![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcassePrompted by this ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
bad_rpers_suck post I have to say that I’ve never understood this RP buddies = actual friends theory. I can understand becoming friends with the people you RP with, I can understand joining an RP because your friends are involved in it, I can even understand that perhaps many people do genuinely ‘want to meet new people’ and other such stock tripe that gets put on UCAS applications but that still doesn’t make friendship an instantaneous occurrence.
Granted, the basis of friendship would be complimentary personality archetypes, shared interests and so on but discovering those factors takes time. Just because you’ve met someone and been civil to them just as they have been with you hardly means anything more than that you’re both open to the idea of learning more about each other at best or are happy to conduct civil relations while you go about your respective agendas. For example, as far as personality archetypes go my being an INTJ type doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ll befriend another INTJ though if I do it’s more likely that we’ll have to make shorter leaps in perspective to understand each other’s thinking. It’s less about opportunity to interact and more about long-term compatibility which means that while there may be initial similarities that won’t automatically develop into friendship or even a long-term tolerance of each other’s existence. Friendship in the real world doesn’t happen instantaneously after all, so why should that be the case online?
My theory is that this instant friendship presumption occurs because in an epistemic community it’s easy to presume that because you have one thing in common there are going to be plenty more. In the case of RP, which really involves a lot of communication and interaction, it would be very easy to make the same mistake that can be made with having a fandom in common with someone: you presume that because you have that one particular aspect in common and probably have a lot to say to each other about it, that such a conversation can extend and expand to cover an entire, well-rounded friendship. All it means is that you have certain aspects in common at the outset, that’s all. That’s not necessarily a bad thing since it does give you somewhere to start other than making small talk about the weather. The only problem is when that turns out to be all there is, where all you really do have in common is a book or series or a comic and in all other aspects your lives diverge.
Of course if you can, as you would in the real word, admit that there isn’t much else in common other than those few aspects and that those aren’t enough to sustain a friendship, if they aren’t, then that’s unlikely to cause a problem. What does it matter if you only talk about alcohol when you come to make conversation with each other? That sort of interaction presumes that you’re not particularly close but you do have one topic in common that you can converse comfortably about for the brief periods of time when you interact. Maybe you talk about your love of Cardassia Prime and little else about the StarTreck universe? It doesn’t matter so long as you’re both aware that that’s about the extent of your conversation because it only ever occurs during your half hour lunch and you work in different departments/never see each other outside of work anyway. It’s when the single dimension of compatibility is taken as indicative of a whole despite evidence to the contrary that there are issues. Issues like the over-sharing described by the poster in thatbad_rpers_suck post.
And of course all the over sharing does is alienate the other person further because while they might have in time wanted to get to know the other person better, if the very personal details of that person’s life are simply dumped upon them all it will do is cause an uncomfortable response. As Wilde puts it: one can always be kind to people about whom one cares nothing which strikes me as apt. The response to over sharing may well be polite and filled with all the right noises of concern but the odds are that as soon as you get away from the sudden over sharing incident you’re unlikely to want to spend time with that person again.
All of which boils down to the pretty obvious fact that just because you have one thing in common with someone, in this example RP, doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily going to want to be your friend, especially not instantaneously. In fact it’s the instantaneous part that bothers me because it implies that those forcing the intimate details of their lives upon others under the assumption that just because they’re listening it makes them friends are just the sort of people to ignore other boundaries. These are the people who don’t actually understand that mutual interactions involves both parties negotiating how they relate to each other and as a result they’re also the people who are most likely entirely confused as to why other parties are always running away from them. And as much as they probably won’t learn otherwise until they’re told exactly what they’re doing wrong, I can’t imagine that it can be all that endearing to be forced to teach that lesson over and over again for anybody else.
bad_rpers_suck post I have to say that I’ve never understood this RP buddies = actual friends theory. I can understand becoming friends with the people you RP with, I can understand joining an RP because your friends are involved in it, I can even understand that perhaps many people do genuinely ‘want to meet new people’ and other such stock tripe that gets put on UCAS applications but that still doesn’t make friendship an instantaneous occurrence.Granted, the basis of friendship would be complimentary personality archetypes, shared interests and so on but discovering those factors takes time. Just because you’ve met someone and been civil to them just as they have been with you hardly means anything more than that you’re both open to the idea of learning more about each other at best or are happy to conduct civil relations while you go about your respective agendas. For example, as far as personality archetypes go my being an INTJ type doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ll befriend another INTJ though if I do it’s more likely that we’ll have to make shorter leaps in perspective to understand each other’s thinking. It’s less about opportunity to interact and more about long-term compatibility which means that while there may be initial similarities that won’t automatically develop into friendship or even a long-term tolerance of each other’s existence. Friendship in the real world doesn’t happen instantaneously after all, so why should that be the case online?
