Gender Confusion

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, it's not just about Gender.

Who knew for instance that Mercedes Benzene was 16 years old? (Just turned.) Would you talk about certain subjects with a 16 year old, or chide them for not voting or something?

TFS

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Well, it's not just about Gender.

Who knew for instance that Mercedes Benzene was 16 years old? (Just turned.) Would you talk about certain subjects with a 16 year old, or chide them for not voting or something?

TFS

Again, it does not matter! Whether it's gender, age, race, physical ability, god awful ugly puss, stinky feet, or whatever silly distracting bias one-to-one contact gimps up communication with, it is of no concern or interest to me. Bunch of damn gossip making a gallimaufry of this unique-in-the-age-of-people method of communication called the world wide web. If you press me, I'll tell you what I really think.

[KickAssClown]

It's interesting to note that According to DeMause, we are most likely using our so called "social alters" in our conduct here.

I know that I am, as I free admit that I am wearing a mask. It makes social interaction easier, which says archives because I am not a terribly good socailite.

I try not to bend my perceptions to much regarding people's various traits. I talk to people as I wish to be talked to inturn.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, let me throw out a hypo(graphy)thetical.

Let us say that Bob is blind.

Bob & Alice are arguing some point about some diagram, and Alice is getting frustrated at Bob's inability to grasp her point.

She types "Why can't you understand this! It's right there for you to see, just look at it damn it!"

Of course, Bob can't look at. If Bob and Alice were interacting in Real Life, Alice would never tell Bob to "Just look" at something.

What I'm saying is that we talk to people differently based on things we can't learn about them in a text-forum. When we don't learn these things, we make assumptions that are not necessarily well founded. For instance Alice assumed Bob could see - she had no reason not to - she couldn't see his white cane, or his dark glasses.

Are we more "Invisible" in the Ralph Ellison sense when we DON'T have difference to get in the way of communication, because we tend to assume the whole world is just like us?

TFS

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Okay, let me throw out a hypo(graphy)thetical.
...

TFS

Since blind Bob is typing it is his obligation to in some way communicate by typing that he can't access the drawing (perhaps simply by typing "I can't access the drawing"; if he doesn't, then a scolding is in order.

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

What I'm saying is that we talk to people differently based on things we can't learn about them in a text-forum. When we don't learn these things, we make assumptions that are not necessarily well founded.

What I'm saying is we should talk to people differently here because it's a different medium. Just as radio is a different medium than TV is different from print is different from oratory, etc.. I am not here to interact with people; I'm here to interact with people's ideas. Not only do I not give a rat's patut about your gender, your diplomas, your wife's aunt's bunion, or your splendiforous beauty, I lose respect for the typer when they bring up such things. It's simply not germain here.

[pgrmdave]

I think that it is different when you know where a person is coming from with their ideas, and gender, along with other physical attributes that you cannot know over the web, plays a big part in that. I couldn't discourse on what it feels like to be female, or of a minority race, or rich, or homeless, or old, or talk about what it is like in certain parts of the world where I've never been. Likewise, I'm more qualified than many here to talk about what the American school system is like, or what New Jersey, or NYC is like, and other topics about which I have first hand knowledge. However, when discussions such as those come up, people tend to tell you why they think the way they do, so it doesn't tend to be much of a problem.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Since blind Bob is typing it is his obligation to in some way communicate by typing that he can't access the drawing (perhaps simply by typing "I can't access the drawing"; if he doesn't, then a scolding is in order.

What if it's not an actual issue, but just an insensitive comment? Bob is bitching about not having a job or something. Alice tells Bob "Get off your ass and get one" only Bob is paraplegic.

Of course, it's obvious that Alice only meant that figuratively, but she might have phrased it differently had she known.

I'm not particularly comfortable with the notion of people as nothing more than a vector for the exchange of ideas - especially not in the social interaction aspect of the forum (and there is a social interaction aspect, it's not all dry factual scientific debate.)

And I'm saying that although we can't KNOW certain things about people, we "fill in the blanks" with what we suspect the information is, and it's not always well-founded.

Fer'instnce. There is a poster who rabidly defends Israel and everything it does. He (I assume) has a vaugely "jewish" sounding handle. I assumed that this poster was either a) Israeli b) Jewish.

Would I have assumed his handle was "jewish" sounding if he hadn't been such an ardent Israeli supporter?

Would I have assumed he was a member of said group if he hadn't had a "jewish" sounding handle?

Of course, these assumption are MY problem and not his, but is it possible to NOT form these assumptions about people, and having formed them to have them NOT affect the discourse in some way?

TFS

[ronthepon]

This basic guessing of charecters creates some major misunderstandings. Quite some time ago, there was a poster I though was a wierd Indian man, instead I found a woman living... god knows where.

Also, when I had visited my first forum, I had conjured a mental picture of an extremely jungle like surrounding, with millions of people posting al the time everywhere.

In that kind of a situation, it's best to remain as a person interacting with ideas, not people.
Not that I say it's not absolutely valid here at hypography as a interaction method.

But in a case where there are hundred active posters, you tend to assign charecters to people, tend to form your own opinions of them. When you are mistaken... it may get ugly.

[TheFaithfulStone]

That's exactly what I mean Ron. I think we have these mental pictures of people typing away at their computers, and we tend to mistake that simulacrum for the real poster.

If "postings" could be considered a representation of the real person, then people's attempt to reconstruct the poster could be a representation of the representation.

A copy without an original.

TFS

[KickAssClown]

I like to think of it as looking into a mirror which shifts with each poster that I read. I have this mental creation of other people. The part of my personality which is my Empath. He/She's metamorphic in nature, has to be, cause he/she always assumes the observable traits of the person I am talking/writting with. He/She varies from emotional to intuitive to logical, depending on the person I am communicating with and dependent on the medium that I am using to communicate.

This is to say that I have a mirror in front of my brain. Hypography is a mirror also. so what happens is that I get a continious reflection until the information bounces sufficently to pass through one of the half-silvered mirrors. Either mine or Hypographies. In the case of my mirror then I have something to think about and I might start the process anew. In the case of Hypography's mirror, then the information will end up as a post for others to read and respond to.

-Shamans have to concider all view points, or none at all.
His Foolishness the KickAssClown