Sorry to be stuck in the past…I have much catching up to do.
Thanks for you comment, Anna, that was exactly where I was going. I too feel that people who might be disadvantaged technologically, can in many ways be better enabled socially. But the fact remains that there may be some important techno-social groups that a disadvantaged person might be locked out of by not having access (like quick medical information in Rheingold’s case, or perhaps important job or government information). This gets back to both the Bowling Alone issue (from the other John): On some level, weak social ties can be a benefit…but I would argue only to a limited extent. Weak social ties IRL might widen your social network helping you find some kind of employment or a babysitter, but strong ties are usually the kind that offer more traditional readily available benefits. Similarly, weak online ties are largely interest-based with not much social benefit (just socializing), but a strong online relationship might be more likely to turn into some real-life benefit. Perhaps I am arguing more that the strength of a relationship matters more than the medium it is carried out in.
I was also captivated by the (long since passed?) discussion about the social utility of online communication. Abhiyan proposed the Marxist perspective that the language of letter-writing was a tool of the elite forced upon the people, which is true at some level. However, structured letter writing has in the past had such utility in the exchange of well-thought-out, structured ideas which have greatly benefited society (I think of Jefferson’s letters). In some ways I would think that all of this online writing might have some of the same benefit, but the conversational tone like the one I’m writing in right now must limit that to some degree. Sure we’re all being social online, but how much real thought goes into what’s written? Is there anything that is benefiting society as a whole, or is it a lot of psychological purging?
Threading might have been much more organized and easy to follow, but in retrospect it seems this long list of posts has helped people comment to one another instead of just one thread. More later, -john
Sunday, February 29, 2004
I believe this is a good place to end - the library, the once known "house of information," now the pickup window and computer access center. Oh what an obscure and unpredictable future for libraries. I would like to move us on into next week's questions though. Here they are:
Question 1: We have seen trolling exampled as a negative phenomenon in online communities. Although it does produce a distrustful environment resulting in possible hesitation by its participants to share intimate thoughts, etc, I think trolling may also carry a positive outcome as well, sort of a ying and yang. In an earlier chapter it was mentioned that conflict in moderation results in strength. Trolling or mention of sensitive subjects then should also strengthen its members (whether it moves people towards apathy or betterment, we cannot really know), and I think we can extend this to also identifying and shaping the community's ethos. Although it forces the ethos to be shaped, can these conflicts that we see so negatively also have a positive impact?
Question 2: Big Sky Telegraph was an example of someone motivating technology into one room schools for education purposes. Although it had its failures and successes, it makes me wonder how a similar project would work in a different field, possibly something such as forest rangers. These people can become very isolated, and how would Internet connectivity improve their situation or worsen it? Would the same problems ensue? I would think something like this could be very useful for weather reports/patterns and connection to other rangers and the outside world, but costs would most likely be phenominal.
Question 3: First, out of curiosity, I wanted to find out what happened at Jervay Place. From www.beazer.com/OutReach/metroDetail.asp?MetroProjectID=9 I found this statement: "The new development will consist of 14 homeownership units in Phase I; 100 rental units as well as two community buildings in Phase II and 40 units of Lease Purchase/Ownership in Phase III. All of these will be built on four sites within four (4) miles of each other. Beazer’s current portion of the project consists of 100 units and two community centers - two 21-unit and one 18-unit all brick apartment buildings on Jervay Place; three duplexes on Water Tower; two all brick 15-unit buildings and one four-unit building with a community room on Covil Avenue; and three single family houses and four multi-family units on Dove Meadows." I am not sure who "won" the battle according to this statement, maybe someone can find more information on it. As for my question, has having this information access increased minority group's involvement overall, even when it does not necessariliy pertain to them? We can see in the examples that it has given minority groups a voice when no one would listen, but has this changed their overall involvement? Is this an important thing to be thinking about, or is it just important that a minority group was able to be heard?
Question 1: We have seen trolling exampled as a negative phenomenon in online communities. Although it does produce a distrustful environment resulting in possible hesitation by its participants to share intimate thoughts, etc, I think trolling may also carry a positive outcome as well, sort of a ying and yang. In an earlier chapter it was mentioned that conflict in moderation results in strength. Trolling or mention of sensitive subjects then should also strengthen its members (whether it moves people towards apathy or betterment, we cannot really know), and I think we can extend this to also identifying and shaping the community's ethos. Although it forces the ethos to be shaped, can these conflicts that we see so negatively also have a positive impact?
Question 2: Big Sky Telegraph was an example of someone motivating technology into one room schools for education purposes. Although it had its failures and successes, it makes me wonder how a similar project would work in a different field, possibly something such as forest rangers. These people can become very isolated, and how would Internet connectivity improve their situation or worsen it? Would the same problems ensue? I would think something like this could be very useful for weather reports/patterns and connection to other rangers and the outside world, but costs would most likely be phenominal.
Question 3: First, out of curiosity, I wanted to find out what happened at Jervay Place. From www.beazer.com/OutReach/metroDetail.asp?MetroProjectID=9 I found this statement: "The new development will consist of 14 homeownership units in Phase I; 100 rental units as well as two community buildings in Phase II and 40 units of Lease Purchase/Ownership in Phase III. All of these will be built on four sites within four (4) miles of each other. Beazer’s current portion of the project consists of 100 units and two community centers - two 21-unit and one 18-unit all brick apartment buildings on Jervay Place; three duplexes on Water Tower; two all brick 15-unit buildings and one four-unit building with a community room on Covil Avenue; and three single family houses and four multi-family units on Dove Meadows." I am not sure who "won" the battle according to this statement, maybe someone can find more information on it. As for my question, has having this information access increased minority group's involvement overall, even when it does not necessariliy pertain to them? We can see in the examples that it has given minority groups a voice when no one would listen, but has this changed their overall involvement? Is this an important thing to be thinking about, or is it just important that a minority group was able to be heard?
