At 03:06 PM 1/10/2008, you wrote:
>[Arlo]
>Many have written over the years on the importance of "phatic"
>dialogue in community building (whether in an online, virtual, space
>or in a face-to-face space). And I think we, as humans, tend to
>interject phatic elements into even the most rigorously informational
>dialogues. Whether it forms a simple, social greeting or expresses
>elements of our lives indirectly ("my daughter once told me...", "i
>was hiking in the mountains the other day when..."). The bottom line
>is we are social beings, but we do approach phatic dialogue with both
>an element of caution ("what happens if i reveal this?") and
>deliberacy ("i want everyone to know/think..."). There is, of course,
>no harm in asking. What people want revealed, they will tell you,
>either in direct answer to your question, or through indirect
>word-choice, remarks, and mannerisms in their posts.
>
>At the core of this is identity-building, we must construct here the
>person we wish others to see us as, and we do this overtly and
>covertly. Even the most vocal about not sharing social details will
>reveal and build a social image of themselves; the academic, the
>painter, the cynic, the drop-out, the kid, the sage, the
>disillusioned, the humble, the righteous, the villain, the woman, the
>man, these are all built over the years by post after post. We cannot
>help but be social beings.
>
>The image you see of us here is a deliberate one, not in any
>deceitful or manipulative way, but a crafted identity of our
>choosing. Our words reflect this, our grace reflects this, our
>demeanor and our very selective presentations paint the image we wish
>others to see. This is, of course, a negotiated process. We can't
>force anyone to think anything about ourselves, we have to build
>these presentations over time, over dialogue. And sometimes despite
>our best efforts to negotiate one identity, another shines through.
>I've read a lot of research into the online negotiation of gender,
>and can tell you that the one more becomes fluent in online dialectic
>norms, the more one is able to see "the truth between the words". Its
>been proven, for example, that most online users with over a year of
>experience in online text environments can tell who is "really female
>and male" despite the names given in the chat. Teens can spot other
>teens pretty quickly, and are often very saavy about picking out the
>"adult poser".
>
>And you rightly point out a caution, and I applaud your honesty.
>Study after study has found that men (being hetero-normative for a
>moment) react differently to the same words and ideas expressed not
>only by a woman versus a man, but also someone they find attractive
>and someone they do not. Before we start applauding women, however,
>the research shows the same thing about them. The difference is that
>men tend to be antagonistic with other men, and passive or soft with
>women. Women do the same, meaning they tend to be antagonistic with
>men and passive and soft with other women. Men are aggressive to
>same-gender others, while women are aggressive towards other-gender
>others. With regards to attractiveness, both genders excel at
>creating difference between those they find desirable and those they
>do not. Many studies have documented that both genders tend to rate
>the same words spoken by an attractive person as more honest, more
>profound, more insightful, with less of a possibility of deception.
>We don't trust ugly people, it seems, nor do we really care what they
>have to say.
ERASE!. ERASE!! ERASE!!! Too static for me. Hurts my mind.
Marsha
*************
DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, & etc.: Ever-changing
collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
