(no subject)
Mar. 3rd, 2007 12:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kbkOne of my classes today was Computer-Mediated Communication, and because I am interested I have already done the minimum reading for next Friday. I actually found myself contributing to the discussion this morning, which was really cool.
We talked about what CMC covers, obviously - internet and the various modes therein, but also mobiles, etc. Then a bit about txtspk and the use of smileys, and such. The differences between how people communicate in chat and in email (also known as synchronous and asynchronous communication).
The chapter for reading [Herring, S.C. Computer-Mediated Communication on the Internet chapter three of Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2001(?)] is unfortunately about five years old, and thus out of date, given that - as it states - Internet years are like dog years. Still, some of it still works.
"the effects of the Internet on language and communication, on interpersonal relations, and on group dynamics, as well as the emergence of social structures and norms, and macro-societal impacts of Internet communication."
Email, being text only and asynchronous, "allows users to manage their self-presentation to a greater extent" - and isn't that why we love it, sometimes? The whole text-based thing is just beautiful when I'm feeling ugly.
In 2000, males were the majority of Usenet users - down from an estimated 95% in 1992. And I found that... odd... because I'm so used to livejournal and the fan community here, which is in form somewhat similar, but is overwhelmingly female.
Heh. Then there's the gender thing. Turns out the author has a pile of articles (listed in the fifteen pages of references) of which some - most? - have gender as a topic. I'll certainly be looking up some. The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment on-line. Ooh, Cyberfeminism - that's somebody else. Anyway.
Huh. I just remembered. When I did nanowrimo, years ago, and went to a Radio Scotland... event... thing. Someone told me that they'd thought kbk would be a man, because - well, short, matter-of-fact, etc.
"the synchronicity distinction reveals that task complexity and the richness/social presence of a medium are not necessarily interrelated" because chat has a high social presence but is of necessity simple in terms of language, because of the time constraints, and is often so in content as well - mmm, phatic.
And the more anonymous you are, the freer you feel to be a bastard. Though it's put a little more politely than that.
"what encourages high rates of participation are factors such as self-confidence and perceived entitlement, rather than anonymity per se." That got a 'duh' from me, because I have experience of the other side of that; that I will not participate because I feel that what I have to say is of little value and not of interest to anyone. I'm now comfortable enough here - and this journal is enough my own space - to just blather, and there are few enough people in CMC - about ten - and I'm confident enough in the topic, generally, that I think I'll manage the class discussions.
Stuff about language is fun, too, though I didn't happen to mention the Lara-Kim phone convos I overheard, during which about one word in five was actually recognisable English. But if we start on that again, I might well comment that I say "omg". Oh, things I want to read: suggesting that "speech is an overly rich medium that generates inappropriate meanings (through gesture, facial expresion, tone of voice, etc.) that must constantly be cancelled. Viewed from this perspective, CMC allows users to express more precisely what they mean, without the interference of unintended physical cues" Because I've fallen prey to that over and over again. Like, one time I was talking to a guy, then I realised that I was leaning on the table and giving him a view like my icon, so I sat up a bit, and then he stopped talking to me. So. *raises eyebrows* *possibly waggles them a little*
"Participation in CMC has been claimed to be psychologically beneficial" blah blah. Some "warn that heavy use of CMC can lead to addiction, alienation from face-to-face relationships, and depression... However, others suggest that CMC overuse is a symptom, rather than a cause, of these conditions." I think you can guess my interest there.
"most types of computer-mediated messages leave a persistent trace" - so look out! Another lecturer mentioned to us that employers will actually do searches on your name, and things. Which is. A bit worrying. But I think all my porn is safely pseudonymised.
I finished the reading in the pub after choir, with former teachers and some other people, and got into a little discussion about freedom of speech, and filtering of the internet, and suchlike. Fun.
Also, because I mentioned it in class and I can't remember what it's called... Does anyone know the short story - I'm about 70% sure it's by Ray Bradbury - in which a guy is arrested, or maybe committed as a headcase, because he rebels against the culture of constant communication, and he sets off a device on a bus to stop everyone's mobile phones, and watch-communicators, and such, and the last paragraph is a lot of repetition of "watch phone other watch other phone computer watch phone other watch other phone computer..." or something like that? oh bounteous flist...
Now I am going to put sheets on my bed and go to sleep and tomorrow I will work on that shitty shitty report. Dammit.
We talked about what CMC covers, obviously - internet and the various modes therein, but also mobiles, etc. Then a bit about txtspk and the use of smileys, and such. The differences between how people communicate in chat and in email (also known as synchronous and asynchronous communication).
The chapter for reading [Herring, S.C. Computer-Mediated Communication on the Internet chapter three of Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2001(?)] is unfortunately about five years old, and thus out of date, given that - as it states - Internet years are like dog years. Still, some of it still works.
"the effects of the Internet on language and communication, on interpersonal relations, and on group dynamics, as well as the emergence of social structures and norms, and macro-societal impacts of Internet communication."
Email, being text only and asynchronous, "allows users to manage their self-presentation to a greater extent" - and isn't that why we love it, sometimes? The whole text-based thing is just beautiful when I'm feeling ugly.
In 2000, males were the majority of Usenet users - down from an estimated 95% in 1992. And I found that... odd... because I'm so used to livejournal and the fan community here, which is in form somewhat similar, but is overwhelmingly female.
Heh. Then there's the gender thing. Turns out the author has a pile of articles (listed in the fifteen pages of references) of which some - most? - have gender as a topic. I'll certainly be looking up some. The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment on-line. Ooh, Cyberfeminism - that's somebody else. Anyway.