Hello, It's Anna writing in response to the Johns. John T first: He asks 'Do people who are not online miss out on any benefits of online social connections, or can they reap the same benefits from a local social group?' I like that John brings back the digital divide issue to the discussion. Injustice, in terms of missing out on interaction if you're off-line, occurs with marginalized people. Whether they are marginalized because of where they live or who they are or what they look like, linking with people that have experienced similar treatment or feelings is feasible on-line, probably more so than off-line. For instance, this might occur with people who are gay or disabled in a world where they don't find many other gay or disabled people. On the other hand, the digital divide usually occurs between the wealthy and the poor. People living in poverty often do have strong social connections with the people around them. They have to reciprocate with their neigbhbors for food, child care, protection, etc. in order to get by. Maybe they don't need the types of relationships they could have on-line. I'm not making the point that they don't need web access so it's okay that they don't have it. I am making the point that they may already have the social and emotional support they need from the people they related to face-to-face. Maybe because wealthier people don't relate with their neighbors out of necessity, they feel they need to relate to people somehow and satisfy this on-line.
And John Baken's description of the woman sitting next to him at the computer lab cracked me up. We all use labs and sit at our stations, focused and solitary. Yet there are usually people sitting about two feet away from us on either side with whom we rarely interact. The same thing can happen with a roomful of people reading books so this isn't strictly a modern occurence. It does change the perception of the library as a communal and shared place, which is part of its original conception. Libraries are becoming more techy and less book-oriented. You can request your books on-line and then just pop in to pick them up at the circulation desk (does this remind anyone of a fast-food drive through?) without actually spending any time at the library with the people who live near you. As convenient as it is, this is moving away from viewing the library as a vital place in the community...
And John Baken's description of the woman sitting next to him at the computer lab cracked me up. We all use labs and sit at our stations, focused and solitary. Yet there are usually people sitting about two feet away from us on either side with whom we rarely interact. The same thing can happen with a roomful of people reading books so this isn't strictly a modern occurence. It does change the perception of the library as a communal and shared place, which is part of its original conception. Libraries are becoming more techy and less book-oriented. You can request your books on-line and then just pop in to pick them up at the circulation desk (does this remind anyone of a fast-food drive through?) without actually spending any time at the library with the people who live near you. As convenient as it is, this is moving away from viewing the library as a vital place in the community...
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Back at Anna:
Your last points are very well taken, especially about Miles Davis. I've always been fascinated by what a difference it makes to hear music live. Some music I genuinely dislike hearing through speakers, but then when I hear it in person I'm able to enjoy it because of the immediacy of the experience. (Never noticed this before, but the word 'immediacy' looks like it pretty much suggests live as opposed to conveyed via media like TV, radio, books, computers... that's either interesting or a simple-minded observation, and my brain's so fatigued I can't tell which.)
The only lingering thought I have is that we're still left with the other example, a written copy of a Shakespeare sonnet. It is purely mediated yet potentially greatly affecting. I guess you can read it out loud or hear somebody read it to you, and that improves the experience. We can make the example tougher by considering instead one of his plays. With those the purpose is more to see and hear the play performed, but I must admit that I am often more affected by reading them because I can take them at my own pace, and I have time to reflect on the meaning and the artistry of the language.
Due to aforementioned fatigue I can't quite spell out how that ties back to monitors, keyboards and wires, but I guess its that I don't see how you can dis computer-mediated interaction without indirectly criticizing books to an even greater extent. Nobody can deny that both are worthless unless they are enjoyed within the context of an otherwise rich and fulfulling, and unmediated, life, but nevertheless they both have astounding potential to enrich life as well.
Your last points are very well taken, especially about Miles Davis. I've always been fascinated by what a difference it makes to hear music live. Some music I genuinely dislike hearing through speakers, but then when I hear it in person I'm able to enjoy it because of the immediacy of the experience. (Never noticed this before, but the word 'immediacy' looks like it pretty much suggests live as opposed to conveyed via media like TV, radio, books, computers... that's either interesting or a simple-minded observation, and my brain's so fatigued I can't tell which.)
The only lingering thought I have is that we're still left with the other example, a written copy of a Shakespeare sonnet. It is purely mediated yet potentially greatly affecting. I guess you can read it out loud or hear somebody read it to you, and that improves the experience. We can make the example tougher by considering instead one of his plays. With those the purpose is more to see and hear the play performed, but I must admit that I am often more affected by reading them because I can take them at my own pace, and I have time to reflect on the meaning and the artistry of the language.
Due to aforementioned fatigue I can't quite spell out how that ties back to monitors, keyboards and wires, but I guess its that I don't see how you can dis computer-mediated interaction without indirectly criticizing books to an even greater extent. Nobody can deny that both are worthless unless they are enjoyed within the context of an otherwise rich and fulfulling, and unmediated, life, but nevertheless they both have astounding potential to enrich life as well.
Hi--Anna here... In response to Ben who responded to me:
When people sit at a computer to communicate, to learn, to explore, whatever, it is a very individual activity, at least in the physical sense. Even if they're communicating with somebody, their eyes are focused straight ahead on the monitor, their body is turned into the keyboard, and they are concentrating on the electronic activity. This posture and focus means they are not paying primary attention to what is physically surrounding them. They are not sharing a physical space with anybody and I believe sharing a physical space and physical sensations makes us more connected and accountable to each other. My concern with electronic communication is that this medium removes us from the physical world and, in some sense, each other. We can share experiences intellectually and emotionally on-line and there is value to that. But I feel the immediateness of physical proximity leads us to connect with people we may not have otherwise. Who hasn't smiled at a stranger and then high-fived them at a sporting event? I'm sure there is some electronic acronym that equates this in cyberspace, but it just isn't the same. The medium takes away a sense of intimacy that, as human beings living in the same world, we in some way share. And, as Ben pointed out, Miles Davis did play a chunk of brass with some buttons, but he played it in front of people and people listened to it while sitting in the same space with each other. Anyone can hear Davis play by downloading his music and playing it while they sit alone at their computer terminal. It is powerful even then. But how much more powerful would it be if you were sitting in front of him, or any musician for that matter, at watching his hands move, his forehead sweat, and his glances to his bandmates? There is a richness in physical proximity that is lost on-line. The music may be the same, but the medium matters.
