Comments on: On Internet Relationships http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/ The web site of Jeremy Stangroom. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:15:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Christian Online School http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-1036 Christian Online School Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:02:47 +0000 http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-1036 I've changed my mind about online dating. But the roots of that change go back many years when a Kiwi bloke I know (a New Zealander, okay) met us with a lass from the USA while travelling. A lot of penfriend letter writing ensued. Then she visited NZ and a few months later, they were married. These were not youngsters, both were 60-plus. Mature aged people who met each other after they'd both raised families. And they hit it off brilliantly. These days the internet allows that to happen more readily. And it's not about a guy meeting a chick at the bar and liking what he sees. Done online, there can be (not saying there always is) a matching up of likes, temperament, skills, interests, experience, all that stuff... which goes way beyond what occurs in most social meetups. So yep, I changed my mind. Starting a long time back. Gary I’ve changed my mind about online dating. But the roots of that change go back many years when a Kiwi bloke I know (a New Zealander, okay) met us with a lass from the USA while travelling. A lot of penfriend letter writing ensued. Then she visited NZ and a few months later, they were married.

These were not youngsters, both were 60-plus. Mature aged people who met each other after they’d both raised families. And they hit it off brilliantly.

These days the internet allows that to happen more readily.

And it’s not about a guy meeting a chick at the bar and liking what he sees. Done online, there can be (not saying there always is) a matching up of likes, temperament, skills, interests, experience, all that stuff… which goes way beyond what occurs in most social meetups.

So yep, I changed my mind. Starting a long time back.

Gary

]]> By: jonathan http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-957 jonathan Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:52:59 +0000 http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-957 It was Susan greenfield, not patricia Churchland, see, for example Modern technology is changing the way our brains work, says ... ID: The Quest For Identity In The 21st Century by Susan Greenfield . ... what changes might long stints playing violent computer games bring about? ... www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-565207/Mod... - It was Susan greenfield, not patricia Churchland, see, for example
Modern technology is changing the way our brains work, says …
ID: The Quest For Identity In The 21st Century by Susan Greenfield . … what changes might long stints playing violent computer games bring about? …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-565207/Mod... -

]]> By: jonathan http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-955 jonathan Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:06:19 +0000 http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-955 Were the participants in this blog together in a room we would probably be engaged with each other differently and perhaps say something different than what we have typed in the comment box. This is more a blog with considered responses than any attempt at rapid replies. I have tried chat rooms but it seems so artificial. But then so is this blog as a conversation. Some years ago i was involved in Artifical intelligence and philosophy at a post graduate level. One of the philosophical queries -one that stemmed from Alan Turing was - when can a machine be considered intelligent? When the person "interacting" via a teletype (pre screen response), was interacting with the machine as if it were a person on the other end of the line - then it exhibited intelligence. Some of the programs were very simple and relied on the persons willingness to go along with what they were receiving as replies. The intelligence of the machine rested upon a certain personal naive acceptance. It was something that Dennett called the intentional stance - a tendency to firstly make sense of what is presented, rather than question and doubt. We supply the missing frame. Dreyfus was in the opposing camp and was anti A.I. - partly because its artificiality - its lack of a phenomenal dimension. It was syntax masquerading as semantics. I became disinenchanted with the AI perspective even though my task was supposed to revolve around enhancing a program of paranoia. I became more interested in the depth analyses of freud and Jung as opposed to a syntactic cleverness. Oh dear, didn't go down too well! I went into mental health nursing,meeting "real" paranoids and the like. I realised the syntax was empty and content was elsewhere. Well, you might say what has this to do with the internet? It partly accepts Dreyfus . However, (for me), this hiatus of syntax and semantics/phenomenology characterises many of the more severe mental health problems. The internet carries along with this phenomenological gap. As a moment in our lives that poses no real threat. however if we only have that as a way of relating to others it leaves a large gaping hole in our consciousness. The neurologist Patricia Churchland has taken this sort of view to computer games which when they become models of social interaction leave human interaction as some sort of irritating interruption and / deviation. Were the participants in this blog together in a room we would probably be engaged with each other differently and perhaps say something different than what we have typed in the comment box. This is more a blog with considered responses than any attempt at rapid replies. I have tried chat rooms but it seems so artificial. But then so is this blog as a conversation. Some years ago i was involved in Artifical intelligence and philosophy at a post graduate level. One of the philosophical queries -one that stemmed from Alan Turing was – when can a machine be considered intelligent? When the person “interacting” via a teletype (pre screen response), was interacting with the machine as if it were a person on the other end of the line – then it exhibited intelligence. Some of the programs were very simple and relied on the persons willingness to go along with what they were receiving as replies. The intelligence of the machine rested upon a certain personal naive acceptance. It was something that Dennett called the intentional stance – a tendency to firstly make sense of what is presented, rather than question and doubt. We supply the missing frame.
Dreyfus was in the opposing camp and was anti A.I. – partly because its artificiality – its lack of a phenomenal dimension. It was syntax masquerading as semantics. I became disinenchanted with the AI perspective even though my task was supposed to revolve around enhancing a program of paranoia. I became more interested in the depth analyses of freud and Jung as opposed to a syntactic cleverness. Oh dear, didn’t go down too well! I went into mental health nursing,meeting “real” paranoids and the like. I realised the syntax was empty and content was elsewhere.
Well, you might say what has this to do with the internet? It partly accepts Dreyfus . However, (for me), this hiatus of syntax and semantics/phenomenology characterises many of the more severe mental health problems. The internet carries along with this phenomenological gap. As a moment in our lives that poses no real threat. however if we only have that as a way of relating to others it leaves a large gaping hole in our consciousness.
The neurologist Patricia Churchland has taken this sort of view to computer games which when they become models of social interaction leave human interaction as some sort of irritating interruption and / deviation.

