|
Top-level
 @grimalkina I read the rest too, but I want to reply to this specifically. I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure that that kind of social life "naturally exists" for everyone or that they learned the mechanism. Besides the way you're writing and other self presentation is already broadcasting some image implicitly. E.g. if someone displays personal beliefs with clothing, do you care why they hold those beliefs? Or do you just recognize, deal with it and move on? Made me think though. 5 comments
@grimalkina There is certainly an intersection of beliefs and methods of communication, otherwise it wouldn't work. But I'm not sure the connection between "someone is saying something online" and "it is *necessary* to learn more about that person and why they are saying it" is as strict and strong. Even if we don't agree, I wanted to sort... throw a point in there, that that assumption ("supposed to exert...") may not always be true. To help refine that mental model I guess? @bmaxv I think I'm following. I suppose when I say "some of the same social mechanisms", to me this modifies the statement enough that it's not saying ONLINE IS EXACTLY REAL LIFE CONVO! THE SAME! I would never walk up to you on the street and have this convo. I also would leave this comment hanging and go get food with no guilt. Different rules that way! But my example is more like: a thank you online still has a social impact on the hearer. A blunt query still carries information. |
Gregory's Server
@bmaxv I'm not sure I'm following. Your second point seems to affirm the existence of social and communicative information.
But your first -- you think we exist in some kind of inchoate madness where we have no cognitive and psychological apparatus that gives us social mechanisms of communication? The fact that you and I are speaking in mutually understandable sentences belies that. If you think that we are just so far apart in our mental models of how humans work we probably won't agree