The interesting thing is the anonymity aspects. A similar thing is watch people in their cars in traffic (only if you're not driving that is :). They think they are fairly anonymous. Thus you get all sorts of private behaviors that you don't normally see in public - nose picking etc.
anonymity is a real disinhibiter. 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 12:09 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > I remember the case (psych major here) and while anonymity > was a factor, I > think that the factors of indifference to others and fear of getting > involved were more important. As foolish as it may sound, the > city was a lot > darker then and there was a lot more fear around. The people > who heard the > attacks knew her, they just didn't do anything till after she was dead > (almost 50 minutes after the first attack). > For those who want to know what we're talking about, do a > search on "kitty > genovese". > > If you want to go through the archives and write a profile on > me, have fun. > :) > > > 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
