BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

*Internet* charisma

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Rage
05:10 / 05.12.02
I didn't want to distract the other charisma (Chomsky bound) thread with this issue, so I figured I'd start a new post about it.

What is there to be said for internet charisma? What does an individuals internet personality say about their non-internet personality? Is there a specific relation between the two? If someone is one of the most appealing, intriguing, thought provoking internet individuals that you've ever typed to yet their real life personality gives you reason to force your head into a toilet and write a horrible emo song about it- what is this person really about? What if an individuals internet personality gives you a feeling of "pig vomit ulltra rancid" yet in real life they happen to be in Pink Floyd?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:24 / 05.12.02
What if they don't write topic abstracts?

There's a potentially fairly big iceberg underneath this tip. If somebody is manifestly different on the Internet and in real life, while still clearly being in some sense the same person, does this mean that the idea of a human being as a single person is becoming outmoded?
 
 
Rage
05:50 / 05.12.02
Maybe it's a reflection of the way their abstract thinking writes itself. It goes straight for the subject, possibly. Real life persona blending with internet persona on barbelith live. Or maybe it's just a slack thing.

If a human being is one person online and another person in real life or better yet twenty different people online do these personalities combine to form one gestalt personality organism or are these personalities all seperate entity dances that are entitled to their own character evaluation zip code? Other concepts to consider are Dissociative Identity Disorder, Internet Dissociative Identity Disorder, the concept asking if either of these concepts exist in the first place, and The Fine Art of Being a Sociopath* applied to the hep hep cyberworld.

*Angelina Jolie in Girl Interrupted and Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley type sociopathica. I'm talking social superhero shit here. No killing animal type stuff.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
05:51 / 05.12.02
Maybe it says more about your ability to discern what someone's actually on about than about their "core" nature.

And yeah, I think topic abstracts do speak volumes about one's online charisma, too. Write abstracts and it goes up, see?
 
 
Rage
06:33 / 05.12.02
Barbelith Sims? How far up will your charisma meter go when you take away from a topic with the mighty

"-word-, see?"

Such a patronizing way to communicate your discomfort with my choice to go the anti-abstract route.

If the questions I've provided in this post are unable to transcend my route choice I question why your Sim is fooling around with the charisma meter in the first place.

Such petty fickle.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:38 / 05.12.02
(Sorry, Rage, I suspect I am going to take off from your original topics in order to ramble on about writing, which is my current obsession...)

I think part of the problematic is the way that different types of encounters in different media and institutions rely on or bring about different assumptions about the level and types of subjectivity which are operating. So if I'm trying to buy a rail ticket off someone on the phone, I will not be assuming that the things ze says come from a site of full human subjectivity. Which is not to say that the ticket-seller is not fully human, obviously, just that not many elements of their specific, non-substitutable, humanity are in play in that interaction. If, however, I then meet that ticket-seller, who is my best friend, after work and ze suddenly laughs in delight at something I hadn't even noticed, I will be shocked and pleased (or distressed and threatened, if I am particularly neurotic that day) by the momentary revelation of the entirely other interface-with-the-world that is hir identity.

Um... so in terms of the internet, I myself labour to create posts for Barbelith so that they make sense without the readers having to infer the presence of a fully conscious, intending subject "behind" the words as their source. So, for example, I tend to get a bit spun if people ask me what I mean, since in terms of the way I interface with this forum, "what I mean" is coextensive with "what I have written". "Deva" is an effect of all the texts on Barbelith with that 'signature', and although that's also to a large extent true of my RL fictionsuit/existence, IRL, however, I do expect the assumption that there is a fully conscious, intending subject inside me to be in operation as part of the way my interactions with other people work, and the way we understand each other.

Um... so. I think the internet in particular is a place for experimenting with different styles of identity that don't necessarily activate the same assumptions about subjectivity that have been used in human interaction for a long time. It's not just the internet, of course: voice-reproduction technology has a lot to do with it, as well, now that "human voices" can be divorced from human presences (like the irritating computer lady who talks to me in the lift/at the station), that forces us to relate differently to voices - and to the concept of "presence".

In some ways it would be odder if people's styles and assumptions about the nature of subjectivity and the role it plays in interaction were continuous across all these radically different media and contexts, wouldn't it?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:54 / 05.12.02
[threadrot]
Such a patronizing way to communicate your discomfort with my choice to go the anti-abstract route.

