Well, this is quite late, but I just joined the class and am trying to get caught up! My name is Mark and technically I'm a second semester senior but preferably I'm a SUPER Senior. Believe it or not even through my fifth year at Cornell, I am without a "real" major. Currently, I'm what one might call an Interdisciplinary Studies Major. It's not exactly the best claim one can make at a party, but generally I'll get a follow up question i.e. "what the hell is that?" Basically what it breaks down to is that I need to fulfill the CALS requirements to graduate and that is it. Everything else is upto me. In reality, what it has resulted in is me looking to graduate this December with no major and four minors (Finance, Business, Comm, and Info Sci). Anyways, that's all well and fine but also quite boring. What I really do with my time is work and work out. This past summer I was doing 64 hours a week between my primary job as a Marketing & Communications Intern at Advion BioSciences, Inc. which is based out of Ithaca and my moonlight job at Nestle Library in the Hotel School. Now, I just started at the Cornell Center for Technology, Enterprise & Commercialization (CCTEC) as a Marketing & Economic Development intern which keeps me busy for 20 hours a week on top of my classes and the 8 hours I still put in at Nestle Library. Beyond that I try to work out at least once a day and just enrolled in Beginner's Yoga M & W at 6 in Teagle (you should come it's open to all as long as there is room, no sign up necessary!).
As as far as Internet Phenomenons go, well they're all pretty sweet. But, the one I'm most interested in-- which won't be very interesting to most passive readers of my post-- is Browser Based MUDs. I'm sure you've all read a little about MUDs by now from Wallace Ch.1: they're multiplayer games, text-based, mostly for nerds. Well, that's pretty much true. Sure now we have fancy pictures and terrible monsters to look at in games like World of Warcraft and Everquest, but the classic text-based MUD still exists in its niche market and has moved off the private telnet systems onto the World Wide Web. Thusly, we have Browser Based MUDs. These interest me, because well I'm trying to build one myself after having played one or two for years and taking some web programming classes it's finally starting to come along. Why would anybody still play text-based games (and why the heck would you want to make one!)? Well, for starters accessibility is often the key in many senses of the word. Text-based gaming allows blind and handicapped web-users an entertainment outlet unavailable through consoles and graphics heavy games. For users with old computers, browser based games are a good alternative to processing heavy programs. And, it's a heck of a lot easier to access to a stand-alone website game than install World of Warcraft on your work computer to get in your gaming addiction fix without getting caught.
I've already explained the "online space" that Browser Based MUDs take place in: the World Wide Web. Basically, people take the same old game style and ported it over onto web browsers using newer programming languages. What's most compelling about using web browsers for MUD making is the new surge in the so-called "Web 2.0" technologies that back most active content and community building (including this blog). Not only are game makers creating a world for their users to dive into, they're using web technology to allow their players to create the community that surrounds their game in the form of messageboards, fansites, player-groups, derivative works, wiki-based game guides, and more. From a business standpoint (mind you that is one of my many minors), tapping your clients as creators of auxiliary content is an extremely powerful and cool tool.
Monday, September 10, 2007
3 Our generation's got it easy
The amount of lean communication channels have increased in recent years because of new technologies. Back in the 70's, nobody could pop onto their computer and send an instant message to their friend saying they were gonna be late. Nobody could shoot off a quick text. For time-sensitive communication, you needed to use the phone.
The benefits of these lean communication channels are numerous. I recently used a lean communication channel to avoid a potential argument or confrontation. The situation involved me trying to get something of mine back from a former friend, with whom things had not ended well. I decided that an FtF communication would not only result in an argument, but it was also unnecessary. A rich channel communication was not overdoing it, but similarly would have probably resulted in some sort of fight. This prompted me to use Email. It allowed the other person to manage their feelings and words carefully, without me seeing it.
My choice's support of the Media Richness Theory is not certain. Since my request was very clear, you could argue that it didn't require a rich media. On the other hand, I automatically anticipated high potential for my request being misconstrued because of my previous experience and history with the friend. MRT says this would have made me choose a rich media. More importantly, my decision supports O'Sullivan's Impression Management Model. The valence of the communication was negative, because of our past and unspoken issues. The first hypothesis of IMM says that a negative valence favors lean communication.