]]> By: Ralph http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-953 Ralph Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:11:34 +0000 http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-953 If we’re talking about people who are purposely out to deceive for the purpose of self gain, the internet affords far greater opportunity, in my mind, strictly by the numbers of people who can be approached. For those involving themselves in a relationship, of whatever type, as pointed out in the post, the internet has its advantages and disadvantages, and I lean towards there being a greater possibility of honesty, depth, understanding, etc. in the internet type, for some of the reasons given in the above read. In a face-to-face, there just are too many ways of being thrown off the other person’s true presentation, with and without intent involved. But when all is said and done, a look, a touch, a smile, a tone of voice can be worth an awful lot of words to getting to the crux of a matter. I just read a blog A Decade of the Internet by Lili Ladaga in which her final words are: “For all the Web’s ability to empower and engage users, there’s still something that you can’t download, Digg, upload, tag, tweet, update, or blog: a real-life, in person, human experience. Let's hope that as technology makes the world smaller and smaller, we remember that the world is still out there — beyond the keyboards, servers and computer screens.” If we’re talking about people who are purposely out to deceive for the purpose of self gain, the internet affords far greater opportunity, in my mind, strictly by the numbers of people who can be approached.
For those involving themselves in a relationship, of whatever type, as pointed out in the post, the internet has its advantages and disadvantages, and I lean towards there being a greater possibility of honesty, depth, understanding, etc. in the internet type, for some of the reasons given in the above read. In a face-to-face, there just are too many ways of being thrown off the other person’s true presentation, with and without intent involved.
But when all is said and done, a look, a touch, a smile, a tone of voice can be worth an awful lot of words to getting to the crux of a matter.
I just read a blog A Decade of the Internet by Lili Ladaga in which her final words are:
“For all the Web’s ability to empower and engage users, there’s still something that you can’t download, Digg, upload, tag, tweet, update, or blog: a real-life, in person, human experience. Let’s hope that as technology makes the world smaller and smaller, we remember that the world is still out there — beyond the keyboards, servers and computer screens.”