Actually, no, more a way to try and mask my irritation with your slackarse way of ignoring something that's meant to help people keep on topic.

[/threadrot]
 
 
dj kali_ma
13:11 / 05.12.02
Internet charisma. *takes a deep breath* Oh boy.

::aphonia:: says, with a slight touch of hammed-up indignance, "I am no less real than the slightly more shy, slightly less brave woman that carts me around inside her head and lets me sprout up in electrons for the world to see. Because, you see, in this skin, I get to travel more and see more and talk with more interesting people than Meat World Me does. I could go on a rant about how Meat World Me is a fleshly appendage that allows me to move around in three dimensional space, have sex, eat really good sushi, listen to Radiohead, and exists merely to project this persona known as aphonia, but then again, I could say the same for the 'real world' personality that interacts with stupid suburban midwestern assholes who are entirely too bland and don't know how to tip.

"Which you is you? You, as a seperate entity, can be argued to not be, in the white flame way of nothing is, and you aren't, either."

Meat World Me Speaks: I like who I am when I am here. I've dragged a bit of aphonia into all my interactions with the meat world. It takes some practice. aphonia is the name for the part of me that got me to see much more of the world than my upbringing should have allowed for. aphonia is the entity that smoked really good hash while watching old episodes of Liquid Television with a friend in London. aphonia probably existed back when I snuck into a theater to see Videodrome when I was ten years old, and subsequently got kick-started into puberty by Debbie Harry, James Woods, and kinky Canadian television.

What common psychology calls disassociative identity disorder is sometimes known in other cultures (including some of my own) by better names, such as being ridden by a loa. The facet of me known as aphonia is every bit as much a part of me as the lamest part, and I try to embrace it all.

Here's a parallel question: I've sometimes felt that charm/charisma wasn't so much a naturally-occurring thing as a way to survive when you're not big or rich enough to impose your will on the world around you, or if you're entirely too weird to live without someone wanting to kill you.

::aphonia::
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:48 / 05.12.02
I myself labour to create posts for Barbelith so that they make sense without the readers having to infer the presence of a fully conscious, intending subject "behind" the words as their source. - Deva

That is interesting, and I hesitate in case of offence, but I tend to
feel that on Barbelith I need to take great care in trying to understand the position of the poster. In many ways I think of you, Deva, as a prime example of a poster who should be interpreted from a point of view rather than what I'd think of as face value. Not that you are difficult, just alien. Its probably me. Given that I think that about a lot of people, it almost certainly is.

If somebody is manifestly different on the Internet and in real life, while still clearly being in some sense the same person, does this mean that the idea of a human being as a single person is becoming outmoded? - Haus

I'm not sure that the internet is more than a transparent medium over which this observation might become apparent. Isn't there a Japanese saying about every person having three hearts?

I like who I am when I am here. I've dragged a bit of aphonia into all my interactions with the meat world. - aphonia

Good for you, man. Perhaps I am projecting, but you give the impression of someone who is working hard to be who they are. Much respect.

Although I suppose that does again raise the question of true identity. Is it an internal construct or some average over all the interactions we have? I think the Magick people might tell us that it is somewhere in between. And perhaps the internet, with all its anonymity, allows us to explore the possible without risking feared opprobium.
 
 
jeff
01:30 / 06.12.02
In my experience, I am completely unlike my "internet", or even "barbelith" self, in that here I am vaguely articulate, whereas in real life, I have been known to....run.
 
 
ambersdead
05:48 / 06.12.02
We can easily be or have different personalities that will surface dependent on the medium used. It can be argued that no one has a fixed identity....... however, I think there are core values or certain precepts that a person would not contradict, values that are so integral to a persons self that no assumed personality would violate this integral value(s).... that I think is the essence of identity.... values.... without any certain lines of values, if you will, a person is inviting chaos and disintegration, perhaps to experience this is a good thing, if one can put some order to this chaos without any moralism... but then there is something moral in striving for order.... but of course obsession with order can lead back to disintegration......
 
 
grant
14:58 / 06.12.02
Is the internet different than writing fiction? Than writing historical fiction? Than writing a magazine column or celebrity profile?
Because those are all about taking on voices and constructing an identity to speak in each voice....
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:42 / 06.12.02
It's different in that it can be faster, closer to real-time (as on Barbelith). I'd also suggest that writing on the internet sometimes has different requirements that writing for a magazine.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
20:34 / 06.12.02
Although it could be argued that, time (or lack thereof) between writing, reaction and rewriting aside, one can approach the online world in the same way as a journo writing to spec. There's been suits around here that have been entirely constructed that way.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
21:08 / 06.12.02
I don't think that, IRL, I'm nearly the boring, one-dimensional twart that I seem to come across as here. At least I hope I'm not...