Throughout college I've communicated with my mom by Email more than by phone. We usually send a few each week, compared to the weekly, or less then weekly phone calls. My schedule is hectic and usually out of sync with hers, so it's much easier to have an asynchronous medium. I've also found that we can exchange more information, sometimes more accurately, through Email. Talking on the phone for extended periods is much harder because of other commitments and the loss of multitasking. Emails can be written over extended periods of time at one's leisure.
I feel that in this case, my experience goes against the Media Richness Theory. I choose the leaner media because it helps me transfer information clearly and accurately by taking time to choose the perfect, unequivocal words. My choice of communication medium with my mother isn't generally influenced by the valence or locus of the conversation, so O'Sullivan's IMM theory isn't very applicable. However, in extremes such as time-sensitive material or very emotional
situations, I will choose a richer medium.
The benefits of these lean communication channels are numerous. I recently used a lean communication channel to avoid a potential argument or confrontation. The situation involved me trying to get something of mine back from a former friend, with whom things had not ended well. I decided that an FtF communication would not only result in an argument, but it was also unnecessary. A rich channel communication was not overdoing it, but similarly would have probably resulted in some sort of fight. This prompted me to use Email. It allowed the other person to manage their feelings and words carefully, without me seeing it.
My choice's support of the Media Richness Theory is not certain. Since my request was very clear, you could argue that it didn't require a rich media. On the other hand, I automatically anticipated high potential for my request being misconstrued because of my previous experience and history with the friend. MRT says this would have made me choose a rich media. More importantly, my decision supports O'Sullivan's Impression Management Model. The valence of the communication was negative, because of our past and unspoken issues. The first hypothesis of IMM says that a negative valence favors lean communication.
Throughout college I've communicated with my mom by Email more than by phone. We usually send a few each week, compared to the weekly, or less then weekly phone calls. My schedule is hectic and usually out of sync with hers, so it's much easier to have an asynchronous medium. I've also found that we can exchange more information, sometimes more accurately, through Email. Talking on the phone for extended periods is much harder because of other commitments and the loss of multitasking. Emails can be written over extended periods of time at one's leisure.
I feel that in this case, my experience goes against the Media Richness Theory. I choose the leaner media because it helps me transfer information clearly and accurately by taking time to choose the perfect, unequivocal words. My choice of communication medium with my mother isn't generally influenced by the valence or locus of the conversation, so O'Sullivan's IMM theory isn't very applicable. However, in extremes such as time-sensitive material or very emotional
situations, I will choose a richer medium.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Assignment 3, Option 2: How my mom became technologically savvy
My mom is the kind of person who needs step by step instructions on how to use a tv remote. When I received my first video chat request from her I knew something was awry. Up until this point I had no idea my mom had a computer, let alone could use it. Thirty seconds into what was the first of about ten video conversations in the first week, she told me about the computer class she took at the Mac store and the great time she was having with her new laptop. She then proceeded to do some kind of dance and tell me how tired I looked. Sure it was fun for the first three minutes of the first day, but as you can imagine, it got old very fast.
She couldn't get over the fact that her little girl was no longer 200 miles away in Ithaca, but a few clicks and a smile from her empty nest. Being able to speak as if we were across the table from one another, my nervous smiles gave up the fact that I hadn't exactly been spending my Thursday nights at the library. The lack of cues in my twice proofread emails were no match for the 18 years of FtF conversation we've had. She could see everything from my eyebrow raises to to me scratching my nose. This method now became her preferred medium of communication to keep in touch. To my mother, being able to talk to me, check up on me, and see with her own eyes that I'm still in one piece while I'm here at Cornell is very important to her. This is why she prefers to videochat instead of just using the phone or e-mail.The richness of cues from my expressions and availablity of feedback, whether it be my eyes rolling or a real laugh (as opposed to a typed "haha)" present via videochatting far exceeds the cues available from any other media channel.
While I do not have to worry so much about the impression I make on my mother, I try to come across to my professors in a more professional light. Recently, I decided that I wanted to switch in to a class that I was not able to add on Just the Facts. I could either go to Warren and find the professor in his office to ask his permission, call him on the telephone or write him an e-mail. I ruled out calling the professor on the telephone, I felt the telephone is more apt for social situations or atleast situations where it is understood that the person you are trying to reach would not mind spending time at that moment to talk to you. I did not know what this professor was like or if he was busy at the time. I could have gone to visit him at his office and asked, but I decided that e-mailing him would be best. This way I could articulate exactly what I wanted to say in order to come off as a diligent and eager student. Using this form of lean media I could manage my impression and come off exactly as I wanted to, hence the Impression Management theory.
My comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-my-husband-my-life-my-choices-your.html
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-courses-and-mischief.html
She couldn't get over the fact that her little girl was no longer 200 miles away in Ithaca, but a few clicks and a smile from her empty nest. Being able to speak as if we were across the table from one another, my nervous smiles gave up the fact that I hadn't exactly been spending my Thursday nights at the library. The lack of cues in my twice proofread emails were no match for the 18 years of FtF conversation we've had. She could see everything from my eyebrow raises to to me scratching my nose. This method now became her preferred medium of communication to keep in touch. To my mother, being able to talk to me, check up on me, and see with her own eyes that I'm still in one piece while I'm here at Cornell is very important to her. This is why she prefers to videochat instead of just using the phone or e-mail.The richness of cues from my expressions and availablity of feedback, whether it be my eyes rolling or a real laugh (as opposed to a typed "haha)" present via videochatting far exceeds the cues available from any other media channel.
While I do not have to worry so much about the impression I make on my mother, I try to come across to my professors in a more professional light. Recently, I decided that I wanted to switch in to a class that I was not able to add on Just the Facts. I could either go to Warren and find the professor in his office to ask his permission, call him on the telephone or write him an e-mail. I ruled out calling the professor on the telephone, I felt the telephone is more apt for social situations or atleast situations where it is understood that the person you are trying to reach would not mind spending time at that moment to talk to you. I did not know what this professor was like or if he was busy at the time. I could have gone to visit him at his office and asked, but I decided that e-mailing him would be best. This way I could articulate exactly what I wanted to say in order to come off as a diligent and eager student. Using this form of lean media I could manage my impression and come off exactly as I wanted to, hence the Impression Management theory.
My comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-my-husband-my-life-my-choices-your.html
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-courses-and-mischief.html
Thursday, September 6, 2007
No Sexytime For You
I had never been in a chat room before doing this exercise, so I, like many of the rest of the class, just did a google search for chat rooms. Not feeling like downloading any new applications or registering for anything, I just joined a general chat on AIM. Upon entering, it just seemed like a barrage of bad language, poor grammar, and incoherent thought. Not wanting to stay in this ridiculous room anymore, I asked if anyone wanted a serious private chat.
The first person that responded was just looking for some “sexytime.” I didn’t want any of that, so I left and asked the same chat room the same question again. This time around, I got a regular person: “mxp123”. I got the standard a/s/l questioning, but a response of “who cares?” seemed to satisfy mxp. The beginning of our conversations was a little awkward and weird. There were longer pauses than expected and a lot of generic small talk. It didn’t seem like mxp really had a cold personality, just that neither one of us really had anything important to say.
Wanting to find something that could be meaningful to the both of us, or at least stimulate some sort of conversation, I asked mxp if he was in school. I was happy to hear that he was a freshman at Purdue. We talked for a while about college and what we liked and disliked about it. It was whilst talking about college that I noticed that not only was mxp beginning to show signs of acting within the hyperpersonal model, but so was I. When we were both discussing various goals and fears we had about the future, I realized that I was saying things that I never tell people in real life. I definitely was not giving the full breadth of my emotions, but rather focusing in on a specific aspect, and while I don’t know for sure, I think mxp was doing the same. I think the ability to enter into a hyperpersonal modeled personality was actually very nice. It felt cathartic to me to vent my feelings to some random person in cyberspace that I knew I would never meet in real life. For all the shortcomings of CMC, I think that this aspect may actually be an advantage, provided it is something you are looking for.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Online Impression Formation
It took some thought for me to decide which online space I should visit for this assignment. I have used the Internet for a while now and have used many of it's communication technologies at one time or another. Ultimately, I decided on a web based chat on a topic that I know nothing about, skating. After some initial difficulty, I found a room that had other chatters in it but was not over full.
Inside was a cacophony of voices all shouting at each other, mainly on the topics of whether one of them was the cutest or coolest and whether the white people in the chat room had to right to say the word “nigga”. Eager to participate, I joined in on both discussions. However, it took a decent amount of time for one of them to respond to my comments.
