At 04:43 PM 1/10/2008, you wrote:
>Quoting MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Right on, Marsha. The ego of some knows no bounds.
>
>Platt
>
Platt,
I was of course talking about the first four paragraphs. It could be
based on the same kind of scientific method and analysis used to
predict the New Hampshire primary. And I don't want such knowing
spoiling all the fun.
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/