I seem to almost always be in a hurry and/or doing something else when I'm posting here (or elsewhere on the 'net, for that matter). I'm always in a computer lab/on someone else's computer and therefore never really in a comfortable (read: personal) space when I write. Computer screens hurt my eyes and seem to give me headaches at least half of the time when I'm looking at them. All of these things and more affect my internet persona, possibly adversely. I don't think I come across as particularly charismatic here or elsewhere on the net, but I don't think that's a terribly accurate reflection of meatspace-me.

I think it would help if I knew anyone's IRL-persona and net-persona. As it is, pretty much everyone I know (or know of) I know either exclusively IRL (as in, they don't frequent net communities as such) or exclusively on the net (youse guys). I don't have enough perspective on my own split personality to judge it w/any accuracy.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:09 / 07.12.02
Having met a lot of people on the net and off, I don't think I've ever met someone whose basic personality was different.

They may have expressed it differently in different media, but that's only to be expected. If someone writes very well I don't necessarily expect them to be able to paint.

The question is, is there such a thing as a "core personality" on which all expressions are based? Or are there just different media-based personalities, and if you're encountering a new medium you modify an old personality to express? And would it make any difference either way?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
01:29 / 07.12.02
I'd question whether you can distinguish between an internet persona and the different parts of your personality that make themselves known in everyday life. If you divide yourself up on an internet/IRL basis than surely you're just as likely to divide yourself up everywhere?
 
 
w1rebaby
03:26 / 07.12.02
I must say that I divide myself up into fridgeslices everywhere IRL. You never get the whole thing.

It feels natural to me, but I just don't know if everyone else does the same.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:04 / 07.12.02
I think that it's very indicative of IRL society and human nature that you will often find that people are more bold and more outgoing on the internet than they are willing to be to a face or even a voice. In a way it reflects the mechanisms of repression, especially of the introverted, that we almost fear a shorter timescale response that comprises of tone of voice and a compilation of muscle contractions then we will a strong intellectual beating in black and white.

As a pathetic, sell-out, administrator I can say that a similar condition exists in the dying world of written correspondence. I have on occasion met people who have penned letters of firey invective and yet upon being bought to discuss the issue at hand in person or on the phone will adopt a significantly more tempered and even apologetic manner.

Can we then say that the use of the internet as a tool of discussion and communication is a detraction on societal levels of humanity? If so is this a positive detraction as it removes a level of oppression by having a less significant manifestation of personification.

On a referential level, the RPG "Cyberpunk" implicates a ruling that the more modifications one makes to their real body the more measurable humanity they lose. This is primarily a limiting measure to prevent over extension of a character beyond player-organiser management levels. Could however this be a real factor?
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
21:33 / 07.12.02
Charisma is less about our own personalities and more about gratifying the egos of those we are interacting with. There is a saying that goes along the lines of: a bore is somebody who talks about themselves, a gossip is somebody who talks about other people, somebody who is interesting talks about you.

In an NLP class I attended, I was told that people with high social intelligence find good points in everybody they meet. On the Internet charisma is about making and maintaining bonds with others as opposed to presenting oneself as an interesting “personality”.

I would imagine that people secure in there personality (self construct) act in the same way whether on the Internet or in (real?) Life. This in turn leads to them maintaining high charisma levels, people don’t like being deceived; It’s an insult to their ego.
If people are dissatisfied with their personalities (self construct) then I assume they will be more likely to alter their presented self on the Internet.

Another question is: how important is charisma on the Internet?

Charisma is a self-serving attribute. The ego gratification, the desire to decieve and desire to move in more exclusive circles of society are strong motivations to pursue the construction of a charismatic personality (if we do construct our personalities, that’s another argument). However, people use the Internet and message boards/chat rooms for many different reasons, ego gratification through charisma is just one of these.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:32 / 07.12.02
heh.

rage used 'in Pink Floyd' as a compliment.

heh heh heh heh.

