The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Diane's sad post, earlier today, prompted a surprising number of comments about childhood memories of similar, hugely traumatic events. It made me wonder: If this group of people were speaking in person, would such a conversation be at all likely?
This has long interested me, the curious relationships people develop on the Internet. They're often at once much more intimate and vastly less intimate than ones that take place face-to-face. I wrote Lion Eyes in part just to explore this strange phenomenon. It's not just true of romance on the Internet, it's true of many relationships.
This old article about the psychology of cyberspace (remember that term?) offers some useful thoughts about why this is so.
I'll be meeting at least a few of you in person in the coming weeks; it will be interesting to see how similar or different you are from the way I imagine you.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Due to certain immigration technicalities, my wife and I lived 12,000 miles apart for most of the first two years of our marriage. We chatted by instant messenger for a couple of hours each day. It felt almost like being there.
Oddly enough, when we tried to communicate by phone, it just seemed to lack the...richness...of chatting on the web and we soon gave it up.
Jun '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Quite often, I write out a comment, like I'm doing now, and afterward I say to myself, "oh, that's what I think..." And then I delete the comment, because it's not well supported, or because it's almost an exact repeat of someone else's comment. Even comments I spend a lot of time on, but don't send, sometimes help me figure out what I think, so I don't consider my time wasted. My point is, I'm often writing more for myself. Now I'll just erase thi
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
When you began chatting in IM, before you were married, had you met in person? That's quite a different thing, chatting with someone you already know. Their in-person personality is already fixed in your mind and guiding your interpretations of their words. But if you've never met--it's 90 percent fantasy and transference, I'd wager.
Edited on Aug 22, 2010 at 8:36amJul '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Claire Berlinski
Had you met beforehand? That's quite a different thing, chatting with someone you already know. Their in-person personality is already fixed in your mind and guiding your interpretations of their words. But if you've never met--it's 90 percent fantasy and transference, I'd wager. · Aug 22 at 8:32am
Yes, we met here in the US, purely by chance, and spent a few months together before she was required to go back home.
Perhaps internet chat worked better because her English was dodgy and my Russian non-existent. So she had time to sort of craft and edit her messages in a way she wouldn't have on the phone. And I think looking at the written words helped her to comprehend better than spoken words would have.
Jul '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Most people are lousy listeners. I think one of the ways that internet communication like this works so well is that one is very eager to "hear" how one's interlocutor responds.
Instead of failing to "listen" because one is simply waiting one's turn to talk, this form of communication causes us to wish to listen to the other person.
May '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
I read a statistic somewhere that something like 10% of American couples getting married now met through the internet. Two people in my non-immediate family met their spouses online, and one of my sisters is dating a guy she met online. Now that I think of it, a friend met his wife online as well.
I've had a habit of talking to a couple friends online, sometimes via webcams and sometimes just text. They live on the coasts, and I'm in Texas, so I rarely see either face-to-face. In six months or more, all of our most private conversations took place without video and voice. There's a sense of safety that comes from not having to look the other person in the eye; from knowing that the other person is not watching your every expression.
If you really want to know someone, I recommend a wide spectrum of communication methods. Face-to-face conversations, phone conversations, text chatting, webcam, email -- they all have unique advantages and disadvantages.
Jul '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Aaron Miller:
If you really want to know someone, I recommend a wide spectrum of communication methods. Face-to-face conversations, phone conversations, text chatting, webcam, email -- they all have unique advantages and disadvantages. · Aug 22 at 8:56am
I've always been fond of smoke signals.
Aug '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
I definitely use the anonymity and the fact that I write much better than I talk to say things I probably wouldn't say in person.
One of the wonderful things about these sorts of written conversations is that you can really think -- reflect -- before you speak. This gives you a chance to more-or-less say what you really mean, for a change.
In normal speech, when I pause long enough to think about what I'm going to say, it tends to kill the conversation.
Writing also gives the chance to ask questions or raise challenges that I would find impolite to do in person, because no one feels the obligation to respond that they would in spoken conversation.
Also, when you inflict a torrent of words upon people in conversation, they can't help but hear the noise and it occupies their time. But anyone who wants to can skip reading my wordier comments, so I feel less like I'm imposing on people.
Also, the edit function is wonderful!
Edited on Aug 22, 2010 at 9:35amJul '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Claire Berlinski:It made me wonder: If this group of people were speaking in person, would such a conversation be at all likely?
I believe it would be very much the same. This is a smart group who all share the same beliefs. And we're thoughtful enough to know that we have something to learn from each other, so we wouldn't step all over each other in a face-to-face conversation.
May '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Yeah, yeah. It might be somewhat more guarded, but not much so, you'll find. Like-minded people bickering in a bar over quibbles.
Jun '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Kenneth
Aaron Miller:
If you really want to know someone, I recommend a wide spectrum of communication methods. Face-to-face conversations, phone conversations, text chatting, webcam, email -- they all have unique advantages and disadvantages. · Aug 22 at 8:56am
I've always been fond of smoke signals. · Aug 22 at 8:59am
Doesn't that depend heavily on what you are smoking!
