Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
You're being silly. Any one of us can see, quite accurately, that Captain Crunch hates the Liberals. Locke hates Spiderman 3. 4x4 hates crappy drivers. Is that not an honest assessment of someone from their posting history? Can you not apply that to other subjects, like this one, as well?
|
Fascinating topic.
Yes and no. I’m sure some of my personality traits, likes/dislikes are immediately evident from my posts.
However, discerning meaning, bias and analyzing my thought patterns based on posts on an anonymous Internet forum is likely to yield different results than analyzing what I actually say and think in real life.
Which brings me to my next point, which version of me is the real me? The CP version, where I can, for the most part, post things with little to no real world consequences or judgements. Posting with racist biases on CP won’t cost me any friends or my job the way it would in real life so I imagine many more people show a slightly more raw side of their personality here because of the anonymity.
But on the other hand, because it’s CP and not “real life” I feel like many posters are inclined to post with exaggeration, lack of clarity and posts that are frequently of a more attention grabbing nature, due to the medium we’re using to communicate.
So while I think it’s probably fair to make some conclusions based on post history, I feel like there are too many variables that set online posting apart from real life that I’d take issue with any assessment that tries to establish that all online postings are equivalent in weight with meaningful real life thoughts and opinions.
Or maybe that’s just my own bias based on how I post online.