Reality of Contructed Characters - Part 2

Now we move on with part 2 of this topic.

Here, I would like to discuss this idea of a shroud of some sort that many perceive exists between the monitor of or computers and the self while interacting online.

This shroud that I am referring to is this feeling of anonymity that seems to just be there. From this, there are assumptions that we are more free as opposed to more direct interactions that some refer to as f2f (face to face) communication; something that is "real".

In a "real" world situation, there is the whole aspect of body language, atmosphere, and other people that yields a heavy influence on the way we act, think, behave, as well as the things that we choose to say. In an online situation, many of these variables that we encounter in an f2f situation are nullified.

We are only faced with a computer monitor, the keyboard, and the text that is typed out.

With that said, it would seem that the situation that one is placed in plays a large role in our level of interactivity with another; be it f2f or in a virtual world setting.

Now, let's take a look at this with some simple examples.

Party (or any other similar f2f scenario)
When we, ultimately, choose to take part in some social activity that involves f2f interaction with others, we are thrown into a situation where there is this over-arching belief and assumption that the goal of this setting is to be able to mingle with others and to give off the impression that you, the individual, is someone that is trustworthy, gregarious, and amicable.

Maybe that is sincerely, the type of person one may be, the in virtually all cases, we do tend to go off in slight tangents and sometimes exaggerate ourselves on others.

People tend to do this unconsciously as if we all yearn for this mysterious something in life. Maybe it's friendship, love, or simply the quest for "truth". Whatever it may be, it is something that we do.

These rules, for lack of a better term, are roles that we play given the situation. But are these roles really who we are? Is this how you would behave all the time, or do you behave slightly differently given the situation and the people that you are involving your self with in such situation?

Each of us, essentially play a role and continue to modify this role as the situation changes.

Now, let's move on to the virtual aspect...

What we are faced with in a virtual setting is the removal of the physical self (i.e. removal of f2f contact) by replacing it with something more meta-physical; our mind if you will.

When we choose to put ourselves into the role of the self without the f2f situation, there is more of an opportunity to be more honest if you will. But that does not necessarily mean that everyone is honest online as many of you probably are aware.

The users are all starting on a more level playing ground in a non-f2f situation.

With a real wold, f2f scenario, we are dealing with the mind of course, but the f2f variable tends to be a bit disruptive in our normal patterns of behavior. We see who other individuals surround themselves with, what they are wearing, the types of topics being discussed, the way that the people speak with each other, the body language given off...all these variables lead us to creating schema to which results in our output (i.e. behavior & actions) to the people we are associating with.

So why exactly is it that with an online situation, we tend to either be more open, or tend to be completely secretive or anonymous?

The variables that once confined our selves and our minds to this perceived required set of actions are believed to be removed.

Online, we are not really there, but still exist in a more meta-physical way. This is done so through our minds. What we communicate via virtual means, has a more direct-to-business type of manner whereas a f2f situation has more interpreting involved. The fact that the interpretation step is taken out of the situation, yields a level of perceived freedom.

With this, we are able to be more honest and direct, or we can choose to completely deceive another, by keeping our identity anonymous to the recipient of the interaction.

What exactly do you supposed creates all this? The shroud of anonymity...why is it that many of us perceive that it exists when comparing virtual to f2f scenarios?

Or better yet, why is it that many of us are unable to communicate in a more direct-to-business type of manner in f2f situation, and instead opt to include all these superfluous steps that require analyzing and interpreting?

Life is complicated as it is. So why are we further complicating it? Why not be more clear-cut?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

FaceBook Friends...Real Or Fake?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/06/15/friends-with-benefits-do-facebook-friends-provide-the-same-support-as-those-in-real-life.aspx?GT1=43002

There's an article. Read it. Take it for how you see it.

Some people may find that people with "virtual" friends are odd, but many should (after some thinking) realize that "virtual" friends may be better than no friends at all. Sure, these FaceBook "friends" tend to create more acquaintances than what many would consider "friends", but what it is that most consider to be "real" as opposed to "virtual" impedes some; from some of the more viable applications in life, that is through virtue of "virtual" reality.