...that said, i'm not sure the virtual/meat split is so much about idntity as it is confidence. the bald truth is some people - many people actually - find realworld interaction problematic, for whatever reason. a bulletin board, on the other hand, is basically a procession of monologues, and can be entered into with great preparation, with the maintenance of a cetain distance - and the opportunity for the persona projected to float free of the physical self.

most people are unable to be the social 'me' they want to be. but even the shyest are rarely so with their family, and those they come to know and love.

i lost my point about five minutes ago.

"here, pointy, pointy, pointy..... heeere pointy..."
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
22:59 / 07.12.02
From a personal point of view I think that I am more charismatic in the real world, maybe because I have to be. On the Internet I express my opinions more than my personality.
You have to remember that the majority of communication in real life is non-verbal. I have heard that words make up about 7% of communication.
On the Internet, people may need to compensate for their lack of physical representation in some way. Over a period of time they may wish to build an imaginary physical presence. It is interesting that the London barbelithers meet on a regular basis and build up a certain rapport (or strengthened existing rapports) with each other.

Well, a lot of kudos can be gained from being a long time member of a site or for saying what people expect you to say (or what conforms to the attitude of the site). Remember ego gratification? The more consistent you are, the more genuine you appear, and the more this will appeal to “the others” ego.
 
 
No star here laces
21:28 / 10.12.02
Relating charisma and identity - I think everyone would admit to having met people who were more charismatic online or IRL than they were in the other medium.

What seems more interesting (to me at least) is what aspect of your identity can you not conceal or modify online, no matter how hard you try? Is there anything you can't fake?
 
 
Char Aina
09:47 / 11.12.02
you cant fake a sense of humour.

the only way to appear funny without actually being funny is to steal others material. when that is in print, or rather in light, it is much easier to ruin someones plagiarism.
 
 
captain piss
11:38 / 11.12.02
Yeah, just relating to some of Lurid's comments, there are people here who, though i find them fascinating (and rewarding to read), it's a bit more of a "right, mind reconfiguration required- let's get into their world" before i start reading their post.

On a different note, reading a lot of the posts, I'm wondering if it’s all just as simple as ‘those who are physically confident but more inept in textual format will come across better in real life than the net’ and vice-versa.
I’ve been thinking lately about how so much of my attraction to certain people, and my ability to pay attention to what they say, is all about the way they say things, physically. You can obviously communicate so much more, in a shorter time, through an idiosyncratic wobble of the head or funny way of moving your hands.
It’s the ‘qualia’ or whatever the word is – the thing that’s incommunicable through words. Something I reckon is also a stronger tendency among the Scots and Irish, for instance, than the English- wondering if there might be more of a reliance on non-verbal cues depending on region
Um, but what does all this say about identity? Err, ..dunno, need to think a bit more
 
 
dj kali_ma
12:57 / 11.12.02
I remember back in the old days, pre-internet, when I would get copies of Maximum Rock And Roll from the punk rock record store, and get penpals. There was always something that fascinated me about knowing people really far away that, for any other reason, I would have never had the opportunity to meet. It all started earlier with my first pen pal, who was a Malaysian girl, and I don't even remember how we met, but there you go.

But it was with the advent of writing people in MRR that I started to develop this whole weird pre-internet persona. It wasn't lying about who you were so much as enhancing your "cool points" and ignoring your not-so-cool points. (Or at least not talking about the non-cool ones that didn't inspire a reaction of "oh I'm so oppressed blah blah blah".)

I find that the hardest things to fake on the Internet are:

1.) An interest in something that truly doesn't interest you.
2.) Literacy. (I hate this, but I still have a prejudice against people who misspell badly. It started years ago, and I don't know why. I'm sure my grammar's at least as bad.)
3.) Having a jetset life. ("So whatcha doing here in LiveJournal then, Mrs. Peel?")

I'm sure I had a point, but it's lost and I'm in need of coffee.

::a::
 
 
Badbh Catha
14:26 / 11.12.02
I’ve been thinking lately about how so much of my attraction to certain people, and my ability to pay attention to what they say, is all about the way they say things, physically. You can obviously communicate so much more, in a shorter time, through an idiosyncratic wobble of the head or funny way of moving your hands. – Meme buggerer

Interesting point; the very method of communication you describe is impossible to convey online. The bald text on screen never really seems to be the whole story, yet is often taken to be because it's practically all one has to use here.

