I agreed with your post, except that I think that this is problematic, at best:
"There should, of course, be caution, as you suggest, since we do not have many cues or validators that are present in real life. In real life, we are in a better position to find out how true someone's account of himself is, or to use non- verbal cues, like expression, to augment our "reading" of him."
This is real life and can be prove to be so within reasonable premises. As to whether face-to-face assists a better apprehension of a person--that depends on myriad factors. People often tend to be less genuine and more misleading in person (for obvious reasons), so in the absence of scientific studies, we must reserve final judgement.
What is not controversial is the question of whether or not people lose their existence (or their ability to impact) by changing their name or by avoiding face-to-face encounters.
We use telephones because of an a priori acceptance that we are people and not merely names. It is so obvious... |
