Psychology of Online Virtual Relationships:

Xxx

Summaries of Articles

The first thing that I had to do when writing his report was to look at a few articles and to summarize them. Then I could react to the articles from a more personal point of view. (How I digest and integrate the articles)

Of course, there are always some people, male or female, which would choose to take on an Other-persona for destructive reasons. This does not mean that all Other-persona attempts are destructive any more than the fact that some people take communication courses to learn to manipulate others means that all people taking communication courses have inherently destructive goals. There are some rich opportunities for growth in exploring our Other(s) within and opening ourselves to these possibilities, and to researching these possibilities, seems important.

After reading, this section I started to think about the real world and how people interact with one another, and the different outcomes to situations. For example if two people got into an argument or heated discussion at work, they would try to work it out by talking or just avoiding each other for a while. This type of outcome can be attribute to the two peoples conscience coming to the conclusion that there may be greater repercussions if the situation were to escalate. These are the normal everyday outcomes, which are expected, in real life, but in a chat room or some other forum that can separate the two individuals and keep their identity hidden the outcomes are very different. In a chat room, a person real identity is secret and nobody real knows anyone else. (A persons characteristics, personality, and gender can be created by the person when they enter a chat room) This can lead to different reactions from a person who in RL (Real Life) might have talked out the problem, instead they might start swearing or yelling at the other person. This type of blind anger can be seen in MUDs an Internet version of dungeons and dragons. In these settings, someone killing another person's character solves a problem. The death might occur right after an argument or a few days later, the person doing the killing always says that the killing is justified and it is the way of the game. The strange things is that the person that pkilled (player killed) might never be that aggressive in RL.

Another area that way talked about in the paper was the media and its effect in the world.

Print to me is a powerful medium. I can express myself well in print--I don't experience the keyboard as a limitation, but rather as a device for "flowing" my ideas, thoughts, emotions into words. I know some people who have similar styles of learning who find virtual contact rich indeed. I have other friends who are not verbally oriented (especially folks who have tactile/sensate learning styles) who find virtual interactions limiting and stilted, missing something crucial in making connections. Understanding these differences and how they affect our interactions and our perceptions of these interactions on-line would be a useful addition to the literature.

Each person has there own style of learning and communication; this can be seen in classroom and in the work place. Some people are more comfortable in sending e-mail then in talking to another person on the phone. These differences in people are the forces that make the argument whether a virtual relationship is the same as real life relationship. Some people are better at expressing themselves with their verbal skills because they can see the other person and use that person's body language and facial expressions to read the other person. These interactions are need for the person to hold a normal and healthy conversation. These same people seem to have difficulty when it comes to sitting in front of a monitor and typing to another person because of the lack of non-verbal feed back from the other person. Then there are others that don't need all of the non-verbal communication to hold a conversation with someone else, that is why each person has to come to their own conclusions about the Internet and virtual relationships.

The first idea is the virtual community and how it is defined and how it works on the Internet. Here is a definition of a virtual community,

They define virtual communities as computer mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. They also claim that the first virtual communities were composed of scientists using the Internet or its predecessors to share data, collaborate on research, and exchange messages.

I think that this definition was correct about 7-10 years ago, but now I think that the virtual community is occupied by "normal every folk."

The conventional definition of a community is a group of people that interact with each other to work towards common goals or ideals, but there is one small catch to this definition. That is all of the communities in the world prior to the Internet dealt in face-to- face conversation or person- to-person interaction. With the advent of the Internet these interactions can take place between to people that are thousands of miles (or kilometers) apart from each other. Even though these people are not within the sight range of each other, the exchange of information and ideas is the same as if they were standing in the same room or town. Therefore, the Internet has helped to stretch the boundaries and definitions of the word community.

The second idea is that of a virtual settlement, this is a place in cyberspace where the virtual community operates and survives. There are a few conditions that have to be met before a virtual settlement can exist. These conditions are a minimum level of interactivity, variety of communicators, minimum level of sustained membership, and a virtual common place where a significant amount of exchange takes place.

1. Minimum level of interactivity

A number of persons who communicate with one another often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others, not at second hand, through other people, but face-to-face.

I guess our class could meet this part of the definition of a virtual settlement, since we do communicate with each other and the group is small enough that everyone can be heard by everyone else.

2. Variety of communicators

The second necessary condition, a variety of communicators, is linked to the first condition of interactivity. Clearly if there is only one communicator there can be no interactivity. Further, authors universally relate the term to group-CMC, where there are more than two communicators, that is, more than two individuals who post their messages to the virtual community common-public-space (see below). By making variety of communicators (more than two) a necessary condition, we are able to exclude most database queries and database interactions from the category virtual community.

3. Common-public-space where a significant portion of a community's interactive group-OMC occurs

Therefore, according to Fernback and Thompson a virtual community needs a virtual-space. At the same time, a virtual community is not equivalent to its cyberspace.

4. A minimum level of sustained membership

Some authors have argued that virtual communities are "long term, computer-mediated conversations amongst large groups" [(Erickson 1997)], suggesting that for group-CMC to be classified as a virtual community it should have some degree of sustained membership. The level of membership stability required for a reasonable level of interactivity will also relate to the density of CMC messages (message postings per-unit of time). For example, IRC has a fairly high density of postings in comparison to many email lists and therefore does not require the same stability of membership to produce interactive discussions. This requirement suggests that it is worthwhile conducting research into the stability of membership of various virtual communities to determine at what point membership patterns become disruptive to community survival and communication.

