Anonymity is also quite dangerous. People are far more likely to be engage in unacceptable behaviors when anonymous than if they were publicly identified. In the 1960's there was a case where a woman was brutally murdered in New York in a development with quite a lot of people looking on from the surrounding apartment blocks. When investigated later, most of the people reported that they thought someone else would be contacting the police. In an experiment in the 70's the researchers put pictures of the residents beside their apartment balconies. The researchers found that this lack of anonymity resulted in far more pro social and pro community behavior than before.
> If a psychologist went through our > posts they could probably build a rather accurate picture of > each of us. The true us. BTW Michael, as a former psych person you want me to go through the archives then? ;) larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:34 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
