Online persona

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I don't normally do "Lounge"

[silverlifter]

It entirely depends on the extent to which the poster intends to reveal about themselves.

Some people choose a persona to remain anonymous and go to great lengths to disguise themselves, obscuring their IP, nationality, gender, etc. Others are happy to share intimate details about themselves and their families.

I am wary of making judgements about the people behind the words that appear on a screen, prefering to take what they type--for better or worse--at face value and engage (or, not) with that.

I have met quite a few people personally after only knowing them via the Internet, and have almost always found that my expectations were confounded in at least some way in every case. Communicating clearly is extraordinarily hard, and doing so without the benefit of being able to see someone's face, hear their voice and observe their reactions and expressions makes interactions online especially fraught.

[Jon Szanto]

I've gotten quite good at sussing out the personality type of a person from what they present online, and am usually not very surprised when the opportunity to meet in person presents itself. Indeed, many people use the relative anonymity of the medium to obfuscate their true natures, but in my experience time will usually illuminate the persona as it is.

When I came into the pen world, I specifically used my name as my handle, which had not always been the case. It has been my intent to be precisely who I am, whether it is from behind a keyboard or face-to-face in RealLife. I am confident that those who meet me for the first time are not confused.

[Jon Szanto]

I don't agree with your assessment, but that is perfectly fine with me. There are far too many people that I have known virtually (first) and then in RealLife and the number who did not match my basic perception is very, very low. I don't doubt my observational acumen at this point. And, to not put too fine a point on it: sometimes it become abundantly clear that a person is purposely masking or hiding their true self. I don't have to worry about matching my observations because I essentially avoid that kind of evasive personality.

[Jon Szanto]

If I was to try and assess you based on your postings here then I would expect to meet a guy who was full of himself; pompous, arrogant and self-indulgent.

You nailed it. You're a fucking clairvoyant.

[TSherbs]

No one is in typed words only
What they are in wholeness in person.
We see through the internet glass
But darkly.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Fermata]

No one is in typed words only
What they are in wholeness in person.
We see through the internet glass
But darkly.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

I have met a few writers through work and their personalities were just what I had expected from their written work because really I dont think you can easily hide what you really are. Same thing with people on here, some you would hug, some you would shake their hand and others you would cross the street to avoid.

Only been fooled once and it has been on my mind for months. A extremely warm and friendly man, the most polite, warm and civil person you could ever want to meet, best friend to everyone. Turned out to be a liar and a fantasist. Fooled me completely and I normally think myself as a good judge of character although often naive it has to be said.

[Farmboy]

It seems many are thrown off by the bow tie when worn on the internet.

[Sailor Kenshin]

I don't normally do "Lounge" as there it doesn't attract much traffic from what I've seen. However, this question does not really fit in the pen side of the forum.


How much do you think an online persona, as interpreted by people who only know the creator through the words they post, is a reflection of the actual person?


Edit:

It is alos worth asking how accurate do you think you are in determining what a person who posts online is really like in meatspace.


With me, what you see is what you get. I'm simple like that.

[countrydirt]

My sister-in-law is loud and shrill and boisterous in real life. She's never met a stranger. Online she is loud and shrill and boisterous and overshares EVERYTHING. She's exactly the same in person as she is online.

My wife is loud yet circumspect and shares little to nothing in person except for with me. Online, she is pretty silent yet more sarcastic and suffers no fools.

I tend to try to live, both online and in real life, by the maxim 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open my mouth and remove all doubt.'

[Fermata]

It seems many are thrown off by the bow tie when worn on the internet.

Minimal swipe rights for bow tie wearing men

Even less for women.

[catbert]

Kinda makes the point about superficial judgements. [this statement is made in the absence of any indication in the preceding post that indicates it was humour]

Other than being quite funny.

[grainweevil]

No, you just lack perspective and a sense of humour. Not to worry, you're "on trend".

[catbert]

To you, perhaps, but I didn't read it that way. So is my assessment invalid?