There are two reasons for this, I believe. One is that even though there was a bunch of text scrolling by, none of the comments were very substantive. Thus most of the chatters didn't pay attention to others comments at all and simply focused on crafting their own comments. This explanation is most in line with the Cues Filters Out (CFO) perspective's hypothesis that the less cues that are available, the more likely people are to focus on themselves. However, there is a problem with this; there were many cues scrolling by all time, it's just that no one was paying attention to them. The lack of substance in the comments accounts for this discrepancy.
The second reason that my comments were ignored is that my style of typing was markedly different from the other chatters. I wrote in full sentences, used capitalization and punctuation and did my best to spell everything correctly. The other chatters only capitalized for emphasis, rarely used punctuation and used many standard spelling short cuts. These obvious differences in presentation lead many chatters to initially ignore me, then later chat with me but without addressing the substance of my comments. I believe the Social Identity/Deindividualization theory best accounts for this behavior. The style in which I presented my comments put me in a different group from the rest of the chatters so that when they finally did respond to me, they responded to me as an outsider and not part of their group identity.
My experience reflects the Hyperpersonal model only in terms of selective self presentation. Of course, I do not know what my fellow chatters are like in real life but I have a suspicion that they do not act nearly as tough in the real world as they did in the chatroom. I did not observe any of the other aspects of this model, however its possible that in another online space where more substantive conversation is available the hyperpersonal model will better explain the interactions.
Inside was a cacophony of voices all shouting at each other, mainly on the topics of whether one of them was the cutest or coolest and whether the white people in the chat room had to right to say the word “nigga”. Eager to participate, I joined in on both discussions. However, it took a decent amount of time for one of them to respond to my comments.
There are two reasons for this, I believe. One is that even though there was a bunch of text scrolling by, none of the comments were very substantive. Thus most of the chatters didn't pay attention to others comments at all and simply focused on crafting their own comments. This explanation is most in line with the Cues Filters Out (CFO) perspective's hypothesis that the less cues that are available, the more likely people are to focus on themselves. However, there is a problem with this; there were many cues scrolling by all time, it's just that no one was paying attention to them. The lack of substance in the comments accounts for this discrepancy.
The second reason that my comments were ignored is that my style of typing was markedly different from the other chatters. I wrote in full sentences, used capitalization and punctuation and did my best to spell everything correctly. The other chatters only capitalized for emphasis, rarely used punctuation and used many standard spelling short cuts. These obvious differences in presentation lead many chatters to initially ignore me, then later chat with me but without addressing the substance of my comments. I believe the Social Identity/Deindividualization theory best accounts for this behavior. The style in which I presented my comments put me in a different group from the rest of the chatters so that when they finally did respond to me, they responded to me as an outsider and not part of their group identity.
My experience reflects the Hyperpersonal model only in terms of selective self presentation. Of course, I do not know what my fellow chatters are like in real life but I have a suspicion that they do not act nearly as tough in the real world as they did in the chatroom. I did not observe any of the other aspects of this model, however its possible that in another online space where more substantive conversation is available the hyperpersonal model will better explain the interactions.
Impression Formation In a CMC Exchange
The psychological space I entered was an instant messaging exchange that lasted about thirty minutes with a person I met in an informal online gaming session. This person is a male college sophomore around the age of 20, presumably white. His social type can be deduced from his job or role, which he described as a student in software engineering at Penn State University, from which I can infer that he probably comes from a middle or upper-middle class family, that he is relatively smart or good at studying, that he is future-minded, and that he probably doesn’t get into any serious criminal trouble.
We began to talk about school, about our majors, about our mutual antipathy for math, about our future career goals and what we did over the summer. During the conversation, I was thinking that he was a very warm person and that talking to him about various topics was quite easy. However, after the conversation ended, I had re-read what he had said during the exchange and I realized that his remarks were mostly very neutral and concise, only really answering the questions that I was asking him, without trying very hard to embellish his responses with much detail. Looking back, it appears that he was not actually being as warm as I had originally thought in the impression I formed of him during the conversation, which leads to the possibility that I was over-attributing the warmth of his responses as a result of the CMC medium, which adheres to Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model.