Reality of Contructed Characters - Part 1

This begins a small mini-series of blog entries that I will make over the next few days~weeks. It is strictly coming from a paper that I had written in a philosophy course that I had taken.

I will be dividing up the paper into parts and seeing what other people have to say. I am not literally copying + pasting the actual paper here obviously as that would provide no further insight for me.

First off, many of you are aware of the terms "real" and "virtual". But what do those 2 words really mean to you?

Is it far fetched to say that something "virtual" has no "real" existence merely on the premise that it does not physically interact, but is an interaction between 0s and 1s being processed inside of a computer as a result of the input that you, the user, gives while on a computer?

Quite possibly that in itself could be enough to justify some people's belief that "virtual" is in no way "real". However, others would disagree that even though it is not physically in existence, it does have some "reality" applications.

When someone explicit tells another to "Get a life." What do they mean, really? The "real" world life that people physically embodies is what is most likely being requested to do when one gives the statement, "Get a life."

But, there is actually a "life" from a virtual point of view. This "life" though not physically viewable, requires thought, care, and some level of basic skill for one to begin being involved with.

How one may ask?

Well, such things include FaceBook, YouTube, MySpace, AIM, Twitter, World of WarCraft, Second Life...and even this blog.

From a social point of view (speaking in regards to the "real" world), a life is often comprised of individual inhabiting an area among others. These individual gather to form a community, and within this community many activities occur every day.

Strictly from that point of view, a "virtual world" is quite contrary to its name. If we consider it from that point of view, the "virtual" world is actually a "real life setting".

There are:

a. individuals (in the form of users)
b. there are communities (blogs, forums, chat rooms, World of WarCraft, Facebook, etc)
c. there are activities (chatting, posting messages, playing games, sending emails)

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Parents (part 2)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mississippi-Boy-9-Shot-Dead-In-Video-Game-Row-In-Marshall-County/Article/200906215300047?f=rss

So yea. What do we see here?

A death of a young individual by his own sibling, both underaged.

First of all, apparently, the complication was a result of fighting over a videogame. That will probably set the scapegoating flags into motion, but the general public.

But~

"He said the boys' father was outside mowing the lawn at the time of the incident."

Where was the mother? If there is no mother in this familial setting, then what exactly was the father mowing the lawn for while the kids were playing videogames with a weapon of potential mass devastation left in the house? But more concerning, what was the weapon doing in the house open to access by the children?

I would say that is a lack of parenting right there. What kind of a message is the parent (in this case the father) giving to the children? Probably nothing as the gun seems to have carelessly been left out.

Kids have the tendency to easily get upset with competitive activities. In this case, videogames was the medium.

If the father at least was aware that his children had the tendency to get upset easily and in a spur of the moment, the child may have believed that a gun would be a good way to 'show who's boss', maybe...just maybe, 1 of his kids did not have to die in that careless and unfortunate manner?

If a father, or any adult in general, believes that he/she is mature and competent enough to raise children and have a weapon in the house, I believe that the adult should have the care to at least make sure the weapon is out of access by the underage children, as they often lack the competence to understand how dangerous a gun really is and, albeit an accident in this case, that it really can kill someone.

" 'it appeared to be an accident anyway'." right...just an accident so just slip it under the rug.

The father may need to receive some counseling of some sort to make it clear that if he is to leave 2 underaged children unattended inside their home where there is free access to a gun (let alone any weapon), that maybe the parent is not competent enough to take care of the children.

Imagine what the child who did the accidental killing feels and thinks right now. He sees that his brother was killed with a shotgun at his hands; albeit an "accident". But imagine what it would feel like for him years later to realize what he had done. And then consider what he may feel when he realizes that 2 children were left unattended with a weapon inside the house.

The children really are not to blame. No one really should be blamed in this situation. The father was incompetent and the children were incompetent. If anything was to be blamed, it would be the lack of care from both parties.

Maybe there is a lack of decent education in that area? For an 11 year old to not be able to understand that if he does hold a shotgun to his 9 year old brother, he may accidentally kill him; not wound...kill, is a bit scary.

