Technology and the Brain

Yes, I think those things are possible. But they're not easy

Really? Not easy for anyone? To use myself as an example, I live with two people I met through an Internet-mediated interest group; I met my SO through another, and xiphias, a local friend of mine, through a third *waves to him*. All of these groups are both sizable and linked to many other groups of related interest, forming a network where people in different locations can get to know each other and bring that familiarity into face-to-face interactions. I've watched this happen with, I'd estimate, thousands of people (between those who turned online friendships into face-to-face friendships when they moved, those who met at conventions and other episodic gatherings, those who stayed with online friends when visiting another location, those who formed strong connections and moved to be near each other...) and I doubt I've observed the entire phenomenon.

Right now, people use the internet more to feel not-alone in mind... because they can't get enough people of like mind in geographical locations close to them.

This is definitely a major way people use the Internet in my experience as well. It seems on the whole a positive one to me. Would it be better for them if they changed their minds -- changed their personalities -- in order to better fit in with those geographically close to them? This is a real question; it seems to me to be the necessary next step if using the Internet in this manner is not good for people.

And you still need people skills to make those meetings work.

Of course. One could even practice those people skills during those face-to-face meetings, once the Internet has introduced the participants in the first place and been used to set time, date, and so on for the meetings.

(As for using the internet to woo people, that's a very iffy thing. For every 'I met and married my online girlfriend', I hear dozens of 'oh, we met in person and the spark wasn't there'. Some things really need to be experienced in person.)

It seems to me that for any group of relationships united by a descriptor, be it relationships begun due to a common interest, begun over the Internet, between people of opposite genders, between previously divorced people, and so on, some will fizzle early, some end after awhile, some continue for the long term. I don't think that necessarily invalidates any of these groups of relationships. I wouldn't advocate that people go straight from online correspondence to, say, cohabitation -- I would of course recommend some face-to-face meetings -- but in my experience the Internet is not significantly less successful a place to meet potential interests than any other, nor the relationships resulting from such meetings fundamentally flawed in any unique way.

Would it be better for them if they changed their minds -- changed their personalities -- in order to better fit in with those geographically close to them? This is a real question; it seems to me to be the necessary next step if using the Internet in this manner is not good for people.

I fear that the advent of being able to constantly connect to people who do think similarly to ourselves has left us with a far lower tolerance of those who think differently. We risk losing the skills to build bridges with people. Our real physical neighbors are far more likely to be the ones able to keep an eye on our houses while we're away or give us a literal hand when we need it.

You may be overestimating how good people's tolerance for those who think differently has EVER been.

I grew up in an area with a very New England attitude. I'd say that most of our neighbors were Christian, some of them fundamentalist. My parents didn't go to Church, though I went to Catholic school. One of our neighbors was a fairly openly gay man.

We pretty much had a live & let live attitude. As a kid, I got locked out of the house in winter once & knew I could walk down the road to one of the neighbors we knew who would let us hang out there until our parents got home. People were always nice and polite -- even if they weren't close.

I'm not saying that you have to be absolute best friends with people who are your neighbors or that you have to change who you are. Maybe you avoid hot button issues in conversation. Maybe you're willing to say, "Mr. Smith may be regrettably intolerant in ___ way, but, he's always available to help anyone out regardless of what he may think in private."

Sequestering yourself from people who don't think like you can mean you miss the areas where they *do*.

[Edited for missing words.]

Our real physical neighbors are far more likely to be the ones able to keep an eye on our houses while we're away or give us a literal hand when we need it.

Having just participated in two successful fund drives for people who needed help, and knowing people whose neighbors hate them for being, say, same-sex, interracial, or even intellectual couples, I'm not entirely convinced that my physical neighbors are more likely to be helpful than my online friends.

I fear that the advent of being able to constantly connect to people who do think similarly to ourselves has left us with a far lower tolerance of those who think differently.

I'm not convinced of this, either. I don't believe there was some time when people got along more harmoniously than now; my hypothesis is that there were more people who stayed silent, feeling themselves alone, who may speak up now because faster and easier communications (including the Internet) have helped them find those of like mind.

My perspective on this is shaped by having grown up in a fundamentalist church located within a large city. I could see that beyond the narrow confines of my home community that there was a wider and more diverse world out there; I could see within my home community how many of the people I knew were impelled by religion to despise people they interacted with every working day. And yet, as a fan of fantasy and science fiction, who hid such books under her bed because I was taught they were 'occult' literature, I felt terribly isolated. When one of my books led me to a fanclub for its author, the revelation that there were others who shared my interest, who thought the way I do, was beyond wonderful to me.

Being in interest-based communities online is that same experience, writ larger and moving at a much faster speed. My experience of this is merely based around hobbies; I've talked to people who had the same experience of finding the like-minded, of finding themselves not alone, when they had been the only agnostic surrounded by the devout, the seemingly only LGBT person in a community where the expectation was heterosexual and heteronormative. I've talked to people who felt their lives transformed by finding out they weren't the only one, and it seems to me that it wouldn't serve the causes of harmony or justice for people to be denied these places to belong.