And about Rheindgold's scene with his daughter--I don't think I explained myself well enough in my initial posting. It's a shallow scene for his daughter, not him. He certainly demonstrated the emotional and entertainment value of on-line relationships and I don't mean to be critical of his friendships. They're real to me. But to have a primary person in your life be hunched over a computer screen and interacting with it in a way you don't understand because you're not involved, is detrimental. This could happen with any hobby, but most people do not gain the same kind of emotional interaction from a hobby as they do from electronic interaction. When people are interacting so much emotionally with electronic friends, I have to wonder if they somehow ignore other face-to-face relationships in their lives.
When people sit at a computer to communicate, to learn, to explore, whatever, it is a very individual activity, at least in the physical sense. Even if they're communicating with somebody, their eyes are focused straight ahead on the monitor, their body is turned into the keyboard, and they are concentrating on the electronic activity. This posture and focus means they are not paying primary attention to what is physically surrounding them. They are not sharing a physical space with anybody and I believe sharing a physical space and physical sensations makes us more connected and accountable to each other. My concern with electronic communication is that this medium removes us from the physical world and, in some sense, each other. We can share experiences intellectually and emotionally on-line and there is value to that. But I feel the immediateness of physical proximity leads us to connect with people we may not have otherwise. Who hasn't smiled at a stranger and then high-fived them at a sporting event? I'm sure there is some electronic acronym that equates this in cyberspace, but it just isn't the same. The medium takes away a sense of intimacy that, as human beings living in the same world, we in some way share. And, as Ben pointed out, Miles Davis did play a chunk of brass with some buttons, but he played it in front of people and people listened to it while sitting in the same space with each other. Anyone can hear Davis play by downloading his music and playing it while they sit alone at their computer terminal. It is powerful even then. But how much more powerful would it be if you were sitting in front of him, or any musician for that matter, at watching his hands move, his forehead sweat, and his glances to his bandmates? There is a richness in physical proximity that is lost on-line. The music may be the same, but the medium matters.
And about Rheindgold's scene with his daughter--I don't think I explained myself well enough in my initial posting. It's a shallow scene for his daughter, not him. He certainly demonstrated the emotional and entertainment value of on-line relationships and I don't mean to be critical of his friendships. They're real to me. But to have a primary person in your life be hunched over a computer screen and interacting with it in a way you don't understand because you're not involved, is detrimental. This could happen with any hobby, but most people do not gain the same kind of emotional interaction from a hobby as they do from electronic interaction. When people are interacting so much emotionally with electronic friends, I have to wonder if they somehow ignore other face-to-face relationships in their lives.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Anna writes:
"Second comment: Our readings have established that the web can foster meaningful relationships that have a great deal to offer people--emotionally, intellectually, for entertainment, and otherwise. This is positive in itself, but the benefit is gained through the sterility of a monitor, a keyboard, and network of wires or waves keeping it all connected. In contrast, there is an entire sensual world of wonder beyond the networks."
I totally agree that it's a mistake to ignore the real world in favor of online interaction, but at the same time I feel like you're underestimating what can be done with a monitor, a keyboard, and a bunch of wires. A sonnet by Shakespeare is just ink applied by quill to dried, flattened wood pulp. That's how a Beethoven sonata starts too, and then it's played on a machine composed of keys, wires, and hammer-thingies. Miles Davis' trumpet is a chunk of brass with three buttons. I experience the sensual world by means of photons hitting my eyes, soundwaves hitting my ears, chemicals touching my nose and mouth, and pressure on my skin. (I'm not sure how that third eye on my forehead operates.) Computers engage three of our five senses, books and pianos only one each. And you can read a sonnet on a computer, or connect a musical instrument to it and do things you couldn't otherwise.
If Rheingold is moved by music or reads a sonnet, and his daughter discovers him crying, is that a shallow scene? What if the reincarnation of Shakespeare is a member of his online group, does that make his emotional reaction less shallow?
"Second comment: Our readings have established that the web can foster meaningful relationships that have a great deal to offer people--emotionally, intellectually, for entertainment, and otherwise. This is positive in itself, but the benefit is gained through the sterility of a monitor, a keyboard, and network of wires or waves keeping it all connected. In contrast, there is an entire sensual world of wonder beyond the networks."
I totally agree that it's a mistake to ignore the real world in favor of online interaction, but at the same time I feel like you're underestimating what can be done with a monitor, a keyboard, and a bunch of wires. A sonnet by Shakespeare is just ink applied by quill to dried, flattened wood pulp. That's how a Beethoven sonata starts too, and then it's played on a machine composed of keys, wires, and hammer-thingies. Miles Davis' trumpet is a chunk of brass with three buttons. I experience the sensual world by means of photons hitting my eyes, soundwaves hitting my ears, chemicals touching my nose and mouth, and pressure on my skin. (I'm not sure how that third eye on my forehead operates.) Computers engage three of our five senses, books and pianos only one each. And you can read a sonnet on a computer, or connect a musical instrument to it and do things you couldn't otherwise.
If Rheingold is moved by music or reads a sonnet, and his daughter discovers him crying, is that a shallow scene? What if the reincarnation of Shakespeare is a member of his online group, does that make his emotional reaction less shallow?
In considering some of the questions posed by Seung-Hyun Lee on the differences between real and virtual social networks, I am struck by some of the more apparent similarities pointed out in Communities in Cyberspace. For instance, chapter 6 illustrated how tools from the real world can be adapted to virtual communities. Chapters 4 and 7, showed how people bring there own baggage to online interactions, which affects online identity and anonymity. I guess online communication and interaction is so ingrained in my daily life that I have to remember to what extent cyberspace was perceived as "unmarked territory." I do not find it surprising that, "we are nonetheless mapping this frontier with the same social categories of distinction that we have used to chart modern reality" (page 88). Yes, the differences are very important and real-- it is just that we have moved so far from the notion and surprise that "computing is a social activity" (Rheingold). While I was searching for computer advertisements for our earlier homework assignment, I read the Time Magazine, which declared the Computer the "Machine of the Year." The article was fun to read, especially the various prevailing declarations and ideas of what impact the computer would have on society. There was such a wide gambit; it was seen as dehumanizing as well as the "electric hearth" or focal point of the home. They were right to recognize its revolutionizing effects, but some enthusiasts did over step it. One chancellor predicted it would conquer illiteracy in the Third World and be a source of new life.