]]> By: Don Bird http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-950 Don Bird Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:56:55 +0000 http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-950 I was a single child born 13 years after my parents married. I have always been content with my own company and have made few real friends. I always found friends more of a hindrance than a help. Notwithstanding when the occasion demands I can be sociable and my sense of humour seems to have some appeal to others. I remember my childhood very well and am often surprised when I reflect that at an early age say 3 upwards I was analysing the personalities of people I met mostly relatives at first weighing them up and making judgements. As the years passed I realised that my childhood judgements in that connection were, although somewhat basic, pretty accurate. I always found the world and its inhabitants an amazingly fascinating place, and still do. Personal appearance for me is of equal importance as is personality, the latter so often being reflected in appearance. Amos refers to the Psychoanalytical term Resistances and I think one can only best detect these artifices on a face to face encounter with others, body language, facial expressions, and all linguistic utterances being of importance. My reason for boring people with all this is to make the point that websites like Face book and Twitter etc hold no interest for me. One can say anything on the net you need more than words and pictures to form a true friendship. I spoke to a young man recently who told me he has 800 friends. An older lady of my acquaintance claims 80 friends. These claims I find preposterous, unless of course we have different definitions of the word friendship. Out of curiosity I had the opportunity to follow some dialogs of Internet friends. I was left wondering why anybody would want to say that at all, and what interest could it possibly be to anybody. I am of course aware that these sites can be used for more serious purposes but I ask myself why would I or anybody else want to know some TV personality had just arrived home and had a cup of coffee? I was a single child born 13 years after my parents married. I have always been content with my own company and have made few real friends. I always found friends more of a hindrance than a help. Notwithstanding when the occasion demands I can be sociable and my sense of humour seems to have some appeal to others. I remember my childhood very well and am often surprised when I reflect that at an early age say 3 upwards I was analysing the personalities of people I met mostly relatives at first weighing them up and making judgements. As the years passed I realised that my childhood judgements in that connection were, although somewhat basic, pretty accurate. I always found the world and its inhabitants an amazingly fascinating place, and still do.

Personal appearance for me is of equal importance as is personality, the latter so often being reflected in appearance. Amos refers to the Psychoanalytical term Resistances and I think one can only best detect these artifices on a face to face encounter with others, body language, facial expressions, and all linguistic utterances being of importance.

My reason for boring people with all this is to make the point that websites like Face book and Twitter etc hold no interest for me. One can say anything on the net you need more than words and pictures to form a true friendship. I spoke to a young man recently who told me he has 800 friends. An older lady of my acquaintance claims 80 friends. These claims I find preposterous, unless of course we have different definitions of the word friendship. Out of curiosity I had the opportunity to follow some dialogs of Internet friends. I was left wondering why anybody would want to say that at all, and what interest could it possibly be to anybody. I am of course aware that these sites can be used for more serious purposes but I ask myself why would I or anybody else want to know some TV personality had just arrived home and had a cup of coffee?

]]> By: amos http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-948 amos Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:59:32 +0000 http://www.jeremystangroom.com/on-internet-relationships/294/#comment-948 I agree in general with what you say. We all use different factors to judge character. Some people look at the eyes, for example. Others watch the hands. I tend not to look at people: my father used to get furious because I didn't look people in the eyes. I can't tell you what color eyes my girl friend or my son have, for example. However, I pay an extraordinary amount of attention to what people say, not to the literal content (which is often consciously or unconsciously meant to deceive), but to small contradictions, changes in tone, changes in intensity, changes in emphasis, insistence on one point or another, to what psychologists call resistences, etc. I pride myself that I'm good at evaluating character over the telephone, and I try to get some sense of who a person is over internet. By the way, the way I judge character was not developed intentionally: since I was a very solitary child, I developed my own way of understanding the world and as I grew older, I noticed that my way of understanding people was different than that of most people. I agree in general with what you say. We all use different factors to
judge character. Some people look at the eyes, for example. Others watch the hands. I tend not to look at people: my father used to get furious because I didn’t look people in the eyes. I can’t tell you what color eyes my girl friend or my son have, for example.
However, I pay an extraordinary amount of attention to what people say, not to the literal content (which is often consciously or unconsciously meant to deceive), but to small contradictions, changes in tone, changes in intensity, changes in emphasis, insistence on one point or another, to what psychologists call resistences, etc.
I pride myself that I’m good at evaluating character over the telephone, and I try to get some sense of who a person is over internet. By the way, the way I judge character was not developed intentionally: since I was a very solitary child, I developed my own way of understanding the world and as I grew older, I noticed that my way of understanding people was different than that of most people.

]]>