If being able to "connect to people who do think similarly to ourselves" does lead to an inability to deal with those who think differently (as opposed to sharing strategies and experiences with the like-minded for dealing with disagreement -- but I digress) then the cure is rejecting that connection. I think that being deprived of fellows to share these interests with wouldn't force people to jettison them in favor of fitting in better with those physically around them, let alone forcing them to make alliances they otherwise would not have made with their neighbors; it might force them to suppress those interests, but I don't think that would actually increase people's happiness. In fact, I think it would make them on average sadder and lonelier.

I don't mean necessarily more helpful. There are situations where proximity makes a difference. As I responded above, if a kid is locked out of their house, my internet friends can't offer them a place to stay until their parents get home. My friends online may help me raise money if my house has been robbed -- my neighbors might spot the thieves trying to break in & call the police.

I'm not saying by any stretch that we should NOT have these broad social relationships online, just that we shouldn't neglect trying to build at least tolerant and helpful ones with those who are physically near to us.

I think you are correct in this. It's a narrow outgrowth of us losing our tolerance for people in general, because they don't come in discrete bits we can ignore, pause or play as we have the time or attention span for.

The Internet lets us take in people and the world at our pace. But the world and other people aren't there for our entertainment. The more we live in this box, the less capable we are of dealing with things we can't control: including all the messy, annoying habits of our neighbors.

Once again I find myself nodding my head and thinking "Boy is that right."

The thing about the internet is...well I have had friendships end specifically because the other person only wanted to deal with me and us and our issues via email or online. They did not want to talk to me in person. they did not want to deal with my very real emotions -- for instance, that I might (justifiably) be hurt or angry with them. They wanted to say their piece and not have to deal with my response. In my opinion, that is a cowardly way to deal with other people.

And here on livejournal -- how many people have been hurt because someone unfriended them, and perhaps banned them, and never told them why? One minute you're "friends" and the next you are cast off. I mean this in a very different way that simply removing people you don't know well. Someone ticks you off and with a few mouse clicks you don;t have to deal with them any more, and you don;t have to explain yourself.

I am reminded of the scene in Sex and the City where Burger breaks up with Carrie by leaving a POST IT note on her laptop, and disappears. He's pretty much being a bastard. Yet on the internet that sort of thing not only happens all the time, but is now becoming the norm for social interactions.

Our real physical neighbors are far more likely to be the ones able to keep an eye on our houses while we're away or give us a literal hand when we need it.

Of course they are, and that doesn't go away, but my real-world neighbours share precious few interests with me. I talk to mine, I like mine, I am living in the kind of small village settings that people are hankering for. My online friends are not 'instead of' neighbourly contacts, but as well as.

And even without/before the net, many people are just not inclined to be social, cohabiting, friends-visiting, folks - they like their own company just fine. They are friendly with neighbours and maybe a few close friends and family, without ever wanting or needing more.

I agree with both yourself and Hajukar. I have experienced both things, being able to meet people online through social networking groups locally and have become great friends, etc. with them, yet on the other hand, I have a problem with social interaction in a way when it comes to meeting partners. I lack some of the most basic social skills at times when it comes to being face to face with people because I don't get out and do things enough. It's very hard for a single woman if you don't get out of the house enough to socialize to meet new people and have those interactions that you need. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet, but I also understand the implications of my unsocialness when it comes to face to face interaction.

I have never said the internet did not produce positive results, nor that we shouldn't be glad of it. I'm just stating that it's not all easy, nor does it result immediately or effortlessly in the kinds of relationships that we apparently need to remain healthy.

As for the ease you've observed... from what you've written here before, you seem to be articulate, friendly and you initiate a lot of conversations. These social things appear to be easy for you, because you appear to be good at them already. :)

The geek-friends I have, particularly the men who have not been made comfortable by their cultural upbringing, would find the kind of thing you're talking about much, much harder. Many of the ones who manage do it with already social intermediaries: they need help. But if they don't have someone like this, then they suffer.

It's kind of like the poor. Unless you're one of them, you rarely understand what they go through, or even see them. The high-socializers rarely see the real depth of the loneliness of people who just can't figure out how to make that first contact.

It's kind of like the poor. Unless you're one of them, you rarely understand what they go through, or even see them.

*opens mouth*
*pauses*
*shuts mouth* (As it were.)

That's a good metaphor.
*takes it and goes off again, thinking*

the real depth of the loneliness of people who just can't figure out how to make that first contact.

Aren't you conflating people who want to be social and who find it difficult with people who are quite happy as they are?

Being on your own != being lonely. For someone whose natural habitat is half-of-a-couple that may be difficult to understand, but not everybody's socialisation needs are the same.