'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'.....

Be careful what you wish for....(or think)

I heard about this http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/gaming/news/mind-powered-gaming-neuro-headset?articleid=1479683828 on Radio 4 the other day. Fancy your every thought and emotion being visible via your online avatar? Now where, I wonder, could all this lead to....?

"We are cups, constantly and quietly being filled....." (Ray Bradbury)

This week has, sadly, added another chapter to the tragic story of what appears to be a mass suicide of a group of young people in Bridgend, South Wales. (See http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1305988,00.html ) . The toll now stands at 17. As the first reports emerged, rumours and theories of an 'internet suicide cult' began to circulate, as all those who had ended their lives were members of the social networking site 'Bebo' and, it seems, belonged to a network of contacts or 'friends' on there. Other theories proposed the possibility of 'internet suicide gurus', influencing the Welsh goups' behaviour.

The police and MPs are currently adamantly denying this possibility on, (it seems to me from the bit I've read), very little evidence other than the fact that most of these young people knew each other - or at least some of the network - in real life too.

Whatever the primary mechanism of effect behind this truly tragic series of events, the internet and social networking sites seem to have played a least a partial role; maybe peripheral and non-catalytic roles but nevetheless their presence is uncomfortably.....worryingly....there.

Over the next couple of weeks you're going to be studying models of cyberpsychology that might offer insight into how a collection of people can, via text-based CMC, adopt incredibly strong bonds of 'group identity', loyalty and extreme polarisation of feeling, thought, and action. You'll be hearing how one of the less positive effects of CMC is, sometimes, 'deindividuation', a term most commonly associated with Festinger et al (1952) and Zimbardo (1969). All of these researchers emphasized how anonymity, diffused responsibility and large 'community' size (all affordances of cyberspace) lead to the very strong need to conform to the social norms of a group...whatever those 'norms' may be, i.e. the internet is a perfect breeding ground for deindividuation, the potential for vulernability to extreme group norms....and potentially tragic consequences.

Would you?

This is a Wiki entry of the movie released on 29th Feb, 'Untraceable': The film is a social commentary on Internet schadenfreude.
Set in Portland, Oregon, the film involves a serial killer who rigs contraptions that kill his victims based on the number of hits received by a website http://www.killwithme.com/ . The website features live streaming of video of the victim. (Yes, there appears to be an actual website of that name - presumably created by the film-makers as a promo idea; visiting is quite a startling experience) Naturally, in the film,millions of people log on, hastening the victims' violent deaths. The protagonist is a cybercop named Jennifer Marsh, who pieces the mystery together, at great risk to the personal well-being of herself and her family.

Question is....why? Why would anyone risk the life of another to sate mere (rather ghoulish) curiosity? One can see the attraction for the sadist / psychopath/ extreme fetishist but why would (largely) ordinary, well-balanced, non-psychopathic individuals log onto such a site in their millions when they know that there's even a small chance that the 'warning message' is true and that someone will suffer or die as a consequence?

The answer partly lies in what we've been talking about in class in Week 2...the affordances of cyberspace. The killer in the film is capitalising on the 'invisibility' of the internet , thus the viewers sense of anonymity, lack of accountability / personal responsibility and disinhibition plus, I think, something else: the fact that a primary attraction of the medium is 'exploring' and 'experiencing' (without any real consequence). The 'point and click' generation would find it incredibly difficult to be denied their birthright to "observe and evaluate, engage or discard"....and the killer in the film uses this.

But other, personality factors, MUST, to my mind, interact with the affordances to determine whether a person would click 'Enter' or not. Obviously, their 'moral compass', their level of morality (see Kohlberg)might play a role but what else?And which one trait can you think might disempower the affordances of the internet and override all curiosity or propensity to just 'have a look'?

Flaming, but far from alight...

"Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others."

Given the interaction between internet people, and the exaggerated emotions often displayed.. the arguments that ensue, the upset people can feel.... which flamer are you? Flame Warriors Homepage
[I think i fall somewhere in the middle of 'therapist', 'strumpet' and 'philosopher']

Chatting to a person online, via a chat room, a discussion forum or any other way you find... why is it that you actually feel emotions about a conversation? Feel so strongly that you sit and pour out your opinions on a topic to a total stranger, would you do that to someone at the local pub? Why is it some people seem to be targets for abuse? The internet, possibly the ultimate tool for communication and ability to meet like minded people yet some search avidly for opposing people to battle it out with.

People... strange breed...

Eternally, etherally yours.....

....even if just a virtual vestige.

http://mashable.com/2008/01/29/prepare-for-your-death-online-20-helpful-tools/

Has a presence in cyberspace really become so fundamental to one's sense of self that we can't bear to let go of the opportunity to 'interact' there even after we've shuffled off the mortal and (www) coil? I'm in two minds about this one. I'm not sure if I want to be hanging around on a server for all time. (Bit morbid for a Tues morning....I know) :

On a related topic, I thought you might like to know who's the Patron Saint of the Internet....Meet Saint Isidore of Seville. (see above). Why is he patron saint? You'll have to find out. :)