Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rlyss · 02-14-2005, 02:11 AM

Interesting questions Hal.

When talking online you'd think it'd be far harder to make someone laugh, or someone would be less likely to laugh, because the only thing they see is text, not facial expressions or subtle hints about appropriateness to laugh, or show surprise, etc. Also if the other person can't see your reaction to what they're saying (eg. MSN Messenger) and they something that's supposed to be funny, then you're not likely to laugh politely, you'll just say 'lol' and leave it at that.

But I often find that's not quite true. I know I laugh a lot more easily online than I do in real life, and most often when I write 'lol' I'll actually be chuckling or grinning in real life. I think it might be because when text is the only way of communication it leaves a lot to be desired. You can't see all the subtleties, it's rushed and direct and the writing isn't developed. So in these cases I think it's easy to laugh or feel bad about something that isn't really that funny or depressing, and that's because I think the reader tends to inject more of him or herself into what they're reading.

I guess I find it hard to explain but it's like when you have a crush on someone you hardly know, they're automatically the greatest person in the world because what you don't know about them you fill with your imagination, and it's always something good. 'What kind of movies does she like? The same ones I do, I bet...' I think that on an instant messaging program we use our imagination to beef up what someone else is saying and we fill in the blanks with what we think, which is always automatically good.

When it comes to a message board I think it's a bit different because most people, on the TFP at least, use full sentences and spend some time making their post more than just readable, and so the less imagination we have to put into deciphering or interpreting someone else's words I think the more 'real' that communication is. Perhaps not lifelike but still valid and meaningful because the more meaning they convey, the less meaning we have to supply ourselves. Oral communication is still made up of our own intepretations and meaning, so it's never simply someone else's words.

I'm rambling, but this looks to become a great topic.

02-14-2005, 02:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Rlyss The Pusher Location: Edinburgh	Interesting questions Hal. When talking online you'd think it'd be far harder to make someone laugh, or someone would be less likely to laugh, because the only thing they see is text, not facial expressions or subtle hints about appropriateness to laugh, or show surprise, etc. Also if the other person can't see your reaction to what they're saying (eg. MSN Messenger) and they something that's supposed to be funny, then you're not likely to laugh politely, you'll just say 'lol' and leave it at that. But I often find that's not quite true. I know I laugh a lot more easily online than I do in real life, and most often when I write 'lol' I'll actually be chuckling or grinning in real life. I think it might be because when text is the only way of communication it leaves a lot to be desired. You can't see all the subtleties, it's rushed and direct and the writing isn't developed. So in these cases I think it's easy to laugh or feel bad about something that isn't really that funny or depressing, and that's because I think the reader tends to inject more of him or herself into what they're reading. I guess I find it hard to explain but it's like when you have a crush on someone you hardly know, they're automatically the greatest person in the world because what you don't know about them you fill with your imagination, and it's always something good. 'What kind of movies does she like? The same ones I do, I bet...' I think that on an instant messaging program we use our imagination to beef up what someone else is saying and we fill in the blanks with what we think, which is always automatically good. When it comes to a message board I think it's a bit different because most people, on the TFP at least, use full sentences and spend some time making their post more than just readable, and so the less imagination we have to put into deciphering or interpreting someone else's words I think the more 'real' that communication is. Perhaps not lifelike but still valid and meaningful because the more meaning they convey, the less meaning we have to supply ourselves. Oral communication is still made up of our own intepretations and meaning, so it's never simply someone else's words. I'm rambling, but this looks to become a great topic.