I'm a little behind this week... still on the first round of posts. Replies will come this weekend.
- I feel a little bit as though I am repeating issues from week to week, but this weeks readings seemed to circle around an unspoken difference between social and functional online activity. To my satisfaction, Kollock’s article seemed to merge these two issues in examining the motivating factors for individuals to share information and work (arguably a social and functional activity). This leaves me with the questions: how does being on the wrong side of the divide for social activity differ from some of the more obvious drawbacks from being left out from functional online activities? Do people who are not online miss out on any benefits of online social connections, or can they reap the same benefits from a local social group?
- 2) A devil’s advocate question (courtesy of Cass Sunstein): When people are so greatly able to cater their media consumption into their own very specific interests, where are the common cultural/social activities? Especially when the technology that enables this specialization can be so expensive, what are the consequences for those left out?
Thursday, February 26, 2004
To reply to Ben:
Comment 1:
Virtual communities give more opportunities and freedom to the online users to join or leave them than real world communities, and virtual communities have their own rules and regulations. They are different from real world communities. However, when we talk about censorship and social control over virtual communities, we need to conceptualize them first. What are the definitions of social control and censorship? Who will or can have social control and censorship? What is a boundary line between freedom of expression online and social control and censorship? What can make them symmetrical?
And, how powerful and how different is a social network in cyberspace comparing with in real world?
Comment 2:
If other people don’t have a lot of enthusiasm to read lots of posts and to post their opinions or comments, the blog as a cyber discussion place can be occupied by only those enthusiastic people, and not really a place of exchanging opinion or discussion place. So here, we may be able to see who or what type of people mostly use the blog or BBC.
Seung-Hyun Lee
Comment 1:
Virtual communities give more opportunities and freedom to the online users to join or leave them than real world communities, and virtual communities have their own rules and regulations. They are different from real world communities. However, when we talk about censorship and social control over virtual communities, we need to conceptualize them first. What are the definitions of social control and censorship? Who will or can have social control and censorship? What is a boundary line between freedom of expression online and social control and censorship? What can make them symmetrical?
And, how powerful and how different is a social network in cyberspace comparing with in real world?
Comment 2:
If other people don’t have a lot of enthusiasm to read lots of posts and to post their opinions or comments, the blog as a cyber discussion place can be occupied by only those enthusiastic people, and not really a place of exchanging opinion or discussion place. So here, we may be able to see who or what type of people mostly use the blog or BBC.
Seung-Hyun Lee
To reply (briefly, efficiently) to responses by Seunghyun, Abhiyan, and Anna regarding social control...
My view on this is similar to Amy's. She writes, 'This leads more into central control with communities. It was mentioned about censorship being a possible issue by online community "gods," but what we seem to skip over is that no matter what we do, there are always underlying rules. [...] we use these rules to engage with people, and each community has to express how to engage with each other. Since the "god" literally created that community for people to voluntarily join, these restrictions are used in a good constructive way (at least I think so). These powers can be abused, yes, but then you just go to another community or build your own.'
I also regard it as a fact of society that voluntarily joining groups usually means acknowledging and observing the rules of those groups (unless you want to crash the party, which is of course lots of fun).
A religious group can racially discriminate in their admission of new members, and I don't like that, but I consider it an acceptable consequence of a free society. I would rather live in a society with exclusionary groups as long as I am free to join or form my own inclusive alternative. Wouldn't it be totalitarian for the government to say, "Hereafter no person shall host a social engagement in which the male guests are required to wear black ties"? Isn't that the only way to limit people's ability to gain power over others in their social groups? To do something like that in the online realm would ruin cyberspace as surely as it would ruin our real-world society.
Is the social control of these online groups even different from real-world examples? Now that I think about it, how many groups don't have either official hierarchies (CEOs, Chancellors, Chief Justices) or unofficial ones (the head of the cheerleading squad, the resident expert on Cicero)? Many companies are as totalitarian as a MUD could ever be ("You're fired," "Get me coffee," "Black suits, white shirts and blue ties only," etc.), and that's not typically regarded as remarkable...
My view on this is similar to Amy's. She writes, 'This leads more into central control with communities. It was mentioned about censorship being a possible issue by online community "gods," but what we seem to skip over is that no matter what we do, there are always underlying rules. [...] we use these rules to engage with people, and each community has to express how to engage with each other. Since the "god" literally created that community for people to voluntarily join, these restrictions are used in a good constructive way (at least I think so). These powers can be abused, yes, but then you just go to another community or build your own.'
I also regard it as a fact of society that voluntarily joining groups usually means acknowledging and observing the rules of those groups (unless you want to crash the party, which is of course lots of fun).
A religious group can racially discriminate in their admission of new members, and I don't like that, but I consider it an acceptable consequence of a free society. I would rather live in a society with exclusionary groups as long as I am free to join or form my own inclusive alternative. Wouldn't it be totalitarian for the government to say, "Hereafter no person shall host a social engagement in which the male guests are required to wear black ties"? Isn't that the only way to limit people's ability to gain power over others in their social groups? To do something like that in the online realm would ruin cyberspace as surely as it would ruin our real-world society.
Is the social control of these online groups even different from real-world examples? Now that I think about it, how many groups don't have either official hierarchies (CEOs, Chancellors, Chief Justices) or unofficial ones (the head of the cheerleading squad, the resident expert on Cicero)? Many companies are as totalitarian as a MUD could ever be ("You're fired," "Get me coffee," "Black suits, white shirts and blue ties only," etc.), and that's not typically regarded as remarkable...
