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 (57433)	9/9/2002 2:32:36 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have said that there is somewhat more doubt in cyberspace, but that it is reasonable to assume that most people are honest most of the time, as we do in real life. Two points. First, that depends in part on what you mean by honest. There are few -- very few -- human beings who can be totally honest about themselves in an objective sense. There is a quite natural tendency to put our best foot forward. Many things can be literally true but functionally false. For example, take the football coach who was hired by Notre Dame and then fired before he started work because he falsified his resume. On this board, he could truthfully say he is a former major college football coach, but that, though strictly truthful, would hardly be honest. Furthermore, people here are unlikely to say negative things about themselves, so whatever picture you get is very onesided, and there is no 3D presence to help correct any misapprehensions that way (or to the contrary, either.) Second, I do not make your basic assumption that people on line are honest most of the time. I see an awful lot of role playing going on. I have engaged in it myself, and others have also admitted doing it. Sometimes people reading role playing messages have trouble identifying them as such, and take the role play for the real person, which is a mistake that has led to more than a few dust ups here. (Indeed, jla's whole problem with me stems from his either believing or pretending to believe -- I happen to think the latter, but I could be wrong -- that a role play represented in any way the real person.)

To: Neocon who wrote (57433)	9/9/2002 3:22:48 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

there is in fact more data given out over a protracted period of posting, ordinarily, much more than is available to most acquaintances It may appear that way, but I think it is illusion. I think all the words you and I have exchanged ever since we've known each other on SI, would amount to less than what would be said between two friends spending just a single day together. Conversation by written communique is exceptionally inefficient.

To: Neocon who wrote (57433)	9/10/2002 12:04:33 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

< I have said that there is somewhat more doubt in cyberspace, but that it is reasonable to assume that most people are honest most of the time, as we do in real life.> I think that is absolutely untrue. Maybe that MIGHT be true of this one little venue where people have been posting and PMimg for several years, but even then, I'd never believe anyone here without confirmation in 3D. Just not a good idea. Can you get away with it? Sure. But it is like hitch-hiking... sooner or later, you will have a bad experience that would cause you to modify your opinion. The last ride I took with strangers was an elderly man and woman who had seen me break down. I didn't think they were likely to rob me after assessing their (unsolicited) offer, and they saw my broken down car, so they presumed my inclination wasn't to rob them either. But this was and is the exception, and not the rule.