I know, I know. The internet is full of creepy, fat, 30-somethings who reside in their mothers' basements and, at heart, are but slobbish weirdos who whack off to fetish porn all day while working as web designers, fry-cooks, or low-level managers.
Even still, I like to think that there exist beyond this stereotype real people, like you or I, who just realize the potential of the internet to connect people who are far away from each other. It seems obvious, but the internet is best used for this; morse code is out of fashion and carrier pigeons are extinct (or perhaps that was the "passenger pigeon? Ehh, same difference...EDIT"). It can instantly carry information across long distances in real-time. But this data can come in a multitude of forms, whereas phones carry solely voices, and TVs physical likenesses and voices.
Given this unique and amazing potential, and that humans are social beings, is it so far a leap of logic to infer that social creatures will use the best (quickest, most efficient, most inclusive) means of sociability to connect with one another? Surely enough this realization was manifested in AIM, or AOL Instant Messenger, when I was in the seventh grade, year 2001.
Perhaps my natural inclination towards obsessive cycles of interest led to my somewhat ambivalent relationship with AIM. I have many friends who swear by it; their social lives are somewhat anchored by instant messaging. I have a few who resolutely abstain from downloading the very application. But I, a rare breed apparently, engage AIM with a cyclical nature. I tend to spend hours upon hours online for weeks at a time, only to sign off, never to touch the little hopping icon on my dock for months.
On a personal note, I happen to pick up an interest and drain all life from it over several weeks, months, years, only to toss it to the wayside after I've sucked every bit of worth from its now limp, light, carcass. I suppose its vampiric in a way, but it's nothing I can choose. Since Sonic The Hedgehog on Sega, to Batman action figures, to my bicycle, to wiffleball, to baseball, to working out (one of the worst) etc. , I've developed an extensive history of minor and temporary obsessions. All of my life is pocked by these marks against my ability to take all things in moderation.
But I'll save the in-depth Freudian analysis for later. For now, I'll contend that my ambivalent attitude towards AIM has its roots in this personal revelation.
But why grow tired of AIM? It offers countless opportunities to talk to your loved ones and friends now matter what time it is and where they are?
A commonly-heard critique is simply that the emotion and the subtle nuances of facial expressions, bodily reactions (laughing, crying, nervousness, etc.), vocal inflection, and (my favorite) sarcasm are all lost on AIM. This fact, I can believe, cannot be debated if you have ever once used an Instant Messaging service.
Another common jab at applications like AIM, MSN IM, Yahoo IM, Google Chat, etc., is that they are addictive. This I can sort of understand. Since it's definitely a technological form of connection, it dumbs down the process of a "conversation," simplifying it to the point where regular social conventions are forgotten, at least, and corrupted, at worst. I suppose if one were to spend a lifetime behind an LCD screen it wouldn't be hard to lose touch with "RL" ("real life", for those of you out there who were as lost reading the countless net-worthy acronyms as I). As dozens of social scientists have enunciated to us via the infamous Stanford experiement, humanity is a learned characteristic, and like a foreign language, without practice is easily lost.
Additionally, since in the United States and other highly-developed countries efficiency and speed are stressed and valued commodities, IMs are ideal. They take only as long as you can type out what you mean, and they are sent instantly (over a relatively fast internet connection). Clearly we value such traits given the much money we spend annually Fast Food and TV dinners, even at the cost of our own health. An easy parallel could be drawn to our reliance on technology, but I'll refrain from making such an obvious comparison.
However, given all theses cautionary criticisms, I feel that the internet can be something more than a plague. Just as human beings can recognize the value inherent a tool that can connect them instantly, they too can invest authentic time and thought into relationships formed over internet beginnings. Not all online users are out of touch with reality. Most, I dare say, are perfectly in touch with it, and are socially comfortable enough to utilize the internet, even after weighing the social stigma attached to it by less tolerant, and more ignorant generations.
No matter what older or younger generations will tell me, I feel like I have a unusual and unique relationship with the internet. I could be totally wrong, and in fact ironically a member of the majority of AIM/Facebook subscribers, but I personally believe that I take the internet at face value, a speedy and basic way to get people talking and getting to know each other, and nothing more.
A deeper inquiry to my spotty relationship with AIM and other social networking sites would reveal the truer and distinct reasons I tend to go through AIM cycles. To best illustrate them would be to go down a list of commonly cited AIM attributes, so here we go:
IMs keep friends close no matter the distance: If you're reading this blog because you're a friend of mine who saw my initial "Note" on Facebook, you should be smirking right about now. Everyone and their mothers (literally, in some cases) know that I'm not particularly good at keeping in touch with people once they leave earshot...no, I'm downright poor at it. No matter who the person is, no matter how much they mean to me, I'm afraid I'm just bad at it. Why? One may infer self-absorption, too much work/studying, too much fun/drinking, too many friends, not enough friends, but the truth lies in the emptiness of AIM and Facebook.
The critical loss in the basic social characteristics of a mano-a-mano conversation squander the true social value in internet conversations. It's impossible to get a rise out of someone if you're a sarcasm fiend, or if you can do great impressions, or if you can sing. The internet sheds individuality as it pertains to anything but creative writing and successful applications of emoticons (little smiley faces seeming created from text such as letters, numbers, and punctuation marks). And that, I cannot stand. You can tell infinitely more about a person when you look them in the eyes and say something. And that's just more reassuring than a profile picture.