No more than mine. That's the thing.

[grainweevil]

Dear me. Don't you like being told you lack a sense of humour? What a knee jerk reaction. Don't tell me you're touchy about being called out on lacking something? Would you like to be the focus of the next experiment? It might be harsh, but apparently that's what they are.

[TSherbs]

My understanding of "actual person" is so much larger and more complex than the limited words in a few boxes on an internet site.

No one here knows me at all, in any real or deep way. No one here has walked a mile in my shoes. No one here has held my hand while I was hospitalized or heard me speak at church or work or at a funeral. No one had seen my art or heard me song or make music. No one's seen my work with my students or cried with their parents in concern and love. No one has heard my pillow talk or seen a bit of my dreams. Words on the internet are just that: words.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Jon Szanto]

My understanding of "actual person" is so much larger and more complex than the limited words in a few boxes on an internet site.

No one has proffered that descriptive text and dialogue is a substitute for the actual experiencing of a person, over time, in the non-virtual world, but only whether said text gives insights and suggestions as to what that person would be like. One can't look into the soul of another human through a text-based interface, but neither is it an opaque, non-communicative medium if the other party is open in their writing. In this manner, it is no different from literature.

[TSherbs]

My understanding of "actual person" is so much larger and more complex than the limited words in a few boxes on an internet site.

No one has proffered that descriptive text and dialogue is a substitute for the actual experiencing of a person, over time, in the non-virtual world, but only whether said text gives insights and suggestions as to what that person would be like. One can't look into the soul of another human through a text-based interface, but neither is it an opaque, non-communicative medium if the other party is open in their writing. In this manner, it is no different from literature.I disagree. Words are, indeed, opaque. It's my profession to work with them, almost exclusively. We reach truth only once we move past language. Words are the veil, not the vehicle. Some "communication" occurs, but let's not mistake that for knowledge of the "actual person." We often don't even "know" ourselves that well.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Jon Szanto]

I disagree. Words are, indeed, opaque. It's my profession to work with them, almost exclusively. We reach truth only once we move past language. Words are the veil, not the vehicle. Some "communication" occurs, but let's not mistake that for knowledge of the "actual person." We often don't even "know" ourselves that well.

And all of the great libraries of the world have been a waste. And all of the spoken communication, from as small a group as two individuals to important missives meant for a kindred group to widespread calls to action... useless words.

No, I don't think so. Maybe we are coming at this from very differing directions, but written language is one of the hallmarks of civilization. the repository of knowledge and understanding. I don't propose that by merely corresponding in a medium such as the one we are on now is a direct line to the soul and essence of every participant, and I've said as much. I'm not suggesting to know the "actual person" (as you put it) but that the insights I gain from a forthright and honest dialogue has virtually always painted a true portrait of the person I would eventually meet. On the rare occasion where a person has actively chosen to obfuscate their own true nature, by obscuring deeds or intentions or offering absolute falsehoods, it becomes it's own storyline: this is a person who lives in deceit. I am not infallible, but I have seldom been fooled by this in continuum from correspondence to meetup and acquaintanceship.

[VertOlive]

When posting here I do “prepare a face to meet the faces that I meet”, and yet I don’t consider this to be dishonest. Large swathes of my beady black self don’t often appear here, mainly because it’s all usually polite discourse on the amiable pastime we all come here to share.

[VertOlive]

“We reach truth only once we move past language.”

Not to hijack, but what exactly does this mean?

[TSherbs]

I didn't say books were a waste. I teach them for a living.

I said that language is not access to deepest truths of our selves. I am trying to be spiritual about "actual selves" (the phrase in the question of the OP). The word is not the thing itself. And these posts are never or true selves. By definition. Again, no one here knows me in any true or significant way. Not even close. All others can know of me here is what this verbiage suggests. Revelation is elsewhere.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

“We reach truth only once we move past language.”