Jun '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Painting has been described as the art of addition whereas photography is the art of subtraction. So it is with the communication that goes on in this forum. We both compromise and enhance our communication by adding grammar, spelling, and forethought to it. If we were speaking face to face spelling would not enter into the picture, while forethought would come at the expense of listening, and grammar would take the form of pauses or changes in our speech patterns, which—to use a old CBer term—makes this subtlety subject to the clobber of opposition speak. As to the deeper question of honesty in communication, the fact that there are so many pseudonyms or noms de plume here would indicate fear, or over precaution at the very least, suggesting among other things a lack of trust in ones audience and at worst dishonesty. I don’t know if it’s like wearing dark glasses at a poker game, but it’s close. What we can say of each other is that we are close but not friends for to be friends we must accept each other unvarnished and if anything the internet covers us with varnish.
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
It was indeed interesting to see that many of the responses to my posts were peoples' own recollections of suicides and tragic deaths that they'd seen or been affected by in their past. But this response mirrored identically the responses I received from people I talked to in person -- my mom told me about how she witnessed her uncle try to commit suicide when she was six, my roommate told me about the suicide she saw at a London art museum, and George wrote to me about a friend he lost to suicide. We don't often have opportunity to talk about death -- it's morbid and taboo. That's why when the rare opportunity presents itself, people are eager to share their own experiences. It's very cathartic.
Aug '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Cas Balicki: As to the deeper question of honesty in communication, the fact that there are so many pseudonyms or noms de plume here would indicate fear, or over precaution at the very least, suggesting among other things a lack of trust in ones audience and at worst dishonesty.
In my case, the nom-de-plume is because I'm still young, and may still end up in academia or working with the public school system. I have no problem with you guys knowing my name, but I also know that google searches on prospective hirees are a reality, and I have no illusions about how peripheral dislikes influence hiring and so on. When I am older and well-established in my calling (whatever it is), I will have the liberty of being more forthright in public.
Furthermore, my outlook on life has been shaped a lot by unpleasant or bizarre experiences with family and acquaintances. I want to be able to use the misbehavior and eccentricities of people in my life as examples, if need be, while keeping their risk of public embarrassment to a minimum.
May '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
It is hardly a new phenomena. One of the most important aspects of the Catholic Church relies on the anonymity of the confessional. We have always been more likely to tell strangers things that we wouldn't say to friends.
And sometimes when we need to say something uncomfortable to people we know we'd rather write and avoid the face-to-face.
Aug '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
In my case, I think this is the same me. I try, in whatever venue, to get to the heart of the matter ASAP and to make as many significant connections with whatever interests other people and involving as many levels of the formal disciplines, personal thought and passion as possible—without becoming maudlin, (excessively) pontificating, or--in short--weird. Though my rule is, “It is not about me, it is about all of us,” there is that happenstance possibility of self-discovery, as I found in responding to Diane Ellis' piece. But that, I think, is primarily a function of writing itself, and not blogging per se. From what I have read, good writers find writing as necessary as breathing--for this reason. I believe writing works best when there are others to stimulate my thinking. That is the advantage I find of the Internet over reclusive writing. Thanks! I'd like to see more dialogue between Contributors and those commenting.
Edited on Aug 22, 2010 at 2:50pmAug '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
MF Rattlesnake, I agree. I am comfortable using my real name because it would be tough to sink this old battleship now. But I believe that I have paid for my opinions (and am darn proud of it, b.t.w.). But for a young professional, I say, go with anonymity until you (1) have worked out who you are (that takes time); (2) know what you believe (that takes experience); (3) can communicate your positions with subtlety and skill (without embarrassing yourself too much by being too hasty--oh if I could take some things back...); (4) are in a position to “go public;” and (5) are ready to pay the price for being vocal. (Rule 5 can make Rule 4 somewhat irrelevant--but really make sure you are sure and that it will not harm those depending on you).
Edited on Aug 22, 2010 at 2:08pmJul '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Boy, have I ever got a story relating to this topic......
Aug '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
In normal speech, when I pause long enough to think about what I'm going to say, it tends to kill the conversation. ... Writing also gives the chance to ask questions or raise challenges that I would find impolite to do in person, because no one feels the obligation to respond that they would in spoken conversation.
MFR, your writing is enjoyable. I like it. Keep at it. My experience is, with a few friends--and it does take time and work to find and cultivate these friendships--I can sit and philosophize. These are people who are secure and comfortable with long silences, averted gazes, "rough drafts," hypotheticals, multiple working hypotheses, workplay, and extended preparatory remarks. Admittedly, these tend to be philosophical types, artists, historians, scientists, and academics. Friends--whom I also love--but who are not so good at this, tend to be lawyers, physicians, engineers, business executives...get it? One finds different delights in friendship with each individual. I once sat for 12 hrs in McDs with my philosopher bud.
May '10
Re: The Internet Disinhibition Effect
I think a conversation in a bar between this particular group of people might be just as lively and interesting. In fact, I think it would be far more rich in many ways--phone calls, text messages, email, and blog posts and comments cannot capture the full spectrum of face-to-face human conversation.
Having attended a number of the Rocky Mountain Blogger Bashes, though, I can tell you that a lot of folks are precisely what you would expect.
Come to one of our parties some time and you'll see what I mean. The faces may not match your imagining, but the personalities really are.
Unless it's me we're talking about. I'm mysterious and complexicated, I tell you.