Incidents like this are things that are unnecessary and unfortunate. Children should never witness nor take part in such "accidents" as the ramifications in their near future has the tremendous potential of being too much.

What do you think about this. Post your comments below.

Parents

(I'm sorry for not posting a new entry in a little while. I was just honestly a bit upset from receiving essentially no comments. I have received a few now so far. I appreciate and thank those who have commented so far. I hope to receive more comments in the near and coming future).

Have you ever considered where many of the social issues originate from? There are, of course, many origins to these "issues", but one of the more major (or at least more influencing) factor is poor parenting.

As suggested/hinted at in my previous entry parents play a significant role in our people turn out.

The old saying about how the children are the "future" is quite true. What I believe many parents fail to realize is that their offspring are the future. A poor level of parenting significantly contributes to the child not having a clear focus on life.

Many of these individuals often end up doing illegal drugs, committing petty thievery, and all sorts of horrible things.

Some end up being addicted to, for example, World of Warcraft. Others block their minds out from the rest of the "real world" and turn themselves completely into the "virtual world".

It is true that many of us enjoy technology, such as the Internet, but the distinguishing factor here is the level of involvement.

Another issue with parents in general is something quite unfortunate. As many of you readers probably have experienced or know of someone who as, parents tend to compare their children to others. It's almost as if parents see their children as a commodity or a property and continuously compete with other parents and their kids to be "better".

What is "better"? Is it just grades, "achievements", what college the child gets accepted into, the kinds of hobbies involved, clubs...

Although these activities enrich the mind, it would seem that many parents unfortunately live by this competitive setting.

Competition is good and healthy. But there are more things to life than these things.

What a child learns, the experiences, the chance to free-think for themselves, the chance to do what he/she wants to do (as opposed to told to do), the chance to figure things out on their own (no matter how long it takes), the freedom to make mistakes and learn...

That's something that should be stressed. This hyper-competitive world that we live in today almost blinds us; a sandbox if you will. These Socio-mental barriers that prevents many children (of whom will collectively literally become the future) are being pushed away from their potential because of these demands.

Of course, when a parent is questioned about, most will say that they are good parents and let their children do this and that. But really?

There seems to be this traditional, generic life path that is set for the child. The parent may allow the child to do some things on their own, but often we see the child being criticized with the response, "See? I told you so." and then in "successes" often the child is given a "Good job!" response. But really...is that at the child or a self-reassuring mechanism?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Update
I found a relevant YouTube clip that displays poor parenting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dXcIZFPpow

There are a few issues here.

1. How could a parent not be able to watch over these children to the point where another child actually dies from suffocation?

2. How could a child be not competent enough to understand that burying anyone in sand and leaving that individual there for minutes can lead to suffocation and possibly death?

3. For a television show such as Naruto, how could a parent not be aware that the show may be impressionable on the child and to either moderate the child when the child is watching it or simply not allow the child to watch it?

4. What happened to the parents teaching the child the difference between "virtual reality" and "reality"?

* I am not necessarily saying that violent media (in this case Naruto, albeit intended for audiences who are a bit more competent and mature), is a definite cause to replicating the same kind of behaviors.

* The issue I am discussing is the lack of parenting, or at least some form of supervision. Younger children tend to be more impressionable from everything that they experience.

* Should it really take a death of a child for a parent to be surprised or shocked that something like this could happen? In this case, I would probably guess that this parent(s) would simply come to the conclusion that Naruto is automatically bad and it is the cause for all of such behavior.

* Often, this type of thinking process would be considered scapegoating. Yes, it is strongly suggested that what the child did does resemble much of what he must have viewed on Naruto, however for the child to actually go about and mimic what he saw is a disturbing, especially when the child should have been at least able to conceptualize (i.e. imagine) what would happen if such steps were taken as to mimic what he saw on the television.

* I would hope that after this incident that the parent discussed with the child what he did was inappropriate. I would also hope that the parents don't simply blame Naruto for this behavior as if the parents were aware or at least more involved with the child, I would assume that it is likely the child may view Naruto but probably not go as far as to taking the life of (what I assume to be) a friend.