Not to hijack, but what exactly does this mean?I was trying to approximate the meaning of poem #1 of the Tao Te Ching.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[VertOlive]

“We reach truth only once we move past language.”

Not to hijack, but what exactly does this mean?I was trying to approximate the meaning of poem #1 of the Tao Te Ching.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

The trajectory that appears in my mind now would require an entirely new post...

[TSherbs]

And for those who have suggested that "personalty" is what is meant by "actual self," well, I disagree with that too. Personality is the mask of gestures and behaviors that we wear to the world. It is a false self, variable according to how others perceive and judge us (like who is funny or mean or not). Who we really are lies far below "personality."

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

“We reach truth only once we move past language.”

Not to hijack, but what exactly does this mean?I was trying to approximate the meaning of poem #1 of the Tao Te Ching.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

The trajectory that appears in my mind now would require an entirely new post...Fair enough. But I keep quoting the phrase in the OP. I just see it differently. I am still right on topic (are internet posts accurate representations of our "actual selves"?). I simply am answering, emphatically, "no."

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[VertOlive]

This turns my mind to the topic of avatars. Isn’t it interesting that we use them as well as a screen name? They must reveal something of the writer in addition to their words but to me they seem far more mysterious.

[TSherbs]

Avatar? Yeah, I find them distracting. And I don't use them. I have no idea what they mean. I just try to ignore them. The internet is so impersonal to me that I just don't feel like bothering.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Jon Szanto]

I keep quoting the phrase in the OP. I just see it differently.

This accounts for the majority of our disconnect: I did not read his phrase with anywhere near the depth that you have. I find it inconceivable to contemplate the deepest inner reaches of an individual from this kind of dialog. I took the implication to be more straight-forward: does the person being presented through their use of language as a medium match, in general, the person you would meet and come to know in real space/time.

Thus endeth my input to this discussion.

[Farmboy]

Bow tie = humor but one needs to know more of the story than presented though fairly easy guessed in general terms

[Empty_of_Clouds]

What can I say. I don't find bow ties funny.

[Gobblecup]

Seems this thread has died, but to put in a bit of input since I came here from reading another thread, I would say these are murky waters. As Jon interprets it I can surely see an argument for taking people at face value when you only have text blocks to go off of. However, I would say from my personal experience, on these forums and elsewhere, that I am very out of touch with who I am from year to year. I can say there are trends, I am subject to paranoid ideas at times, I get defensive easily, and I have tried to grow from that. Still quite young in life I suppose it is to be expected that I have clashed with myself and others in my attempts to find myself while interacting with the world. Is this medium a good way to get to know me? Perhaps, but like a photograph it seems to me that this a window in time. A snapshot. A year from now or ten, life events and lessons may well change me further, for better or worse.

In that regard, I must apologize to anyone I’ve talked to here for who I have been at times before now. I often am a big critic of myself in the past. It’s not that I mean to absolve myself of the perceptions I have made, but reflect we are changing and complex beings, if we TRY to adjust to the tides of life. I don’t keep up with the forums well, but I do hope if anyone here has been offended by my online persona, that I can change that. I ultimately think personal growth is an important thing we have only started to study in regards to my generation and those younger than me since we live so much of our lives on the internet. We are developing on forums and in social media of all sorts, right before the eyes of the world.

[dneal]

I highly doubt I would meet people's expectations. I type the queen's english, but speak redneck.

Although I can be blunt to the point of being considered gruff, I'm courteous and considerate - up to a point. I call bullshit when I see or hear it, and have no problem telling rude and obnoxious people to go fuck themselves.

For some reason, I think Jon Szanto and I would get along smashingly! ;) Now that I've retired, I guess I'll have to make an effort to meet him in person.

[Jon Szanto]

For some reason, I think Jon Szanto and I would get along smashingly! ;) Now that I've retired, I guess I'll have to make an effort to meet him in person.

Go fuck yourself.

:D

(I'd look forward to the opportunity to meet - we'll stay in touch!)