I've got a series of posts forthcoming (I am guessing we'll reach a fever pitch this afternoon during our usual classroom time), but first I'll pick up on the off-topic thread between AbHiyan and me. Justification (i.e., pretense): I'll use it to illustrate points about our online experiment and the readings for this week. But first the digression:
As part of our discussion of Godel, Newton, and Bertrand Russell (who's the real subtext here), AbHiyan says, "Newton's book was called Principia." In fact the full title of his book on gravitation and (Newtonian) mechanics is Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and it is traditionally shortened to either Principia Mathematica or just plain Principia.
AbHiyan also says (er, types), "I know what Godel is talking about, remember infinite regress I was talking about, the same thing!!!"
Godel, like any mathematician examing set theory, has much to say about infinity (his second biggest piece of work deals with the continuum hypothesis, which is all about infinity). His most important work and the one I mentioned to Abhiyan, however, demonstrates the inherent incompleteness of any internally consistent system of axioms. (He manages to illustrate his proof with reference to Martians trying to interpret a language of Earthlings.)
Since constructing such a system of axioms (to reduce all mathematics to logic) was Bertrand Russell's raison d'etre from the beginning of his career until 1931, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically made 98% of Russell's work to that time obsolete, metaphysically speaking. Russell continued to be a ridiculously prolific writer (he lived to be 97 and averaged something like 10,000 words PER DAY), but his raison d'etre after 1931 was mostly to be a political activist and philosophical popularizer.
When Russell realized his whole philosophical program was bunk, he didn't take the hint and evolve into a pragmatist (as had his former student Wittgenstein). He just shrugged and changed the subject. Add to that the fact that Russell was pure D-minus as a family man, and I just find it hard to like the guy.
***
Now if you don't respond to the name Ben or Abhiyan (or, reluctantly, Abiyan), the above was no doubt supremely annoying. And as Abhiyan said, "people if you do not follow the conversation try gaging us!!!"
The point here is that you pretty much can't gag us. Once Greg gave us permission to join this blog, we gained the ability to post pretty much whatever we want. I could if I wanted just go on about how disappointing the Boston Celtics are. Abhiyan could respond to my Godel/Russell comments at even greater length, taking our blog even further off topic. Greg could later remove our Godel/Russell posts, but maybe he's waiting until the end of the week to see the whole blog at once, and he won't see the problem until Abhiyan and I have ruined it. The rest of the class might well get totally pissed off and either tune out or respond by bombarding us with numerous expressions of annoyance. Because we have to deal with each other in class, there are limits to how bad that could get, but imagine if we never had to deal with each other face to face. There'd be nothing stopping us from degenerating into a nasty flame-war that would totally ruin the LIS810 blog.
***
This post is also an illustration of other points made by Smith in Chapter 4. First, messages online are far more subject to preservation than is the spoken word. For instance, from Abhiyan's post below, ("Newton's book was called Principia"), one might suppose I had disputed that at some point. What we had really disputed, though, was the name of Betrand Russell's titanic failure of a book that attempted to capture mathematics in a finite set of axioms. I said Russell's book was Principia Mathematica, and he expressed disbelief, suggesting I was confusing it with the book by Newton. If that part of our discussion happened online, I could point back to our words, prove it and say, "Ha!" Alas, all I've got to rely on is heresay (unless the secret police were bugging the sidewalk in front of Stillwaters at the time, and 20 years from now I accessed their records with a FOIA request).
***
This message also illustrates one of the theories cited to explain why people bother to offer their expertise in online communities, which I will call the "peacock syndrome." Most of the above is amazingly off-topic and, for most people, totally trivial. But since I could not resist the opportunity to, well, massage my ego, I went ahead and did it anyway. Since it wasn't offered by way of assistance, it will most likely backfire, provoking rolling eyes, causing me to be ostracized and the like, but, well...
***
Final point: this message also exemplifies a point made on p. 155, that there is a different sort of "communication edge" online (and hence I guess another sort of digital divide) because this sort of interaction is all about typing and reading. In face-to-face interactions I could be a total heel, have a savage speech impediment, be mortally afraid to leave my house or prefer to operate as a social recluse. But because this blog is all about reading and typing, my love of both means I approach a forum like this with a lot of enthusiasm, I will carefully read every other post, I will respond to questions in great detail, and my posts will go on and on, like, unfortunately, this one has.
Okay, no more long-winded messages, I swear.
As part of our discussion of Godel, Newton, and Bertrand Russell (who's the real subtext here), AbHiyan says, "Newton's book was called Principia." In fact the full title of his book on gravitation and (Newtonian) mechanics is Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and it is traditionally shortened to either Principia Mathematica or just plain Principia.
AbHiyan also says (er, types), "I know what Godel is talking about, remember infinite regress I was talking about, the same thing!!!"
Godel, like any mathematician examing set theory, has much to say about infinity (his second biggest piece of work deals with the continuum hypothesis, which is all about infinity). His most important work and the one I mentioned to Abhiyan, however, demonstrates the inherent incompleteness of any internally consistent system of axioms. (He manages to illustrate his proof with reference to Martians trying to interpret a language of Earthlings.)
Since constructing such a system of axioms (to reduce all mathematics to logic) was Bertrand Russell's raison d'etre from the beginning of his career until 1931, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically made 98% of Russell's work to that time obsolete, metaphysically speaking. Russell continued to be a ridiculously prolific writer (he lived to be 97 and averaged something like 10,000 words PER DAY), but his raison d'etre after 1931 was mostly to be a political activist and philosophical popularizer.
When Russell realized his whole philosophical program was bunk, he didn't take the hint and evolve into a pragmatist (as had his former student Wittgenstein). He just shrugged and changed the subject. Add to that the fact that Russell was pure D-minus as a family man, and I just find it hard to like the guy.
***
Now if you don't respond to the name Ben or Abhiyan (or, reluctantly, Abiyan), the above was no doubt supremely annoying. And as Abhiyan said, "people if you do not follow the conversation try gaging us!!!"