Huh. I just remembered. When I did nanowrimo, years ago, and went to a Radio Scotland... event... thing. Someone told me that they'd thought kbk would be a man, because - well, short, matter-of-fact, etc.
"the synchronicity distinction reveals that task complexity and the richness/social presence of a medium are not necessarily interrelated" because chat has a high social presence but is of necessity simple in terms of language, because of the time constraints, and is often so in content as well - mmm, phatic.
And the more anonymous you are, the freer you feel to be a bastard. Though it's put a little more politely than that.
"what encourages high rates of participation are factors such as self-confidence and perceived entitlement, rather than anonymity per se." That got a 'duh' from me, because I have experience of the other side of that; that I will not participate because I feel that what I have to say is of little value and not of interest to anyone. I'm now comfortable enough here - and this journal is enough my own space - to just blather, and there are few enough people in CMC - about ten - and I'm confident enough in the topic, generally, that I think I'll manage the class discussions.
Stuff about language is fun, too, though I didn't happen to mention the Lara-Kim phone convos I overheard, during which about one word in five was actually recognisable English. But if we start on that again, I might well comment that I say "omg". Oh, things I want to read: suggesting that "speech is an overly rich medium that generates inappropriate meanings (through gesture, facial expresion, tone of voice, etc.) that must constantly be cancelled. Viewed from this perspective, CMC allows users to express more precisely what they mean, without the interference of unintended physical cues" Because I've fallen prey to that over and over again. Like, one time I was talking to a guy, then I realised that I was leaning on the table and giving him a view like my icon, so I sat up a bit, and then he stopped talking to me. So. *raises eyebrows* *possibly waggles them a little*
"Participation in CMC has been claimed to be psychologically beneficial" blah blah. Some "warn that heavy use of CMC can lead to addiction, alienation from face-to-face relationships, and depression... However, others suggest that CMC overuse is a symptom, rather than a cause, of these conditions." I think you can guess my interest there.
"most types of computer-mediated messages leave a persistent trace" - so look out! Another lecturer mentioned to us that employers will actually do searches on your name, and things. Which is. A bit worrying. But I think all my porn is safely pseudonymised.
I finished the reading in the pub after choir, with former teachers and some other people, and got into a little discussion about freedom of speech, and filtering of the internet, and suchlike. Fun.
Also, because I mentioned it in class and I can't remember what it's called... Does anyone know the short story - I'm about 70% sure it's by Ray Bradbury - in which a guy is arrested, or maybe committed as a headcase, because he rebels against the culture of constant communication, and he sets off a device on a bus to stop everyone's mobile phones, and watch-communicators, and such, and the last paragraph is a lot of repetition of "watch phone other watch other phone computer watch phone other watch other phone computer..." or something like that? oh bounteous flist...
Now I am going to put sheets on my bed and go to sleep and tomorrow I will work on that shitty shitty report. Dammit.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 08:52 pm (UTC)I hate phones too. I am at the point of not answering the house phone. Ever. And my mobile rarely.
wrt the bit you quoted, I think the reason that section stood out for me was that it is looking from the other direction. Most times, research or commentary on the subject does talk about the lack of cues, the problems that arise. And god knows I've seen enough of that sort of thing; but sometimes it seems like face-to-face is idealised, when really, it has problems too.
And "they can't write themselves naturally or effectively" makes perfect sense to me. The opportunity for more thought about what is said can lead to over-thinking things; I start editing myself and then going back and thinking, that's really not what I meant to sound like at all. It's a different mode of communication, and it is different, and I don't know how well "voices" carry through different modes. I'll have to look out for articles on that.
You? Indiscreet? Surely not! :) Maybe the privacy laws will be tightened enough by then that it can't be done. Or anti-discrimination regulations? Hmm.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 09:18 pm (UTC)Yeah, even with Caller ID telling me exactly who's on the other end (sometimes), I still almost never answer the house phone. At least with the mobile only people I *want* to have the number know it, so I'm a little more amenable to answering that one.
but sometimes it seems like face-to-face is idealised, when really, it has problems too.
And the example you brought up is a perfect example of how face-to-face can be screwed up too. Perceptions of people, too--I got used to thinking of myself as a lot giddier/voluble/less shy on the Internet, and then I met somebody in person that I had known previously online, and she said she thought I was a lot more giddier/voluble in person than online.
It goes both ways, there--you can really get to know a person online without any barriers/hang-ups about physical appearance. OTOH, that person you're getting to know online you might never recognize if you met them in RL, even if you did have a picture of them beforehand. You know? A completely different side of their personality.
start editing myself and then going back and thinking, that's really not what I meant to sound like at all.
Yeah, that's a part of it I hadn't thought about it. (Me, I edit and overthink to the point that probably a million LJ posts I could have posted have never seen the light of day--silencing communication completely, eh?) Getting *used* to this mode of communication I think is part of the problem, at least for some people.
Oooh, yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens with privacy laws in the next few years. Especially in relation to all the controversy and concerns about identity theft--I'd bet there could be cascade/domino effects from that sort of legislation...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-04 02:20 am (UTC)It's mostly comments, with me - I'll get halfway through writing them and then just not finish. Put it off till later and then never get back to it. Something.
One of my other classes is Information Policy and Law, and one of the topics is the Data Protection Act - I'm hoping for some speculative stuff, but it depends on the lecturer, I guess. But maybe we'll get a 'seminar' in that general area, which could be fun.
I keep forgetting how much fun it is to learn stuff you're actually interested in.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-04 04:39 pm (UTC)I know! I've got all these history books lying around that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was studying in school. And now I can finally read them when I want to...it's so exciting. :)