Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
There you have the problem for most ATOTers already! 😉
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
How do you judge people online?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
There you have the problem for most ATOTers already! 😉
Barnaby W. Füi
Elite Member
😀
Unfortunately I'm a bit of a non-relationship-former myself 😱
No worries, women just steal precious computing time.... 😉
Jeff7
Lifer
Well whatever it is, I make friends online a lot easier than in person. People just seem to like the way I write - my speech is considerably less than perfect. I think much faster than I can translate it into words - it often comes out garbled, because I try to combine multiple words or sentences in a single word, and it just doesn't work. Typing feels more "natural" than talking.
Some people are completely different online, because they feel like "oh, it's just online, it's not like it matters." Some that I've talked with admitted that they just like pissing off people on the Internet just for a cheap thrill, even ones they call "friends." I always figured that you'd treat people online as you would treat them in person.
Some people are completely different online, because they feel like "oh, it's just online, it's not like it matters." Some that I've talked with admitted that they just like pissing off people on the Internet just for a cheap thrill, even ones they call "friends." I always figured that you'd treat people online as you would treat them in person.
hzl eyed grl
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
All of the above, I think. I get e "feel" of someone by their spelling, grammar, views, attitude, etc........
Wow. Actually an interesting thread! What next?
Personally, I think the online world is my little stomping ground. I just spent the last 45 minutes posting about how I (among other things) invented the tin-foil emoticon beanie, am having sex with Grasshopper's girlfriend, and have a scat fetish.
I just like to see people's reactions to stuff. Online is a joke. People can throw whatever insults and get all huffy if they want, but the reality is...well...reality. And considering in the "real world" I'm quite a nice person and judged "well" I don't really have to worry about it. It's just fun to play around every once in awhile, and online is a great place to do it.
Just as a well-spoken person can easily receive attention in real life (at least in the short term), proper spelling and grammar serve as short-term signs that a person has at least a modicum of education and can put together complete sentences.
That still doesn't help someone who's a complete asshat tho, since their true nature gets revealed soon enough.
BTW: I'm a crappy typist...and I constantly have to fix errors I've made in my posts. I've been flamed about it more times than I care to recollect. :frown:
That still doesn't help someone who's a complete asshat tho, since their true nature gets revealed soon enough.
BTW: I'm a crappy typist...and I constantly have to fix errors I've made in my posts. I've been flamed about it more times than I care to recollect. :frown:
yes
Well this is an interesting subject. I think that it requires a rather rare bit of knowledge to plumb properly though. Do you know this story. It indicates the phenomenon of projection. Hemans seem generally unaware that they are constantly projecting, interpreting the world according to feelings the projector is unconscious of having. An adgry person thinks people are angry. A lear thinks people are lying. A thief always has his eye on his wallet suspecting it will be taken. An idiot sees lots of idiots, etc.
Now most people are interestedin their reputation and struggle mightily to keep people's projections of them from taking hold and projectors are constantly trying to tar this or that person with their projection.
But if you are truly interested in truth about the best you can hope for is to help people see how blind their projecting makes them by showing them what they are doing. It's a thankless kind of task because they immediately suspect you of whatever it is they are hiding about themselves from themselves. Anybody, therefore, who wishes to teach must expect to be the Devil.
We are actually all mirrors of each other. We are all three things, what we think we are, what others think we are, and what we really are. What we think we are is a flattering ego construct, what others think we are is what they are, and what we really are, well ....
So since you are only going to be a mirror in which others see themselves, you might as well take conscious control over it.
In it what is in it. You get what you pay for. I'll see it when I believe it. These are bits of wisdom that all refer to the fact that we can only see is limited by a certain kind of insight I'd call self knowledge.
The person who knows himself doesn't judge. He doesn't have to. He knows.
Oh my Beloved, wherever I look, it appears to be Thou.
Now most people are interestedin their reputation and struggle mightily to keep people's projections of them from taking hold and projectors are constantly trying to tar this or that person with their projection.
But if you are truly interested in truth about the best you can hope for is to help people see how blind their projecting makes them by showing them what they are doing. It's a thankless kind of task because they immediately suspect you of whatever it is they are hiding about themselves from themselves. Anybody, therefore, who wishes to teach must expect to be the Devil.
We are actually all mirrors of each other. We are all three things, what we think we are, what others think we are, and what we really are. What we think we are is a flattering ego construct, what others think we are is what they are, and what we really are, well ....
So since you are only going to be a mirror in which others see themselves, you might as well take conscious control over it.
In it what is in it. You get what you pay for. I'll see it when I believe it. These are bits of wisdom that all refer to the fact that we can only see is limited by a certain kind of insight I'd call self knowledge.
The person who knows himself doesn't judge. He doesn't have to. He knows.
Oh my Beloved, wherever I look, it appears to be Thou.