I will now describe my impression in terms of the Big 5 Traits: I did not feel that my conversational partner was exhibiting any sort of neurosis, but was rather quite calm and collected. While speaking to him, he seemed to be extroverted, but again, after re-reading the conversation, his terse, neutral responses indicated a less extroverted personality that I had originally thought. He showed openness only to the extent that he would answer the questions that I was asking, without letting slip any substantial extraneous detail that might have initiated more in-depth conversation. Due to the limited amount of information he was giving me, the breadth of my impression suffered as a result. I was only able to form an impression based on his answers to my questions, which supports the SIP model (and therefore the Hyperpersonal Model, process #2) in that there was a developmental aspect – that the transmission of information took much longer than it would have in F2F communication. The ability to exchange social info based on adapted cues, as the SIP model suggests, was apparent in my impression. He was, however, very agreeable in that he tended to react positively to most of my comments. His degree of conscientiousness is difficult to gauge because he seemed to openly answer whatever I was asking him, however, he refrained from expanding on his answers too much, which seemed to suggest that he was carefully selecting the information he wanted to share with me. The observation that my conversational partner was exhibiting selective self-presentation seems to, again, agree with the Hyperpersonal Model.
My experience did not agree with the CFO theory. I sensed neither an underdeveloped or negative impression formation, but rather a more intense impression of certain characteristics, as I explained above. My impression was more in line with the Hyperpersonal Model and the SIP Theory mainly because it was less detailed with respect to breadth, yet more intense or exaggerated. My impression also matched many of the characteristics of the Hyperpersonal Model, such as exhibiting over-attribution processes, selective self-presentation, and a developmental aspect.
We began to talk about school, about our majors, about our mutual antipathy for math, about our future career goals and what we did over the summer. During the conversation, I was thinking that he was a very warm person and that talking to him about various topics was quite easy. However, after the conversation ended, I had re-read what he had said during the exchange and I realized that his remarks were mostly very neutral and concise, only really answering the questions that I was asking him, without trying very hard to embellish his responses with much detail. Looking back, it appears that he was not actually being as warm as I had originally thought in the impression I formed of him during the conversation, which leads to the possibility that I was over-attributing the warmth of his responses as a result of the CMC medium, which adheres to Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model.
I will now describe my impression in terms of the Big 5 Traits: I did not feel that my conversational partner was exhibiting any sort of neurosis, but was rather quite calm and collected. While speaking to him, he seemed to be extroverted, but again, after re-reading the conversation, his terse, neutral responses indicated a less extroverted personality that I had originally thought. He showed openness only to the extent that he would answer the questions that I was asking, without letting slip any substantial extraneous detail that might have initiated more in-depth conversation. Due to the limited amount of information he was giving me, the breadth of my impression suffered as a result. I was only able to form an impression based on his answers to my questions, which supports the SIP model (and therefore the Hyperpersonal Model, process #2) in that there was a developmental aspect – that the transmission of information took much longer than it would have in F2F communication. The ability to exchange social info based on adapted cues, as the SIP model suggests, was apparent in my impression. He was, however, very agreeable in that he tended to react positively to most of my comments. His degree of conscientiousness is difficult to gauge because he seemed to openly answer whatever I was asking him, however, he refrained from expanding on his answers too much, which seemed to suggest that he was carefully selecting the information he wanted to share with me. The observation that my conversational partner was exhibiting selective self-presentation seems to, again, agree with the Hyperpersonal Model.
My experience did not agree with the CFO theory. I sensed neither an underdeveloped or negative impression formation, but rather a more intense impression of certain characteristics, as I explained above. My impression was more in line with the Hyperpersonal Model and the SIP Theory mainly because it was less detailed with respect to breadth, yet more intense or exaggerated. My impression also matched many of the characteristics of the Hyperpersonal Model, such as exhibiting over-attribution processes, selective self-presentation, and a developmental aspect.
Assignment 2: Twitterific
When I started this assignment I wanted to find a subject that I had absolutely zero pre-conceived notions about. This was hard because most online psychological spaces already have stereotypes attached to them (if not widely held, then at least in my own head) so I looked to a relatively new online space called Twitter. A mini-blog on steroids might be an appropriate description of what Twitter is; more commonly it’s referred to as simply mini-blogging, or an ongoing stream of short status updates that someone posts on their simplistic personal page via a number of possible avenues including SMS text messaging, instant messaging, Facebook, or posting directly on the Twitter website. As yet, Twitter does not have a stereotypical audience (at least in my mind) so I was not filled with any expectations of what kind of people I might find. Twitter’s homepage shows a stream of the latest updated streams, so I simply chose one of those users and read every post in that user’s stream on the top page (approximately 20 posts).