The point here is that you pretty much can't gag us. Once Greg gave us permission to join this blog, we gained the ability to post pretty much whatever we want. I could if I wanted just go on about how disappointing the Boston Celtics are. Abhiyan could respond to my Godel/Russell comments at even greater length, taking our blog even further off topic. Greg could later remove our Godel/Russell posts, but maybe he's waiting until the end of the week to see the whole blog at once, and he won't see the problem until Abhiyan and I have ruined it. The rest of the class might well get totally pissed off and either tune out or respond by bombarding us with numerous expressions of annoyance. Because we have to deal with each other in class, there are limits to how bad that could get, but imagine if we never had to deal with each other face to face. There'd be nothing stopping us from degenerating into a nasty flame-war that would totally ruin the LIS810 blog.
***
This post is also an illustration of other points made by Smith in Chapter 4. First, messages online are far more subject to preservation than is the spoken word. For instance, from Abhiyan's post below, ("Newton's book was called Principia"), one might suppose I had disputed that at some point. What we had really disputed, though, was the name of Betrand Russell's titanic failure of a book that attempted to capture mathematics in a finite set of axioms. I said Russell's book was Principia Mathematica, and he expressed disbelief, suggesting I was confusing it with the book by Newton. If that part of our discussion happened online, I could point back to our words, prove it and say, "Ha!" Alas, all I've got to rely on is heresay (unless the secret police were bugging the sidewalk in front of Stillwaters at the time, and 20 years from now I accessed their records with a FOIA request).
***
This message also illustrates one of the theories cited to explain why people bother to offer their expertise in online communities, which I will call the "peacock syndrome." Most of the above is amazingly off-topic and, for most people, totally trivial. But since I could not resist the opportunity to, well, massage my ego, I went ahead and did it anyway. Since it wasn't offered by way of assistance, it will most likely backfire, provoking rolling eyes, causing me to be ostracized and the like, but, well...
***
Final point: this message also exemplifies a point made on p. 155, that there is a different sort of "communication edge" online (and hence I guess another sort of digital divide) because this sort of interaction is all about typing and reading. In face-to-face interactions I could be a total heel, have a savage speech impediment, be mortally afraid to leave my house or prefer to operate as a social recluse. But because this blog is all about reading and typing, my love of both means I approach a forum like this with a lot of enthusiasm, I will carefully read every other post, I will respond to questions in great detail, and my posts will go on and on, like, unfortunately, this one has.
Okay, no more long-winded messages, I swear.
SUBJECT:
John BAKEN replies to Anna, re: Italy "house fellow" comments, etc.
Hey, I hear you! When I took 450 with the infamous Wayne Wiegand, who has since retired from the UW-Madison SLIS department and has gone on to greener pastures in Florida (re: more money), the book Bowling Alone was discussed, especially in relation to U.S. communities that no longer hang out in the front yard having discussions with neighbors, but instead hover around the TV and/or computer screen and never get to know their actual neighbors. I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the author's name (aha--the amazing "techno" computer comes through again--Robert Putnam is the author, answer served up in 1st hit, on Google..), but anyway.. we're losing out in the interpersonal relationships of community because of technology! I suppose we all do it (meaning me too--I did it while living in Japan, though I was out to the "izakaya," or bar/restaurant, on a regular basis, where I did interact with many Japanese people, albeit "intoxicated interactions" much of the time..). But what about that?? It's scary, isn't it??
P.S. As I write this, I'm in a computer lab with perhaps 100 other very interesting looking people in very close proximity to me, and yet none of us has exchanged a single word with one another in over an hour. I'm wondering where the young woman beside me is from. What's with that crazy ring on her left hand, that somehow doesn't seem to impede her keyboarding dexterity, as her fingers nimbly tap out a rhythmic pattern (that somehow has a "social cadence" to it). Must be a friend she's e-mailing (now she's checking the message portion of her cell phone)..
John BAKEN replies to Anna, re: Italy "house fellow" comments, etc.
Hey, I hear you! When I took 450 with the infamous Wayne Wiegand, who has since retired from the UW-Madison SLIS department and has gone on to greener pastures in Florida (re: more money), the book Bowling Alone was discussed, especially in relation to U.S. communities that no longer hang out in the front yard having discussions with neighbors, but instead hover around the TV and/or computer screen and never get to know their actual neighbors. I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the author's name (aha--the amazing "techno" computer comes through again--Robert Putnam is the author, answer served up in 1st hit, on Google..), but anyway.. we're losing out in the interpersonal relationships of community because of technology! I suppose we all do it (meaning me too--I did it while living in Japan, though I was out to the "izakaya," or bar/restaurant, on a regular basis, where I did interact with many Japanese people, albeit "intoxicated interactions" much of the time..). But what about that?? It's scary, isn't it??
P.S. As I write this, I'm in a computer lab with perhaps 100 other very interesting looking people in very close proximity to me, and yet none of us has exchanged a single word with one another in over an hour. I'm wondering where the young woman beside me is from. What's with that crazy ring on her left hand, that somehow doesn't seem to impede her keyboarding dexterity, as her fingers nimbly tap out a rhythmic pattern (that somehow has a "social cadence" to it). Must be a friend she's e-mailing (now she's checking the message portion of her cell phone)..
As I am reading the comments new issues are coming into light.
People from different places have their own unique cultural identity. The cultural identity is an integral part of their existence and society. With the advent of television and especially the MTV culture the cultural identity has been decreasing, as Neil Postman would argue. People seem to watch same programs, wear same clothes, and talk in same way online from all over the world. In a way, easy availability of information is good, but what does Internet communication and forms of communication used online do to our cultural identity.
If I am talking to someone from Australia, I would like him or her to use their cultural identity markers, for example ‘no worries mate’ or something. If use of symbols and slang is going to make a homogenous online culture of expression it is perhaps the worst and disastrous effect it may have on our society. How does someone from Bangladesh preserve their cultural identity? They are talking/typing in English, which is not their language, what ways you have to know and understand their culture and society and hence diversity of viewpoints in forms of online communication?
I read on BBC, as we speak 50 languages every six months are becoming extinct. And as languages go extinct, all forms of expression, clothes and the entire culture dies.
Abhiyan
People from different places have their own unique cultural identity. The cultural identity is an integral part of their existence and society. With the advent of television and especially the MTV culture the cultural identity has been decreasing, as Neil Postman would argue. People seem to watch same programs, wear same clothes, and talk in same way online from all over the world. In a way, easy availability of information is good, but what does Internet communication and forms of communication used online do to our cultural identity.
