Comments on: Question about the nature of connections https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/ no more band-aids Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:14:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: dnorman https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195951 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:46:34 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195951 Great point, Suzanne. The multiple presences are an important but often unmentioned aspect. When I’m interacting with people online, I’m often in at least a dozen places simultaneously – twitter threads spread around the world, flickr photos and discussions, IM sessions, etc… and being able to context shift between them is both important, and colours my interaction with each – albeit invisibly, as most often, each context is unaware of the others.

]]> By: Suzanne Aurilio https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195950 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:41:58 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195950 There’s also the difference that when you’re online you’re always also physically somewhere. In other words, you’re always occupying at least two locations psychologically and emotionally. This isn’t the case with traditional f2F communications. Here’s another hit on it. Someone is with you f2f and gets a phone call. You’re aware of it, and that they’re attention is elsewhere. You can sense and see the depth of their attention. Not so, online particularly with text. We don’t have a direct experience, so we guess, assume or project. There’s a lot more ambiguity in online verbal communication even in voice, although the sense of closeness and presence in voice feels much stronger.
I think it’s interesting, that when I’m in Second Life, although I can use voice, I don’t about half the time. And I just finished a study in there, and one 3 of my participants could or wanted to use voice. There’s something about the experience of Second Life, “as an avatar that text-chats” that makes it more surreal or fanciful. I’m not sure exactly what that’s about. Just interesting I suppose 🙂

]]> By: dnorman https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195903 Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:04:31 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195903 thanks for the responses, everyone. some very interesting observations to delve into. I’ve been thinking about a couple of dimensions that may impact connectedness: synchronicity (or maybe Synchronicity II) and intimacy. I’d bet that different people value and prefer different combinations, and that those preferences colour their perceptions of connectedness.

]]> By: Seth https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195902 Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:00:50 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195902 I was telling a group a few days ago that I wished Facebook had changed “friends” to “contacts.” One man was took offense, saying “Is that all we are to you?” The labels seem to matter.

I also think the varying levels of synchronicity and asynchronicity on the Internet has a profound affect on these connections.

]]> By: Scott Leslie https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195901 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:59:41 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195901 Well, for one thing, it is harder to hug people online. I am not being flippant. Online connections tend to allow for interaction only through certain means (text, audio, video – words, sounds, sights) and privilege these already over-privileged senses above touch (and smell and taste). This is not ‘bad’ or ‘good’ per se, but it seems to me worth acknowledging, especially if one does believe that our bodies are not insignificant to our being in the world.

I think there are all sorts of other differences we could discuss; I do think it is way to easy to valorize f2f communication over online communication and ignore its subtleties and conventions which are just as valid, but I also think it is helping learn something about the direction our societies were going in even before the actual network came along, things that we can make choices about by first becoming conscious of them. Hope this helps a bit, cheers, Scott

]]> By: Raj https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195900 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:05:20 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195900 An interesting difference might be related to how we deal with spam. Online, spam and “virtual friends” are managed with cruel indifference. In real life, spam interactions with “normal or stable” people are troubled with emotion.

A thought that won’t fit in Twitter.

]]> By: DijutalTim https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195899 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:05:46 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195899 I’ll add my diatribe from a month ago: http://dijutaltim.tumblr.com/post/180091124/on-relating-online

]]> By: Heather Ross https://darcynorman.net/2009/10/19/question-about-the-nature-of-connections/#comment-195896 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:55:06 +0000 http://www.darcynorman.net/?p=3360#comment-195896 I wrote a post related to this awhile back – http://www.mctoonish.com/blog/?p=374

]]>