That was supposed to be web _cam_. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:38 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: A good thing > > > It's the web came thing, isn't it? Just admit it, you're a voyuer. :-) > > Kevin Graeme > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:34 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > hehe partially agree only partially mind you > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:25 PM > > Subject: RE: A good thing > > > > > > > No offense, but I've personally always considered a blog to be for > > > exhibitionist narcisists. I just don't understand why anyone > > would want to > > > share that much about themselves. Web cams really have me baffled. > > > > > > Kevin Graeme > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Judith Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:20 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: A good thing > > > > > > > > > > > > This conversation really ties into some of the thoughts I had > > > > been having lately about private vs. public and the nature of the > > > > Internet (and blogs, since I'm starting to get into blogging > > > > right now.) I just put up a poem on a blog I'm a part of -- it's > > > > really a community blog, made up of members of the SF (science > > > > fiction) community (editors and writers) with very interesting > > > > political/media discussions. My contribution was a poem, the > > > > first poem I have written in 10 years. > > > > > > > > I'm going to try to write up some of these thoughts on blogging, > > > > journalism, public and private spaces sometime this weekend so > > > > you guys can chime in (or tell me that I'm full of it!) > > > > > > > > Judith Dinowitz > > > > Editor > > > > Fusion Authority > > > > http://www.fusionauthority.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Larry Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:12 PM > > > > Subject: RE: A good thing > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