If I am talking to someone from Australia, I would like him or her to use their cultural identity markers, for example ‘no worries mate’ or something. If use of symbols and slang is going to make a homogenous online culture of expression it is perhaps the worst and disastrous effect it may have on our society. How does someone from Bangladesh preserve their cultural identity? They are talking/typing in English, which is not their language, what ways you have to know and understand their culture and society and hence diversity of viewpoints in forms of online communication?
I read on BBC, as we speak 50 languages every six months are becoming extinct. And as languages go extinct, all forms of expression, clothes and the entire culture dies.
Abhiyan
John BAKEN here again
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliography styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources, creating a "Works Cited" page, etc. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliography styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources, creating a "Works Cited" page, etc. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
John BAKEN here again
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliographic styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliographic styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
Continuation of my questions and comments:
1. As Marc Smith points out in chapter 8 of Communities in cyberspace, discussion group system in cyberspace may be the tools displaying only chains of messages and responses, not trees and forest. However, don’t you think that is a difference between physical discussion systems and virtual discussion systems? For instance, physical discussion groups generally have a moderator or a discussion leader to manage discussion, but in cyberspace, there is no moderator or discussion leader. Different network interaction media may have different social structural and functions.
2. What kinds of interaction patterns are present in social cyberspaces? How are social cyberspaces transformed? How do virtual communities change our experience of the real world?
3. As Emily found from Rheingold, it also seems to me that Rheingold at least in the part of Introduction and Chapter I overly brings into relief and admires only about the amazing parts of new technology such as CMC and virtual communities such as WELL. Rheingold said “People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind.” In addition to it, he argues that “there is no such thing as a single, monolithic, online subculture; it’s more like an ecosystem of subcultures.” However, we should not be chaotic between the real world and the virtual world. Two worlds are different, but some or many (I don’t know how many are there) adolescents and adults who are serious and addictive to cyberworld are in a chaotic state, and they don’t distinguish between the real world and the virtual world. It arises social problem. Some students don’t go to school and stay with cyberworld all day in their room, and some adults feel uneasy if they don’t use the Internet or don’t check emails or weblog.
Rheingold argues that the technology has the potential “to bring enormous leverage to ordinary citizens at relatively little cost—intellectual leverage, social leverage, commercial leverage, and most important, political leverage.” It may be true, but we have to think about the digital divide here. Who will get most those enormous leverages?
Moreover, he points out that “big power and big money will find a way to control access to virtual communities.” How do you think about this opinion?
Seung-Hyun Lee
1. As Marc Smith points out in chapter 8 of Communities in cyberspace, discussion group system in cyberspace may be the tools displaying only chains of messages and responses, not trees and forest. However, don’t you think that is a difference between physical discussion systems and virtual discussion systems? For instance, physical discussion groups generally have a moderator or a discussion leader to manage discussion, but in cyberspace, there is no moderator or discussion leader. Different network interaction media may have different social structural and functions.
2. What kinds of interaction patterns are present in social cyberspaces? How are social cyberspaces transformed? How do virtual communities change our experience of the real world?
3. As Emily found from Rheingold, it also seems to me that Rheingold at least in the part of Introduction and Chapter I overly brings into relief and admires only about the amazing parts of new technology such as CMC and virtual communities such as WELL. Rheingold said “People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind.” In addition to it, he argues that “there is no such thing as a single, monolithic, online subculture; it’s more like an ecosystem of subcultures.” However, we should not be chaotic between the real world and the virtual world. Two worlds are different, but some or many (I don’t know how many are there) adolescents and adults who are serious and addictive to cyberworld are in a chaotic state, and they don’t distinguish between the real world and the virtual world. It arises social problem. Some students don’t go to school and stay with cyberworld all day in their room, and some adults feel uneasy if they don’t use the Internet or don’t check emails or weblog.
Rheingold argues that the technology has the potential “to bring enormous leverage to ordinary citizens at relatively little cost—intellectual leverage, social leverage, commercial leverage, and most important, political leverage.” It may be true, but we have to think about the digital divide here. Who will get most those enormous leverages?
Moreover, he points out that “big power and big money will find a way to control access to virtual communities.” How do you think about this opinion?
Seung-Hyun Lee
Few additional thoughts:
The language used on Internet is determined by technology available for communication. The keyboard has 108 keys and 23 functions. That limits communication.
On the Internet, people not just talk, or publish to online blogs or chat. They are multitasking. So, when doing something else, just to respond to a post or an instant message people may find it easier to express them in ‘alternative’ or ‘slang’ form of English.
Typing is cumbersome process, especially when you are chatting or messaging to many people at the same time. Use of ‘slang’ does seem logical then. To keep communication flowing smoothly and linearly, one has to type faster and express emotions and feelings efficiently, especially when there is a ‘lag’. Hence the use of fast pace language seems to be desirable.
In commercial use of instant messaging, it’s a fast paced world, just to tell anyone that some meeting is happening at some other place or someone is coming for a presentation right now would take a long while to type in a formal letter format. But, with slang, ‘ur’ saved.
Blogs and Usenets groups might be slightly different. As, people could format their reply offline and then post.
Abhiyan
The language used on Internet is determined by technology available for communication. The keyboard has 108 keys and 23 functions. That limits communication.
On the Internet, people not just talk, or publish to online blogs or chat. They are multitasking. So, when doing something else, just to respond to a post or an instant message people may find it easier to express them in ‘alternative’ or ‘slang’ form of English.
Typing is cumbersome process, especially when you are chatting or messaging to many people at the same time. Use of ‘slang’ does seem logical then. To keep communication flowing smoothly and linearly, one has to type faster and express emotions and feelings efficiently, especially when there is a ‘lag’. Hence the use of fast pace language seems to be desirable.
In commercial use of instant messaging, it’s a fast paced world, just to tell anyone that some meeting is happening at some other place or someone is coming for a presentation right now would take a long while to type in a formal letter format. But, with slang, ‘ur’ saved.