The third idea is that of cyber-archeology, this is an expansion of the basic ideas of archeology and applied to the Internet. (I.e. virtual communities and settlements)

Archaeologists don't research communities and cultures directly; rather they examine the remains human habitation. Of direct relevance to CMC researchers, archaeologists have also shown that the material components of settlements play a substantial and essential role in many large-scale transformations of human community life [(see below, under material behavior Fletcher 1986)]. This is because material becomes recognizable as an actor without intent, whose operations are played out on a scale beyond the limited perceptions of daily community life. Likewise it is being proposed that virtual-communities and cyber-cultures can also be examined one step removed from social theory, where human intent is not of particular importance and larger-scale cultural changes can be assessed. Of course, this can only be done if we take an archaeological perspective so that the patterning of cyber-artifacts can examine. In other words, it is being suggested that virtual communities and virtual settlements be systematically researched via the longer-term perspective of cyber-archaeology.

With this idea of cyber-archeology, the evolution of the virtual communities can now be analyzed from an archeological standpoint. This helps to bring the evolution of the virtual community in the realm of "proper thinking" instead of being the realm of computer geeks and hackers.

After reading these articles my understanding of the virtual community has been modified and added to because I used to think that the virtual community existed only in cyberspace. Now I see that it also has an anchor within the "real world" and this anchor is each individual person that used their computers to enter the virtual community. So the virtual community is actually an extension of the human society as any other community or settlement in the world past or present.

Places to interact on the web?

There are many different kinds of places that people can meet and interact with others on the Internet. These places have different names for the different features that they have like a forum is a place that people with the same ideas or topics meet to discuss and talk about whatever it is that they talk about. Like the cigar aficionado forum at this site, they have a chat room and they also, have information on cigars and other items that are need to smoke a cigar.

Conferences are being held on the Internet now, instead of people paying for a trip to hear people talk about new advances in their given fields. All a person has to do now is logon to the convention site at the right time and they can hear the speech or get new information without leaving the comfort or their home or office. This does put a cramp in the party aspect of some conferences, but in our tough economic times, this seems like a way to take the expense out of conferences.

Has this research changed me in anyway?

Well I can say with confidence that this research still has not changed my opinion of the Internet or online relationships. You have to be asking yourself what is this person saying that his opinion hasn't change, when he has never stated his position on the Internet and virtual communities. Well I am going to tell you my position on these matters I still haven't made up my mind yet. I think that RL and virtual relationships are both needed in our society. A person has to develop interaction skills in RL before they can venture in the world of cyberspace. The skills that people have to develop are the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality; there have been cases of people that have not been able to separate their real lives from the lives that they lead in cyberspace. And there cases of people that spend all of their time online, but they cannot hold a face-to-face conversation because they have not learned (or used their) social skills. People that experienced the events first hand or used their own interactions with the world as the basis of their writing wrote some of the greatest novels. I don't think I would ever read a novel written by an author that never left his house to experience the world, but has claimed to because he saw pictures of these places on his computer. The energy of the experience just wouldn't be there in their writing.

I do however like a few of the things that the Internet has brought to the world and that is global communication that is cheap and economical. A person can talk to his parents via the modem without paying long distance charges or a group of people can get together and hold a meeting even though they are all in different countries. I personally play MUDs on the Internet and I communicate with my friends using e-mail, but if I want to talk to someone about an important event, I still try to meet with them in RL.

Therefore, you could say that I pick and chose the things that I take from the Internet and the virtual community, granted that there are others in this world that are more involved with the virtual community. These are just my thoughts and ideas, like I stated earlier each person has to make their own choice about how much cyberspace they want in their lives.

I think that human relationships and culture has found a new outlet or area to branch into and develop. The Internet is helping to bring people from all over the world together in a common language. The text might be different for some people, but idea has remained the same the Internet is the last free area left in the world. When you are on the Internet you don't have to pay taxes or are limited by the boundaries of different countries. Most people can create a home page with their own views and ideas expressed on the page. There is no censorship so everyone has the right to free speech and expression.

I think that the Internet will help to bring change to some of the countries in the world, like China for example. The people of China are told what they can watch and listen too, but the Internet is starting to show these people how restricted they really are as compared to the rest of the world. If people can see the freedoms that others have, they might start to fight to gain these rights and help to start social changes in their country.

All of the reports seemed to have followed the same format and structure I will be discussing a few of the sections from the reports, these sections are "What am I saying" and "Final considerations." In the section called "What am I saying?" every one of the three people said about the same things in this section.

In the section called final considerations each of these three women looked that the future of the Internet and how it will affect the future generations. After reading all three sections, I have come to the conclusion that they are basically saying the same things. That the Internet is the last free area in the world and that everyone has the access to get to this area all they need is a computer terminal. In addition, that cyberspace is link to the Internet the way that the mind is linked to the human brain. That is one needs the other to exist because it needs a place to reside in.

Recommendations for the future

I also think that there will be some sort of rules or regulations put on the Internet in the near future. A few examples are pornography and gambling or gaming, there are lawsuits right now that are trying to decide the legality of online computer gaming in states that don't allow organized gambling. (Even though the actual sites are located in areas, that allows gambling) These and other problems with the Internet will be solved in the near future or sometime in the future.

I still think that real time person-to-person interactions are the only way to really have a conversations, but I may just be trying to hold on to a way of life that I don't want to let die.