Emptiness aside, I can understand the basic value of getting to know someone. If you want straight facts about someone, whether or not they are your long-lost friend or someone completely new, AIM is ingenious. The Facebook status update and the Tweet are beautiful, if not pathetic manifestations of real-time, interactive voicemails as have ever been conceived.
But meeting someone new over the internet, after undoubtedly browsing a few of their profile pictures to check "hotness," is really a crap shoot. Too many mannerisms are lost on the internet "conversation." Interestingly enough, "conversation" is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, and ideas," yet "I am sad," doesn't quite hit home like someone who can't look you in the eye, always faces the ground with unwavering misty eyes, and a quivering lower lip. Besides, the outbreak of Photoshop has endangered the "profile picture's" genuineness universally.
Relationships, be they romantic (dating sites) or initially platonic (any social utility), are like in-bred babies (pardon the un-PC metaphor). Oftentimes they are conceived stillborn, or develop socially retarded (ref. the literal definition of retarded). It's an imperfect, if not blasphemous correlation, but I feel like whenever I talk to a stranger online I risk giving away all my conversation points. Now, it's not as if I go into an online conversation armed with a set of topics, but I certainly wouldn't want to exhaust the few that are serendipitously unearthed by an online conversation.
I feel that any sort of technical communication, as distinct from actual physical interaction in the real world, taints honestly good and potentially rewarding conversation topics. And if they aren't discussed online, if they are ever brought up again in an actual conversation, one may have bought a false impression fashioned by an internet converser. I speak from experience when I say that sometimes that which sounds inoculate to conflict can easily be dragged into ragged strife over miscommunication.
And yet, I found myself posting freely on Yelp's "Talk" threads without care or concern for all that I've spoken. It's true that the internet is a great way to pass the time. In my case, when I'm living at my parents' house, recovering from a knee surgery, I guess it's permissible, barely. But normally, when I've got many other responsibilities, it's so tempting to go online and talk with new people. Some are pretty quick and witty with the keyboard, which makes it enjoyable (though the authenticity of "quick wit" is diminished without the availability of a timestamp on posts and messages parodying their target) whereas others are not.
In fact, as discussed above, humanity can easily flitter out the window once bullies hide behind their SNs (screen names). It's quite disturbing how easily people can shed their actual identity to give birth to a new one online. Perhaps its therapeutic, manifesting otherwise harmful or socially unacceptable behaviors vicariously through an online alter-ego, but all signs point to no, given the correlation between the internet and people who shoot up high schools and colleges, people who molest kids, and rapists generally.
To date, I've only had one proven meeting with someone I "met" online. To be honest, the relationship failed. It was semi-romantic, though not from the beginning. What at first was a highly successful and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and opinions (a conversation) turned into a relationship. Emotional, sexual, and social needs came to play, and the result was disastrous. I avoided the girl for the majority of two years, and for that I'm ashamed. However, to me, the real failure was our inability to reconcile each of our two personalities (the digital and the real). If you exchange many personal facts and facets of your life with someone you've never met, online, you are at risk of creating such a distinct personality. No matter how honest you are with this other person, the potential social additions to each conversation (inflection, facial expressions, etc.) detract from each, and it only becomes apparent when such a conversation is repeated in real life. Not knowing what to expect from the other person, certain expressions and reactions may be a turn off, so much so that the wide discrepancy between your friend's internet alter-ego and RL alter ego cannot reconcile, and thus are split in a schizophrenic dilemma.
And so I caution you all: take heed of my warnings when and if you meet somebody online. Regardless if Match.com says you're applicable, regardless if you reviewed the same restaurant on Yelp with relevant commentary, online meetings are dangerous, and not just in your To Catch a Predator Chris Hansen sort of way. They risk aborting potentially flourishing relationships by exhausting conversation topics and creating a social rift between two public and unequal personas (online, and in real life).
DO NOT CROSS--------------RED SOX LINE-------------DO NOT CROSS
This one will be short, as I exhausted an unimaginable amount of space on the above entry (thanks a lot Ms. Bad Cook). Besides, today's game wasn't all that spectacular.
One scary moment had me pause and rewind MLB.TV (as best I could, that buggy piece of shit) several times. When Nick Green's neck was almost impaled on a hurtling piece of maple bat, I was genuinely frightened for our brilliant AAAA SS. Thankfully, he brushed it away with his right forearm, but missed the DP ball, which rolled lazily to Bay in LF, allowing the runner to get to 3B with ease, and on the throw, the hitter to 2B. If not for this, Lester would have allowed but 2 ER and had himself and his line solid outing.
Big Papi hit his 7th HR of the season with a hard shot to deep LFC. It scored three runs, allowing the Red Sox a 3-1 lead. I'm thrilled they let him play 1B today. I hope they do it again tomorrow. Lowell could use the rest anyway.
The other player most Red Sox fans had retired to the grave, Jason Varitek, our captain, hit his 11th HR of the year. Though his BA is waaay down as usual, his power numbers are waaaay up compared to last year. He's hit 6 LHB, 5 RHB, which is interesting given his traditionally better RHB splits.
Papelbon got his 17th save of the year, and mostly without incident this time. He was perfect, but had to throw 19 pitches to get there. His pitch count, OBP, and BA are all worse than previous years. I really do wonder if it's time to sell high on Pap after the season. He just doesn't seem himself, after he complained of shoulder fatigue and had to change his arm slot, which apparently affects his velocity.
The Red Sox won 6-4 over the Washington Nationals. God, I love interleague play... Mor plz? K thx bai.
No comments:
Post a Comment