'Self' Actualization?

Next week we explore 'online personae' so I thought I'd set the scene by opening up a few lines of discussion on the topic...starting with....whether you consider your online self IS substantially different from your offline personality. Certainly, this guy seems to think so and, it seems, would dearly like to be more like his cyberspace counterpart. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33178 . As enamoured as he is with 'HankScorpio', the creator wisely recognizes that his more humdrum meatspace self would probably have to be drawn upon in order to temper the 'literally larger than life' virtual side of his personality.

So exactly how similar / dissimilar are your online and offline personalities? We often perceive that there are quite substantial differences (usually in terms of openness, social effectiveness / flirtatiousness / assertiveness, etc)...but are these perceived differences that great? Although there are few (if any) established tools to assess differences in how we feel, think and behave online and off, I thought we might have a go at measuring the traits of the two (or three or four!) by using an online version of a five-factor personality test, firstly responding as our 'real-life' self, then as our cyber persona. Here are my results from the test when I answered as my offline self http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=90.00&c=69.00&e=59.00&a=14.00&n=71.00&o-raw=4.70&c-raw=3.78&e-raw=3.50&a-raw=2.89&n-raw=3.62 and here is my 'online' persona's profile. http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=70.00&c=21.00&e=18.00&a=6.00&n=32.00&o-raw=4.20&c-raw=2.78&e-raw=2.50&a-raw=2.56&n-raw=2.75

Ok, so I am quite different online and off...in quite a few ways. : but the major thing I noted while completing the tests was that quite a lot of the questions are virtually unanswerable in relation to my online self. I couldn't answer whether the virtual me was 'lazy' or 'efficient' as these are domains of experience that are never really tested online. Other items were, though, equally applicable to both online and offline 'me'. My artistic taste, my religious beliefs, my moodiness and assertiveness...all of these could be answered equally easily as all are commonly considered and reflected upon aspects of personality both in cyberspace and the real world. Curiously, I realised that my cyberspace persona was far more 'religious' (in a non-organised religion, spiritual way) than the meatspace me.

Have a go yourself. Just how distinctly different are you online?

Finally, here's a poser for you that I found on a blog online:
Should We Accept A Cyber Personality As A Real Person?
People who appear here may portray themselves as young, old, experienced, highly educated, green, blue, red….whatever. Let’s put aside the obvious question that they maybe up to no good for now. If that is the person that they want to put out in our little cyber corner, shouldn’t we go along and accept them totally as they want to be seen? Doesn’t everybody have a secret self, an imaginary life that they would rather live ? Isn’t that just as REAL?

Whad'ya think?

Oh what a tangled web...

In Weeks 7 and 8 of the course you're going to be learning about the function of 'online personae' and deceit in cyberspace and the following article recalls the sad consequences of constructed persona and rampant, malicious deceit gone wrong. Although at first consideration the story seems to be simply a stark warning of the potentially catastrophic effects of embarking on a campaign of deceit on the internet (and yet another reminder of the power of the affordances of the medium) it also, on closer reflection, unveils the extent to and detail with which online persona are often created and how authentic they can be. The motive for this particular web of deceit seems pretty clear-cut...but something about the very last paragraph chills (at least me) even more than the calculated, vindictive lies and vitriol that caused a young girl her death. Consider the richness with which the character of Josh had been created. Does that final paragraph reflect the beliefs and tastes of 'Josh' or the woman behind his mask, tweaking the strings. I'd bet good money that it's the former; that the 'history' of this figment of fiction had been scripted to match her vision of 'Josh'....to make him plausible and conform to 'type'. Why? Because even if there is no or little possibility of the perpetrator being exposed....if the mask of invisibility and anonymity is impenetrable, there seems to be a compelling need for cyberspace deceivers to paint a fully rounded, valid and 'true' character. Once they begin to tell the persona's story, they feel driven to recount it in full.

I began to ponder this.....why?....and one of the most reasonable explanations I could come up with was the medium of communication. Text. For centuries words have been the vehiicle for expression of normally unspoken desires and fantasies. Works of fiction, no matter how exrteme, are received as acceptable because they are just that. Not-real. Fantasies. Just words. Diaries and journals have always contained the private longings and aspirations of their authors....again...no matter how socially unacceptable (even deviant) those thoughts and dreams might be. In other words, it possibly ISN'T just the fact that the perpetrators are invisible and anonymous that frees them to behave in such a way; it may be the fact that they are weaving their web of deceit via the 'emancipatory ', fantastical medium of words. I'm betting good money that there's research out there that indicates that even with cast-iron guarantees of anonymity....if they could be 100% assured that they could deceive successfully, people do not and would not indulge in such deceitful character construction when they communicate via voice chat...the spoken voice.

Here's the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903367_pf.html

While you're reading it, you might also consider the motives of the 'vigilantes'.....