Right off the bat when I loaded this user’s page I got a good amount of information about him including his name (I won’t publish his entire name), his location (Santa Monica, CA), and a picture of him. The combination of his name and his picture gave me a good amount of information including his sex, race and approximate age; he is a Caucasian male that I’d estimate to be in his mid-to-late 20’s. Beyond that I took from his name that he was of Dutch ancestry because his last name started with the prefix “Van.” There was also a link to a myspace page, but I chose not to visit it in order to keep my impressions focused on his Twitter stream.
Most of the posts in his stream fall into the following categories: Three posts related to technology, three posts related to sports, three posts proposing times and locations of get-togethers, three posts related to pubs/bars/drinks and two posts about concerts. Besides the information I’ve already gotten from the page (approximate age, sex, location, race), I can now begin to analyze him in terms of the Big 5 Traits. He doesn’t seem very neurotic, but rather very much down to earth. He is very extraverted and open, which I can tell by the social nature of a number of his posts, and the fact that he is willing to make them public. I cannot quite judge his agreeableness because I have not witnessed enough interaction with other people, but I would tend to use the over-attribution process to apply my favorable attitude towards him and assume that he is agreeable. Finally, I cannot comment on his conscientiousness because I do not see any moral dilemmas in his posts. I would also categorize him overall as a pretty warm person, as none of his posts are negative in any way.
I analyzed his posts further and came to conclusions about him, continuing to use the over-attribution process of the Hyperpersonal model. I take his overall cheerful attitude as almost too cheerful, combined with a few slightly effeminate remarks, and get the impression that he is a very effeminate person. However I then remembered his sports and technology remarks and quickly dismissed the idea that he is an overly effeminate male. One of his posts pertained to a new computer and another to driving a convertible, which led me to infer that he had a healthy income source. I also would characterize him with a healthy social life and a healthy interest in music. Overall the amount of information that he gave in twenty sentences led me to draw a huge number of conclusions, all using the Hyperpersonal model, and I ultimately took the eclectic collection of posts and conclude that he is a pretty average and well-rounded person. (Not the result I expected from this exercise)
Right off the bat when I loaded this user’s page I got a good amount of information about him including his name (I won’t publish his entire name), his location (Santa Monica, CA), and a picture of him. The combination of his name and his picture gave me a good amount of information including his sex, race and approximate age; he is a Caucasian male that I’d estimate to be in his mid-to-late 20’s. Beyond that I took from his name that he was of Dutch ancestry because his last name started with the prefix “Van.” There was also a link to a myspace page, but I chose not to visit it in order to keep my impressions focused on his Twitter stream.Most of the posts in his stream fall into the following categories: Three posts related to technology, three posts related to sports, three posts proposing times and locations of get-togethers, three posts related to pubs/bars/drinks and two posts about concerts. Besides the information I’ve already gotten from the page (approximate age, sex, location, race), I can now begin to analyze him in terms of the Big 5 Traits. He doesn’t seem very neurotic, but rather very much down to earth. He is very extraverted and open, which I can tell by the social nature of a number of his posts, and the fact that he is willing to make them public. I cannot quite judge his agreeableness because I have not witnessed enough interaction with other people, but I would tend to use the over-attribution process to apply my favorable attitude towards him and assume that he is agreeable. Finally, I cannot comment on his conscientiousness because I do not see any moral dilemmas in his posts. I would also categorize him overall as a pretty warm person, as none of his posts are negative in any way.
I analyzed his posts further and came to conclusions about him, continuing to use the over-attribution process of the Hyperpersonal model. I take his overall cheerful attitude as almost too cheerful, combined with a few slightly effeminate remarks, and get the impression that he is a very effeminate person. However I then remembered his sports and technology remarks and quickly dismissed the idea that he is an overly effeminate male. One of his posts pertained to a new computer and another to driving a convertible, which led me to infer that he had a healthy income source. I also would characterize him with a healthy social life and a healthy interest in music. Overall the amount of information that he gave in twenty sentences led me to draw a huge number of conclusions, all using the Hyperpersonal model, and I ultimately took the eclectic collection of posts and conclude that he is a pretty average and well-rounded person. (Not the result I expected from this exercise)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)