My theory is that this instant friendship presumption occurs because in an epistemic community it’s easy to presume that because you have one thing in common there are going to be plenty more. In the case of RP, which really involves a lot of communication and interaction, it would be very easy to make the same mistake that can be made with having a fandom in common with someone: you presume that because you have that one particular aspect in common and probably have a lot to say to each other about it, that such a conversation can extend and expand to cover an entire, well-rounded friendship. All it means is that you have certain aspects in common at the outset, that’s all. That’s not necessarily a bad thing since it does give you somewhere to start other than making small talk about the weather. The only problem is when that turns out to be all there is, where all you really do have in common is a book or series or a comic and in all other aspects your lives diverge.
Of course if you can, as you would in the real word, admit that there isn’t much else in common other than those few aspects and that those aren’t enough to sustain a friendship, if they aren’t, then that’s unlikely to cause a problem. What does it matter if you only talk about alcohol when you come to make conversation with each other? That sort of interaction presumes that you’re not particularly close but you do have one topic in common that you can converse comfortably about for the brief periods of time when you interact. Maybe you talk about your love of Cardassia Prime and little else about the StarTreck universe? It doesn’t matter so long as you’re both aware that that’s about the extent of your conversation because it only ever occurs during your half hour lunch and you work in different departments/never see each other outside of work anyway. It’s when the single dimension of compatibility is taken as indicative of a whole despite evidence to the contrary that there are issues. Issues like the over-sharing described by the poster in that
bad_rpers_suck post.And of course all the over sharing does is alienate the other person further because while they might have in time wanted to get to know the other person better, if the very personal details of that person’s life are simply dumped upon them all it will do is cause an uncomfortable response. As Wilde puts it: one can always be kind to people about whom one cares nothing which strikes me as apt. The response to over sharing may well be polite and filled with all the right noises of concern but the odds are that as soon as you get away from the sudden over sharing incident you’re unlikely to want to spend time with that person again.
All of which boils down to the pretty obvious fact that just because you have one thing in common with someone, in this example RP, doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily going to want to be your friend, especially not instantaneously. In fact it’s the instantaneous part that bothers me because it implies that those forcing the intimate details of their lives upon others under the assumption that just because they’re listening it makes them friends are just the sort of people to ignore other boundaries. These are the people who don’t actually understand that mutual interactions involves both parties negotiating how they relate to each other and as a result they’re also the people who are most likely entirely confused as to why other parties are always running away from them. And as much as they probably won’t learn otherwise until they’re told exactly what they’re doing wrong, I can’t imagine that it can be all that endearing to be forced to teach that lesson over and over again for anybody else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-26 02:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-30 05:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-31 02:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-12 07:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-13 04:42 am (UTC)You've managed to exacerbate the feeling that I really am an eighty year old trapped in a teenage body.
One amusing side effect of information overload that I have seen is the reliance on graphics calculators in chemistry tests. Many people I know read through the text and put details for everything in the calculator without bothering to really learn anything, and it's even encouraged by the younger of our teachers. They can't sit the test without their own mini Wikipedia it seems, but it's worth it to see someone panic when they realise they've forgotten to put something important in their notes.
we’re probably due another top predator cull sooner rather than later
If anyone's willing to sponsor me...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-14 11:48 am (UTC)Well, we elderly gentlemen of good taste and refinement do have to stick together after all.
I once had a friend who owned a graphics calculator but even he admitted that he only used it in maths classes. What do people need them for in Chemistry? Avogadro's Constant isn’t that hard to remember. Though that said I do recall revising for one of my later exams while making sure to remember all the little details that would be needed for calculations only to be confronted with a sheet of equations and standard figures when I arrived. Those of us who actually did the revision made a point of obviously putting said sheet to the side elaborately in disgust.
Eventually the stupidity of humanity will lead to total destruction and to be honest we seem to be getting pretty close already. I don’t know if I’ll live to see it but if I do I’ll be one of the bastards who go out laughing at the futility of us all.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-14 01:41 pm (UTC)What do people need them for in Chemistry? Avogadro's Constant isn’t that hard to remember.
I have no idea why they let us use graphics calculators. An ordinary scientific calculator is fine enough for all the equations we have to do since the course hasn't changed much from the 80s. The capacity for notes is merely a way to avoid serious study which is insulting to those who do learn the material. I can't really say much since normally I don't bother with either option but if someone is relying on their notes to get the same marks as me (avg. 60%) then they should seriously consider dropping the course, unless they're willing to study hard or cultivate a talent for bullshitting.
I've always held that humanity is rather like a swarm of cockroaches. You can do whatever you want to annihilate them but there will always be one unwitting survivor. Fortunately you just have to flip him on his back and he'll die in a few days anyway. Or spray him but not with deodorant. A friend found out the hard way..
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-14 02:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-15 10:01 am (UTC)