatever.  The only real argument I could field against a 'Digital Dave' as they've been dubbed is that staying inside and communicating through a computer is less physical exercise than walking around or playing sports, and it may be more unhealthy in that sense.

I agree, and I feel with the advancement of science and technology we won't have to sit in front of a computer in some dark room all the time. We could freely telecommunicate with anyone anywhere, instantly. In fact, we can do that now, and there's a whole generation growing up with cell phones that can transmit photos and videos to one another.

Someday we may have people talking to each other through ear-mounted scouter equipment.

That said, I feel the nature of the internet at large, and connections formed not by physical appearance and real world context, but simply by how you put your words together causes a fundamental difference in the relationship. Wether that's bad or good I don't know, though I lean on the side of "eh, s'alright."

 

[Andy6000]

Ah, you overreacted!  So silly.  I was just posting a silly sentence in reply to...  I forgot what already.  In any case, I don't have a ton of friends on here.  I know some of the staff, and WAS one of the staff a long time ago, but that's rather meaningless to this conversation.

No, in an anonymous board no friendships are born. It's nothing but pure thoughts, expressions and opinions with the best presented and most agreeable ideas becoming popular. Yes, Des probably won't go out insulting a friend, but you're freer to express your own opinions to other folks on the internet. Once that person gets to know you better it's a different story, but the process of making friends offline is vastly different from online. Online you can just google up Dragonball Z fansite and BAM! You have people you can talk with, and if you want troll them, extoll them, lurk or what have you. It's not completely different, but it is a different atmosphere and it evokes different approaches.

I dunno, I've made a couple 'friends' on anonymous image boards.  I can identify certain people by the views they take and the language they use, and talk with them accordingly.  Now, it's kind of an odd kind of 'friendship' considering that neither of us have a 'name' or a 'face' in this context, but I still consider him/her a friend, because I regularly converse with him/her and have things in common and it's fun fun.

Again, off topic, and you're right.  The environment definitely dictates the method of communication.  Be it the virtually consequence free anonymous imageboard setting, or a place where you value your persona (here for some people).

 

[Dissonance]

No, in an anonymous board no friendships are born. It's nothing but pure thoughts, expressions and opinions with the best presented and most agreeable ideas becoming popular. Yes, Des probably won't go out insulting a friend, but you're freer to express your own opinions to other folks on the internet. Once that person gets to know you better it's a different story, but the process of making friends offline is vastly different from online. Online you can just google up Dragonball Z fansite and BAM! You have people you can talk with, and if you want troll them, extoll them, lurk or what have you. It's not completely different, but it is a different atmosphere and it evokes different approaches.

You really need to post on 4chan more as you don't seem to get how anonymous friendships work.

On anonymous message boards like the various chans, while you can RARELY pick anybody out there's still a very STRONG sense of community between the members.  Incredibly strong friendships are instantly formed once a thread picks up steam, and then they quickly evaporate once the thread sinks off the front page.  This happens because though everybody is anonymous, many of them have been posting there for years, and have been quite amenable to these quick linkups.  They've learned to create totally disposable friendships on all sides that only last a few minutes with no emotional recoil when they are severed.

 

[FlippyD]

You really need to post on 4chan more as you don't seem to get how anonymous friendships work.

On anonymous message boards like the various chans, while you can RARELY pick anybody out there's still a very STRONG sense of community between the members.  Incredibly strong friendships are instantly formed once a thread picks up steam, and then they quickly evaporate once the thread sinks off the front page.  This happens because though everybody is anonymous, many of them have been posting there for years, and have been quite amenable to these quick linkups.  They've learned to create totally disposable friendships on all sides that only last a few minutes with no emotional recoil when they are severed.

I think it's pretty easy to argue that that really isn't a friendship per-se. And at least not the kind I'm referring to. A mutation on friendships which proves my earlier points so... I'll shut up.

 

[Dissonance]

You really need to post on 4chan more as you don't seem to get how anonymous friendships work.

On anonymous message boards like the various chans, while you can RARELY pick anybody out there's still a very STRONG sense of community between the members.  Incredibly strong friendships are instantly formed once a thread picks up steam, and then they quickly evaporate once the thread sinks off the front page.  This happens because though everybody is anonymous, many of them have been posting there for years, and have been quite amenable to these quick linkups.  They've learned to create totally disposable friendships on all sides that only last a few minutes with no emotional recoil when they are severed.

I think it's pretty easy to argue that that really isn't a friendship per-se. And at least not the kind I'm referring to. A mutation on friendships which proves my earlier points so... I'll shut up.

Actually, that'd be a hard argument.  If everybody around you is faceless and you begin to equate all of those faceless people as one combined person or entity, well... it becomes a bit trickier.

And that's what the whole "hello anon" thing on futaba boards is all about at it's core.

 

[FlippyD]

Can you be friends with a combined entity, I guess?

 

[___]

If you can be friends with a figment of your imagination I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider an aggregate of personalities a single 'entity' conceptually.

 

[FlippyD]

But an imaginary friend isn't a friend. It's a figment of your imagination. You can't assign something the quality of a thing it can never be.

I can see anonymous individuals being something like friends, but not a group.

 

[___]

It depends on how you define "friend" really. If you place the requirement that a friend must be a physical, tangible, solitary being you're narrowing the field a lot farther than the average person actually does, when you think about religion. How many people have ever met Jesus, and what about the trinity Godhead where "God" is really some sort of weird unity of three distinct beings?

You may claim that God doesn't count as a 'friend' by your definition but that makes your definition empirical rather than common use, which is more like what we're talking about.

 

[FlippyD]

Well no, I'm not talking about a friend being a physical manifestation... exactly. Though, in the case of God it's a matter of faith. I can see someone believing in God's existence, and having a relationship with him I guess, but that's a different discussion for a different time.

Plus I know that on an image board the other people on the other side of the server are real. An imaginary friend doesn't exist. But that's all beside my point, I argue that a friend is someone who considers you a friend as you consider him/her a friend. It's like any other relationship, I can say Halle Berry is in love with me and we're boyfriend and girlfriend, but it isn't true, it's just a one-sided infatuation (Halle Berry being in love with me that is, no matter how many times she begs I'm not into her and we're not going out as the tabloids would have you believe.)

Likewise, a collective mass of people could be considered your friend in your eyes, but that doesn't mean that collective mass mostly considers you, singular, in kind. In an anonymous spore of people everyone can get an inkling of who everyone else is, but you can never truly know. And if you did figure it out through inference then I'd argue that such a person would cease to be anonymous (or truly anonymous.)

Now, there can be a collective camaraderie between members of an anonymous group, but that's a different creature. It's like friendship, but it isn't exactly friendship. More of a cabal, kinship or brotherhood. A group of people united via a common subject, goal or philosophy. It's very much like friendship, but not quite. Not in the manner of which I believe we're discussing.

 

[Despain]

But an imaginary friend isn't a friend. It's a figment of your imagination.

bullshit. why can't it be both