Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/23/2002 12:42:55 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Excellent read, Neo. One of the things I find helpful (some might consider naive) is to take commentary at face value and try not to ascribe underlying motivations which might undercut full discourse. However.... When a person has sustained a rather stable and ongoing "relationship" with posters over time...we get to know them in some cases better than we know our 3D friends....(or at least we think we do <vbg>). Plus, we start to recognize certain posting patterns of individuals over time that we can begin to decide whether to accept at face value messages or not. How we deal with perceived underlying motivations is another subject entirely and certainly can add to one's stress level if not handled internally in an appropriate way.

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/23/2002 1:55:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, I think I will end it there, and see what comments may be elicited........ My primary comment is that I really appreciate the paragraph breaks. Nice change of pace. Now, Neo, please take your "relationship" with this poster into consideration when you interpret the above... <g>

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/23/2002 2:40:14 PM
From: Shoot1st	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Nah....I don't believe that for a minute. - - - - - - - - - - - thought you could use a chuckle. Shootie

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/23/2002 3:18:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Excellent post. Excellent analysis. Thought provoking. I'm going to bookmark it and chew on it for a while.

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/23/2002 3:27:33 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So, What are you trying to say?

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/23/2002 5:12:25 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

That is the start of a very fine paper of the subject. I think many people are not prepared to be in a place where they find out what other people are really thinking. Many people go through life believing that most people are thinking the same thoughts they are, and believe the same things they do, and have the same mores they do. I suspect that belief may bring much needed comfort to people, although I don't really understand why. So this place, and the internet in general, where thoughts and thinking are so obviously laid bear, must be deeply disturbing for many people. I enjoy watching the variances, although I don't really like talking to all the variances nor would I ever in a million years invite most of the variances into my home. But we all need to find our own way.

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/26/2002 2:11:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sorry to be slow responding, was away for a few days. With 6 replies, it looks like you started something interesting! I'll go read the rest of the thoughts before adding mine. Will just say here that I think you've hit a lot of interesting bases. You did speak of the lack of interaction which we have in conversations, but didn't speak to the anonymity aspect, that while it appears to be a conversation (or series of interlinked conversations), in conversation, in addition to the facial and other non-verbal clues, you are interacting with an actual person, while on the internet, as it is said, "nobody knows you're a dog." Except for those few cases where posters have actually met physically, any sense that you are talking to a real person is entirely in the interpretation of the poster to what is being read. The other point I think you omitted is that when people write for anonymous audiences, such as letters to the editor, essays to be published, books, etc., generally some care is taken to work over the language, and there is some time interval between the writing and the submittal when one can review and reconsider, whereas much (most?) internet postings are immediate, off the cuff, and submitted without much opportunity for reflection or for reconsideration of how this will appear to or affect the reader. There can be violent face-to-face arguments with people, but it's virtually impossible to have a flame war in writing outside of the rapidity and immediacy of the internet.

To: Neocon who wrote (48100)	5/26/2002 10:36:16 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Some further thoughts on "Thread Dynamics..." An intriguing aspect of message boards you allude to is that communication is limited to the written word. When you think about it, this technology provides the first time for us to be able join into a community of people from all walks of life and to exchange ideas back and forth, day in and day out, with a large number of persons that we know only by their aliases. We can say whatever is in our heads, and we never can be sure who will answer us, or how they will interpret our messages. Thus, our use of language becomes a key. Obviously, across the spectrum of SI, there are great difference among people in their command of language. Some have better vocabularies than others. Some are more familiar than others with common idioms. Some have a better grasp than others of literary devices such as sarcasm or irony. (footnote: I have learned from painful experience here to be extra careful to make liberal use of ggg's and ;-)) Some are simply better writers than others. In 3-D communication, we supplement language with a host of clarifying cues, such as tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, or body language. But here, the written word stands alone. We may be talking to people who share very little of our own perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Generally, we do not spend great time perfecting our messages; sometimes the pace of message exchange is fast, and we write down our thoughts as quickly as they come to us. Thus, for all these reasons and more, the opportunities for misunderstanding and miscommunication are greatly amplified. I have the habit of using "you" as an impersonal pronoun, as in "You can't have your cake and eat it too." This habit has gotten me in trouble on the boards. The person my message is addressed to says, "How dare you say that about me. (footnote: Often, the point of our message is not particularly meant for the person we are responding to, as much as for the broader audience ... another opportunity for misunderstanding). A lot of message exchanges here, especially in controversial discussions, focus extensively on what may have been insinuated, implied, inferred, or the like. In other words, there is extensive "reading between the lines." This complicates matters considerably, as what the reader thinks we are covertly meaning to say becomes more important that what we actually say. Of course, some times the reader is perfectly correct in this belief, while other times not. More misunderstandings. Beyond these pitfalls for misunderstanding, effective communication needs more than that people share the same language. They must also share a similar sense of reality, a similar frame of reference. Communication basically involves a sender encoding a message and delivering it to a receiver who decodes it. If there is no real common frame of reference between the two parties, a lot of scrambling is going to take place on both sides. Quite a lot of lot of the "dialogues" here consist of messages flying back and forth with little comprehension or understanding occurring on either side. Robert J. Morton (The Lost Inheritance) has this to say: Again, the reader's brain (or the artificial neural network) needs a key to interpret the written words into the vocal sounds they represent. So too the reader's mind requires a key to interpret the 'vocal' sounds into the writer's thoughts. The first syntactic key comprises the vocabulary and grammar of the spoken language or digital code which relates a set of symbols to a set of sounds. The second semantic key is an amalgam of all our personal experiences of nature, life and society which relates the spoken word to thought, significance and meaning. For a reader to understand perfectly the words of the writer, the reader must be in possession of the writer's semantic key. Since no two people share exactly the same fundamental experiences of life, such perfect understanding is clearly impossible. These are just some further, imperfect thoughts on your thesis. Hmmmm, mulling over what I've just written ... I guess I should not expect you to understand a word of it. ( <gggggg> hehehehe ;-) :-) :-( <more gggggg's> that was a joke, just kidding, OKAY?)