Blogs and Usenets groups might be slightly different. As, people could format their reply offline and then post.
Abhiyan
JOHN BAKEN HERE (why don't these weblogs automatically put the writer's name at the top? I find it bothersome to have to cursor down to see who's writing what--does anyone else do that, or do you just read it and find out at the end who wrote it, and no big deal?)
Regarding one of Seunghyun's comments, regarding restrictions on some group posts (Usenet, Blogs, MUDs, etc.), I am not really sure why they need such controls except for the fact that, as the book mentioned early on in this last section of reading, when they tried it without any controls, it seems a lot of adolescents (they always blame it on the adolescents, don't they?? Usually, named "little Johnny..") abused their "privileges" and wrote a bunch of corny, nasty, offensive stuff, and this bothered the MUD gods, or whomever so they disallowed it. I don't claim to have any answers to these large questions (or the even larger question of FILTERING of public internet terminals in public libraries), but mostly I guess I advocate the complete non-restriction of computers, which is to say I'm in favor of total unrestricted use and no filters and nothing that resembles CENSORSHIP in any way, shape, or form. In the end, I believe that our young people (and middle aged people, for that matter; old people can do whatever they want) need to have community in the form of REAL PEOPLE, and that that community and being in touch with others, so that they are aware of the person in question here, even while they're at work on a computer, should be enough to influence one in a positive manner (that sentence is a mouthful--did I make it understandable?). Is this total idealism or what? What's your answer?? Total or partial restriction? None at all? Something in the middle?
Thanks, John BAKEN
Regarding one of Seunghyun's comments, regarding restrictions on some group posts (Usenet, Blogs, MUDs, etc.), I am not really sure why they need such controls except for the fact that, as the book mentioned early on in this last section of reading, when they tried it without any controls, it seems a lot of adolescents (they always blame it on the adolescents, don't they?? Usually, named "little Johnny..") abused their "privileges" and wrote a bunch of corny, nasty, offensive stuff, and this bothered the MUD gods, or whomever so they disallowed it. I don't claim to have any answers to these large questions (or the even larger question of FILTERING of public internet terminals in public libraries), but mostly I guess I advocate the complete non-restriction of computers, which is to say I'm in favor of total unrestricted use and no filters and nothing that resembles CENSORSHIP in any way, shape, or form. In the end, I believe that our young people (and middle aged people, for that matter; old people can do whatever they want) need to have community in the form of REAL PEOPLE, and that that community and being in touch with others, so that they are aware of the person in question here, even while they're at work on a computer, should be enough to influence one in a positive manner (that sentence is a mouthful--did I make it understandable?). Is this total idealism or what? What's your answer?? Total or partial restriction? None at all? Something in the middle?
Thanks, John BAKEN
Response to Amy:
I understand that the quality and use of lexical language is deteriorating on the Internet, and this may in fact affect communication skills. However, one can argue this point from classical Marxist perspective.
The language used in letter writing, or used for formal communication is ‘elite’, forced upon people by few who dictate its grammar and rules, and people without a choice have been made to conform to it.
The Internet, on the other hand is the perfect example of how much egalitarian and democratic we can actually get. Everyone seems to contribute in some ways, people can express themselves in ways they feel comfortable, and they do not have to follow the ‘social structure’ of the offline world for communication.
In addition, there is always a danger of spill over effects. That is, when do we question the effects of Internet communication, how do we come to the terms that language is a tool for expression, and no single person has authority over it, so who corrects whom, and why?
There is faint line here, which extrapolates to the arguments of digital divide, access and spill over effects of online structure over offline structure and vice versa.
What do you bloggers think?
Abhiyan
I understand that the quality and use of lexical language is deteriorating on the Internet, and this may in fact affect communication skills. However, one can argue this point from classical Marxist perspective.
The language used in letter writing, or used for formal communication is ‘elite’, forced upon people by few who dictate its grammar and rules, and people without a choice have been made to conform to it.
The Internet, on the other hand is the perfect example of how much egalitarian and democratic we can actually get. Everyone seems to contribute in some ways, people can express themselves in ways they feel comfortable, and they do not have to follow the ‘social structure’ of the offline world for communication.
In addition, there is always a danger of spill over effects. That is, when do we question the effects of Internet communication, how do we come to the terms that language is a tool for expression, and no single person has authority over it, so who corrects whom, and why?
There is faint line here, which extrapolates to the arguments of digital divide, access and spill over effects of online structure over offline structure and vice versa.
What do you bloggers think?
Abhiyan
February 26, 2004 (12:44 PM)
SUBJECT: I FEEL SO DISINHIBITED WHEN I DO E-MAIL IN MY UNDERWEAR!!
Disinhibited vs. Uninhibited/re: the language of MUDs
As I understand it, DISINHIBITED bears a close relationship to the word UNINHIBITED though uninhibited is more implicit in someone who has no inhibitions "around other people" ; whereas, DISINHIBITED means having no inhibitions "within a virtual world" (where the chances of meeting are so so very remote as to be considered nill). Is my understanding of this nuance in meaning correct? Explain or elaborate further, please (i.e. which is more radically NOT INHIBITED?).
Thanks.
John BAKEN
The Disinhibited One
P.S. I am wearing all my clothes as I write this (I'm in Memorial Library's computer lab).
SUBJECT: I FEEL SO DISINHIBITED WHEN I DO E-MAIL IN MY UNDERWEAR!!
Disinhibited vs. Uninhibited/re: the language of MUDs
As I understand it, DISINHIBITED bears a close relationship to the word UNINHIBITED though uninhibited is more implicit in someone who has no inhibitions "around other people" ; whereas, DISINHIBITED means having no inhibitions "within a virtual world" (where the chances of meeting are so so very remote as to be considered nill). Is my understanding of this nuance in meaning correct? Explain or elaborate further, please (i.e. which is more radically NOT INHIBITED?).
Thanks.
John BAKEN
The Disinhibited One
P.S. I am wearing all my clothes as I write this (I'm in Memorial Library's computer lab).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