Word realities spoken by people allow an understanding of the depth of origin of those realities. For example, if I read some argument and feel emotion in the argument as opposed to logical and progressive deductions/inductions, that signifies separation for a specific purpose to gain an end and follow rules or systems of a sort for common understanding using shared referents.
Judging people (which people herein claim is inherent to humans) is not inherent to the biological or mental schemas propelling and providing heuristics for a human. Classification schemes, are. The cultural requirements to sort and list functions, uses, and properties to categorize and order memory as well as latent biological and self-defining functions of humanhood are just that, classification systems. However, in the classifying of objects around us to some worldview and understanding, emotion, and the word realities of "good", "bad", and "WTF?" often pervade and color those classifications. For example, I see wit and know the properties of 'wit' to classify a person as such. How do I know? Well, the words fit what I would say and do as witty. Then there is a sharing and a mutual experience of 'wit', leading to some position "good". If preexisting systems, such as the ethical, preclude a classification (erm, judgement now since ethics are included), then "WTF?" is assigned to be categorized later as more data comes.
What's means by "not judging" using rational means is the noninclusion of good/bad terminology and in effect remaining agnostic to one's experiences until there is shifting evidence with the development of histories and relationships as well as rapport. Then, pain can be uses as a criteria and pleasure as a reinfoircer.
However, this speaks little of projection dynamics or the nature of what's felt and experiences when judging occurs inclusive of a person's other faculties and not only those of reason. Angers and attractions, for example. Moonbeam (love ya Moonie), mentions projection as a state of improper functioning attribution stemming from states a human is in. From this point, all words are colored with bias from self, gender, society, etc.
Yet notice a well-crafted solution. Rational as well as other means to judge or classify cease to have meaning when one sees the world as the Beloved. In loving, the projection is love, and the experience is love. With that as the basis, the subject has no need of classification systems, since it's a sort of revertal to a childlike state before words and organizations started shaping the plastic mind. Then one does not judge, though one can discern and classify based on systematic understandings and social groupings of survival mechanisms to fit in at will and whim. Then one sees the Beloved. And indeed, everywhere I look, it appears to be Thou.
Cheers ! 🙂
Judging people (which people herein claim is inherent to humans) is not inherent to the biological or mental schemas propelling and providing heuristics for a human. Classification schemes, are. The cultural requirements to sort and list functions, uses, and properties to categorize and order memory as well as latent biological and self-defining functions of humanhood are just that, classification systems. However, in the classifying of objects around us to some worldview and understanding, emotion, and the word realities of "good", "bad", and "WTF?" often pervade and color those classifications. For example, I see wit and know the properties of 'wit' to classify a person as such. How do I know? Well, the words fit what I would say and do as witty. Then there is a sharing and a mutual experience of 'wit', leading to some position "good". If preexisting systems, such as the ethical, preclude a classification (erm, judgement now since ethics are included), then "WTF?" is assigned to be categorized later as more data comes.
What's means by "not judging" using rational means is the noninclusion of good/bad terminology and in effect remaining agnostic to one's experiences until there is shifting evidence with the development of histories and relationships as well as rapport. Then, pain can be uses as a criteria and pleasure as a reinfoircer.
However, this speaks little of projection dynamics or the nature of what's felt and experiences when judging occurs inclusive of a person's other faculties and not only those of reason. Angers and attractions, for example. Moonbeam (love ya Moonie), mentions projection as a state of improper functioning attribution stemming from states a human is in. From this point, all words are colored with bias from self, gender, society, etc.
Yet notice a well-crafted solution. Rational as well as other means to judge or classify cease to have meaning when one sees the world as the Beloved. In loving, the projection is love, and the experience is love. With that as the basis, the subject has no need of classification systems, since it's a sort of revertal to a childlike state before words and organizations started shaping the plastic mind. Then one does not judge, though one can discern and classify based on systematic understandings and social groupings of survival mechanisms to fit in at will and whim. Then one sees the Beloved. And indeed, everywhere I look, it appears to be Thou.
Cheers ! 🙂
Originally posted by: Ernieb
100% no way to judge people online for we shouldn't even judge a person by the outlook.
AM I RIGHT?
you make it sound like judging is always negative? if you judge by their grammar and all what they say, and it's good.. you'd think they're perfectly okay... judging people on these basis' is often quite reasonable i find (from talking to people online and then meeting them in person) but not always.
Pretty much the same here. I guess respect is the resounding theme that comes to mind. I also look for consistencies in character. I'm not into the whole online HE-MAN persona. I don't inflate stories to stimulate my own ego, I don't blow smoke or steam, I just act how I am and it's my hope that others do that as well. That's not always the case though. You can sort of judge people based upon the respect they show to others(assuming that person deserves respect) along with how consistent their personality/traits appear to be.
Consistency isn't so much political views or beliefs in religion, but it's a general demeanor or attitude that one projects here. Hard to explain in words, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
I judge most of the people on the 'Net to be incredibly stupid, and they insist on proving my judgement true time after time.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