There are emoticons and gremlins, but their range is limited. Some folks will use "false HTML" such as
[ this is sarcastic ] FUCK OFF![ /this is sarcastic ],
which is perhaps more helpful in conveying nuance, but also unwieldy. A hand gesture and a smile is far quicker and easier, as you say.

People who are comfortable expressing themselves via the written word will come across better in an online forum simply because they have more experience and practice at it. They aren't necessarily more "charismatic", although their writing skills can make them seem more persuasive – if they are more readable, people will want to read what they have to say.
 
 
No star here laces
14:48 / 11.12.02
I'd add a fourth "difficult to fake" to aphonia's points, I think.

4) Emotional response to other individuals

And this links to some of the stuff about non-verbal communications, because these do exist on the net. Like maybe you're more likely to join in a discussion with people who's personas you like. Or you reply more quickly to posts that you're not interested in making a good impression with. Basically, I think you can get a sense of who is favourably disposed towards you fairly quickly, whether they've actually said so or not...
 
 
No star here laces
14:48 / 11.12.02
Actually, that's enormously naive. Scratch that.
 
 
Jack Fear
15:29 / 11.12.02
Toksik saith:
you cant fake a sense of humour.
the only way to appear funny without actually being funny is to steal others material. when that is in print, or rather in light, it is much easier to ruin someones plagiarism.

I would agree that faking a sense of humor is nigh-on-impossible although for a different reason: a sense of humor really doesn't have much to do with being funny—and everything to do with recognizing what's funny. There's plenty of people with great senses of humor can't tell a joke themselves: but it's the ones who don't "get" jokes that you've got to watch out for.
 
 
rakehell
23:31 / 11.12.02
I know what toksisk means though. I'm horrible at writing "funny", be it in posts or in prose. I know that I'm a funny person when it comes to relating stories or general banter and I can also take other people's material and make it funny either through minor tweaking or simple expression.

When doing stand up however, I do/did have horrible trouble writing material. So I'd do a gig, bomb horribly, then have everyone falling about as I related the story of not being able to write material and bombing horribly.

On the obverse side, I know a lot of stand-up comedians who are killer on stage and quite plain and boring people off stage.
 
 
Char Aina
10:01 / 12.12.02
i was kinda referring to those people who rip a funny post of website A, and then run straight to the other place, say website N, and pass it off as theirs. they know someone found it funny, because of all the replies it got.

as a secondary pouint, on the web you lose much of the expression, and if you are lazy/have a short attention span, or even just dont have the typing experience, it is hard to fully convey all those gestures and facial tweaks that really relate humour. well, to me, anyway.
 
 
captain piss
14:35 / 12.12.02
There are emoticons and gremlins, but their range is limited. Some folks will use "false HTML" such as
[ this is sarcastic ] FUCK OFF![ /this is sarcastic ],
which is perhaps more helpful in conveying nuance, but also unwieldy. A hand gesture and a smile is far quicker and easier, as you say. - Badbh Catha

I've always thought it would be handy to wear glasses when you're looking to add a bit more drama to a gesture. That way people take off their glasses in films when there's a pregnant pause before they announce that New York's in the grip of an epidemic or something.
"now..." *takes off glasses slowly and uses one of the legs to point meaningfully at the audience* "...fuck off".
but anyway- yeah, sorry to meander off point (yes, it is difficult for some people to be funny online)
 
 
Char Aina
15:10 / 12.12.02
tAngENt:

here pointy, point, point....


was a perfect example of how to be absolutely fucking hilarious in text.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
18:03 / 12.12.02
thenkyewverymuch.

now feel obliged to add something constructive, which is a drag...

is 'internet charisma' is, to some degree at least, learnt behaviour? there has to be something to be said for learning to speak like the natives, riff on the in-jokes and etc - a charismatic barbeloid might not have the same swagger when transplanted to another board. is 'charisma', then, largely defined and approved by the larger peer group? and almost used as a badge of membership, maybe...

increasingly, i wonder whether the intro/extravert labels don't actually plaster over a more fundamental behavioural schism - between natural exhibitionism and voyeurism...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply