how long is it before we actaully bridge the gap between our physical "selves"
and our "on-line personias"? 
i like to think that my alias is/has always been an extention of the "real
me", however, with the benifits of a certian perversed sense of security and
anonimity that i find i miss at times when i'm not basking in the warm
soothing glow of my terminal.

i've always treated text based coversations with as much validity and
caring/emotion/blah blah blah as i do with conversations that occur in "real
life". Most of my good friends that i have met in the last eight years have
either started or matured from anonymous blocks of text. 

So? it's real, but is actually "so real" to the majority of internet users?
Most people are shocked to hearthat i met my girlfriend on a bbs. (no, we
didn't "cyber date" but we did form opinions of each other based only on
unbiased blocks of text before actually "meeting") to me this is perfectly
logical, i'm on the internet upwards of five hours a day and i hate bars,
where else would i meet a "mate"?

i'm not sure what i'm really getting at here (and if you've read this far and
are muttering under your breath about my babble, i apologise) 
i'd just like to put forth the question: how "real" is it to you?

9 responses total.

being anonymous is great since you can hide stuff about yourself. however,
you have to stay true and close to reality

You're too close to the reality that you want. <EOF>

How "real" is an internet persona? I'd say no more or less real than 
any other persona we exhibit. Certainly, there is the bot problem. We 
can be reasonably sure that anyone we interact with F2F is an actual 
living breathing sentient being (well, perhaps not always sentient =P). 
Online, its embarrassingly easy to be duped by a secretary or other 
bot.  

But I digress.

I think what you're asking is whether our internet persona is an 
accurate copy of our F2F persona. It can be, but isn't necessarily. But 
what of it? Evenin the flesh, many people are high self-monitors. We 
modify our behavior to suit our environment and our audience, often 
without thinking about it. The freedom to do it online is even greater, 
because suddenly you aren't restricted by a static physical identity. 
With just a few clicks on the keyboard, you can change your gender, 
age, nationality, and every other label which is hard to shrug in the 
flesh. Is that representation "real"? As real as anything is the 'net. 
Which is to say, that its a sort of self-contained reality. Its real 
*on* the 'net, and if that's the limit of your interactions, then 
that's the end of it. Your offline identity is a separate entity; the 
two don't overlap. Afterall, online we're all just bits of data, not 
physical bodies. There *is* no gender, age, or nationality. And any 
visual representation we ascribe to our own bit of data is accessory. 
Features we can choose, but are by no means inherent or self-defining. 
Yes, some people chose an icon which corresponds to their offline 
identity, but I wouldn't consider that to be any more "real" or 
legitimate than one which is wholly and deliberately constructed.

As far as *personality* goes, and the way we portray online vs off....  
again, I consider the two to be distinct and equally valid. And again, 
for many people there is a strong overlap between. Even so, numerous 
studies have indicated that people are more familiar, prone to greater 
levels of self-disclosure, and to react in less inhibited ways during 
computer-mediated communication, as compared to F2F.  Not everyone, not 
always, but generally speaking..... So in that sense, chances are the 
person you're talking to online is more reserved in the flesh. There's 
always the possiblity that the person you are talking to online is 
completely different from how they would be in the flesh. That the 
online persona is a construct (which I would argue is still just 
as "real"). Its easy to do, and for some people an entertaining 
excercise. But then, its just as possible that the person you picked up 
at the club last night was "faking" it as well. So this sort of 
deception (if you regard it as such. I prefer to think of it as an 
example of the fluidity of identity =P) is more about human 
interactions than it is about the internet in particular.

Eek! I rambled. The short answer, for me, would be: yes its real. But 
while the temptation is great, I generally don't map that online 
persona onto the flesh and blood person without a certain amount of 
caution. Yes, it usually translates well (with only a few growing pains 
along the way). But I've had enough experience to realize that it 
doesn't always. 

I look around
When i wke up in the morning
i see these people 
running to there job
hate for the morning
tired at nigh
disgusted with the news
offended with television

They make us sick eating at McDonalld
They suck all our energy from our 9 to 5 job
They brainwash the last parcel of energy trough television
And they say that should be good for us
or at worst not bad 
The used us 60 year of our life 
to give us back to mother nature 
completely poison 
completely rapped

You know sometime
i wonder
i think i've always wonder
What is the reality 
why should the reality 
that they a trying to give us
should be the good one

So from this point 
the cyberspace 
is a true reality 
at least as true 
as ther one we live everyday

At least trought the cyberspace
you can fully exchange from the mind
without any physical barrieres


Sorry for all the typo ... im not english
Cyberspace for me is a completely new land ... 
i as it's good and it's bad point but
a real land exist there .. here ;)

here's my two cent's worth...
alternate and enhanced realities have been around since the year dot. The
earliest recorded example was the Aborigine dreamtime legent which was treated
as almost a seperate layer of reality that crossed normal boundaries etc...
familiar?
you people are taking all this too seriously. Remember- most communication
between human beings exists on a sub-textual level, through things like body
language and emotional cues (far more subtle ones then emoticons, i might
add).
the level of communication that passes back and forth between two people who
are typing into a screen interface is several orders of magnitude less than
that experienced between two people face to face. This is the simple and
inevitable result of a contest between a system that has existed less than
fifty years and a system that has evolved ove aeons.
frankly, net communications cannot hope to compete in efficiency or content
than tradition methods... yet.
remember- we are still taking are first stumbling steps into your new world,
and frankly we haven't yet learned how to wipe our arses one handed yet.

While operating under a condition of anonymity, we feel more free to express
our true thoughts without fear of direct retribution.  There are probably
people out there who are faking it, but i think at least 90% are pretty close
to their genuine self

lol, looks like people had alot to say.
well im not in a typing mood, so...eh.... later

Wow, excellent discussion guys, some really valid points.................what
is the matrix....lol

Nope matrix! :-) First was Lawnmoverman!!! And he will made a matrix!!!

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss