The following post is somewhat strange. It might lack structure, and kind of half-finish some ideas. Consider it a mental jungle gym; join recess and have some fun. That's why I've got comments.
---------------------------
I know a guy who works in IT as a professor. One of the things he teaches is that the 'virtual' world (the information in your database) must match the 'concrete' world (the factual circumstances). That is to say, the state needs to be sure that the driver's license address and photo attached to my name match the factual address and likeness. The two worlds should be able to lay on top of one another without discrepancy. In situations like driver's licenses or medical information, these two worlds are checked against eachother on a somewhat regular and systematic basis. Blogging however, in its social/interpersonal context, muddies the water here considerably.
You see, it's possible to read a blog for a long time without ever really knowing anything concrete about a person. I've been reading Jeff Goldstein's blog for maybe a couple years; but only just the other day found out what he actually looks like. It was a weird meeting. I mean, Jeff's blog is highly contextual. There are any number of continuing gags, in-jokes, and puns that carry over in any given post. I'd venture to say that for someone who's never been to Jeff's place, half of any day's posts and their associated comments would be all but impossible to comprehend given the conceptual overlap. So you begin to learn things about Jeff's sensibilities, sense of humor, maybe even a little about his family; just like you would if you had met him in a bar or at a PTA meeting. Of course, if you had met him in a bar or at a PTA meeting you would know what he looks like.
Visual and auditory recognition are huge parts of the identification matrix. How many voices can you recognize over the phone? How many people can you identify just by the way they walk, or maybe the back of their head? How many people can give you a blank stare and you know exactly what they're thinking given what's going on around you? Most importantly, how well would you have to know someone for any or all of these things to apply? Pretty well. But no matter how long you've read someone's blog or exchanged emails, a virtual acquaintance can never know this. The virtual world will never exactly translate into a concrete one in these social contexts, becuase it's considered a little rude to show up at someone's blog and demand a photo. So we build ourselves a concrete world based on the small fragments and inferences we gather in this virtual landscape.
We use our interpretation of the person's literary voice - they way we think they might sound in person. We might pick up visual cues - the pixelated photos on the sidebar of Jeff's blog for instance. We put these things together with the perception we've built over the past year or so of reading Jeff's blog and our subconcious builds this simulation of what Jeff looks like. The thing here is that when you assemble all this shit, you project it through a unique lens - your mind: a collection of everything you've ever experienced. You ever meet someone or see a photo and say out loud "You look differently than I imagined"?
So I started thinking to myself "What made me think Jeff looked a certain way?" And I tried to come up with whatever it was I gleaned from his writing that gave me physical cues. There was very little. Maybe I'm just one of those visually-oriented folks, and pictures help my mind; but I just found it odd that I had this mental picture that I for some reason assumed would be factual.
So I ask you, given the picture in your mind right now, what is your physical simulation of me? Don't look back through the blog or do any homework. I think there may be a few tip off's as to what I might look like, but I don't think there's any photos. So no cheating. I just wonder if all minds work this way, or just mine. Do you have a mental picture of me? I know one or two of you know what I look like, so you don't count. I'll post pics sometime this weekend to satisfy whatever curiosity there may be.
Posted by shank at October 14, 2005 03:22 PM | TrackBackI'm sure there is some moment at which I looked precisely like you imagined. I'm a chameleon.
Posted by: Jeff G at October 14, 2005 03:44 PMI haven't been reading you long enough to make any assumptions on your appearance, but I get a vibe...
Right now I'm seeing dark hair, thin- if not lanky- build, over 6'0''.
As it is, you're probably blonde and stout.
Posted by: jenE at October 14, 2005 05:41 PMSee Jeff, the thing was I had you pegged for a pasty white, heavy set, somewhat effeminate guy. Which, from the photo, is incorrect. So much for that psychic career.
Has anyone seen my beer? I mean, I just had one in my hand. And I lost my favorite 'Hawaii' coozie too, so now I have to use this bastard-child coozie that says 'Have a Nice Day!' How lame is that shit?
Posted by: shank at October 14, 2005 06:14 PMJenE -
That's what I'm talking about though. I mean, you have an impression for whatever reason of what I look like. And yet, there's not real information telling you what I look like. Our minds just do that on their own? WACK
I've always said that online is kind of an inside-out universe. We can know the most intimate details about someone, thoughts and beliefs, yet not know someting as basic as what kind of car they drive or what color their hair is.
Posted by: Ted at October 16, 2005 08:48 AMChevy Malibu and brunette. But all my stalkers know that already. Don't you?
Posted by: Jennifer at October 17, 2005 12:53 AMI think it's your blog name, shank. For some reason, it leads me to picture you being tall with blond hair.
However, you're quite friendly so that leads me to believe you might be a little on the chubby side because fat always equals jolly, right?
That's why I'm a happy mother fucker. :D
I think you're probably 5'11", sandy hair, and slim. The real qualifier is always the hair. I say very short, gel factor of 3 or lower.
Posted by: Paul at October 17, 2005 04:22 PMhaha, poor Paul, the gel factor is higher than a 3. Scary, isn't it? at least he doesn't wear man-pris, like the french.
Posted by: sis at October 17, 2005 05:09 PMIs it really above a three? Dude, I hardly use any! Why am I offended?
Posted by: shank at October 17, 2005 05:22 PM