I can't agree with the analogy as its based on knowing everything about a system to secure it. You can't have a relationship based on knowing everything about a person. Take me for example. Does it matter to you that I'm an Orthodox Jew? That I study the occult? That I collect role playing games? Not really and I don't even mention these things until they come up in context (or this example). Ben never felt the need to mention that he was an Orthodox Jew either and it came up in conversation about us being out of contact for Passover. When we talk to someone in 'real life' all we know about them is what they look like, what they say and what they have said in the past (and maybe what others have said about them). When you talk to someone on the net you've just removed one (or more) of those pieces. If someone is going to be biased due to a persons visual appearance then the removal of the visual cue will affect how they interact NOW. How they interact in the future will have to be taken care of in the future. I guess any people who dislike the Amish will be biased against me when they meet me in 'real life'. :) http://www.houseoffusion.com/users/view.cfm?RecordID=127
> My point though is similar to the adage among network security people: > "Don't rely on security through obscurity." This kind of approach doesn't > lead to any real reduction of bias. A better goal is to encourage civility > and respect in the face of differences. > > You mention that people don't edit themselves online. I have seen the same, > but I can assure you that I do edit myself. In your original example of Ben > Forta, you even acknowledge that for two years he effectively had this > "secret" that you didn't know. Was he intentionally not sharing that part of > himself to avoid bias? I don't know (though having met him I doubt it.) I do > know though that I have some very strong biases, even regarding aspects of > people in this community. However, I choose not to let those biases > interfere because they only lead to more anger and resentment. I choose > instead to respect people for the knowledge they bring to the discussion and > I simply ignore those aspects which I find distasteful. I edit myself for > the sake of civility, and I suspect many of us do. > > I'm not trying to batter down your position. I agree that anything that > helps people communicate without bias at any point is beneficial. I'm just > thinking out loud about behavioral ideas I've been toying with for a while. > > Kevin Graeme > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:34 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > The fact that the anonymity gives the people involve the ability > > to interact > > before any bias can come up is the good thing. Even if it does later on, > > hopefully it will result in the 'TV-like morality lesson'. Even one person > > treating another like a fellow human being is a good thing. > > And as for being sanitized, I think its quite the other way around when it > > comes to email. We post our thought without much editing for content, > > grammer or social ques. The slips, rants and other things we post tell > > others a lot about who we really are. If a psychologist went through our > > posts they could probably build a rather accurate picture of each > > of us. The > > true us. > > > > > Is it a removal of bias when you deal with someone anonymously? On the > > > surface, it seems like it works, but as I see it the bias hasn't been > > > removed, only obfuscated. > > > > > > The interaction is able to take place without a preconception > > or prejudice > > > based on appearance, and that can certainly be good. But that doesn't > > really > > > mean that the bias doesn't exist. To take an obvious stereotype example: > > if > > > you put a prejudiced white person in a room with a prejudiced black > > person, > > > the bias is there. If they interact online with no knowledge of skin > > color, > > > the interaction may proceed normally, but what happens if they > > then meet? > > We > > > want to believe that a TV-like morality lesson will be learned and that > > the > > > racist person will realize that the other person's skin color doesn't > > > matter; however, in my experience the bias comes rushing to the > > forefront > > > and the racist person may become even more incensed feeling > > they have been > > > betrayed and lied to by the other person. It's not rational, > > but I've seen > > > it happen. > > > > > > I'm not saying that obfuscation is all bad. As Patrick said, it may help > > > break down the "Us and Them". However, does it have a flip > > side? Do people > > > intentionally hide their color/race/religion/culture in order > > to interact? > > > Do those aspects become like a dreaded albatross and something > > people come > > > to wish to shed in order to become a nameless, faceless "sanitized" > > person? > > > If we are sanitizing, does that cast those troublesome qualities as > > "dirty"? > > > Where is the line drawn between being proud of our differences and being > > > hindered by them? > > > > > > Kevin Graeme > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
