Let’s remember that there is no “here”, here. This is a virtual forum, and text is too low-bandwidth to form an opinion of a person qua person.
As a case in point, you specifically, i.e. Vladimir-you, as opposed to cousin_it you, made an almost entirely different impression on me in person than on-line. Ditto every other person in the group that I met while you were in Paris.
Did you get the same (i.e. reciprocal) feeling?
I think this generalizes: in many contexts we present a specific “persona” that may or may not be consistent with the ones we display in other contexts.
There are techniques for giving useful and actionable feedback. (Here’s one good book I’ve read on the topic.) We may consider this topic as belonging to the “self-help” reference class, and infer that nearly all such techniques will be backed by very little hard evidence and lots of speculation.
So, to the extent that norms for feedback lead us to ineffective techniques for soliciting or giving feedback, they may do more harm than good. But I would approve cultivating a norm promoting effective asking and giving of feedback.
As a case in point, you specifically, i.e. Vladimir-you, as opposed to cousin_it you, made an almost entirely different impression on me in person than on-line. Ditto every other person in the group that I met while you were in Paris.
That’s a nice opportunity for feedback. Who goes first?
I’m not quite sure I have much to say that will be useful; the F2F impression has kind of overwritten what was there previously. And correspondence bias all but guarantees that I will be wrong in attributing to you some character traits that were only a result of the specific situation we met in. But here goes anyway.
Online, you came across as fairly pleasant but at times edgy, generally cocky (i.e. confident but sometimes excessively so), perhaps a bit elitist in your interests, close-minded at times. In person you seemed a lot more relaxed and smiling than I’d have predicted, more curious too.
Augh, this is difficult. My mouse has hovered over the “Comment” button for like five minutes now.
In person you came across as… more muted, or more meek, than your online persona. Your emotions and interests didn’t really shine through you in personal interaction, though I know they’re there because I know you online.
I’m guessing some of that was shyness, some of it was dysthymia (treated since). You should have seen me wowing an audience of 100+ last week in Grenoble with my talk on cognitive biases applied to software development. :)
Generally a good idea; and, some caveats:
Let’s remember that there is no “here”, here. This is a virtual forum, and text is too low-bandwidth to form an opinion of a person qua person.
As a case in point, you specifically, i.e. Vladimir-you, as opposed to cousin_it you, made an almost entirely different impression on me in person than on-line. Ditto every other person in the group that I met while you were in Paris.
Did you get the same (i.e. reciprocal) feeling?
I think this generalizes: in many contexts we present a specific “persona” that may or may not be consistent with the ones we display in other contexts.
There are techniques for giving useful and actionable feedback. (Here’s one good book I’ve read on the topic.) We may consider this topic as belonging to the “self-help” reference class, and infer that nearly all such techniques will be backed by very little hard evidence and lots of speculation.
So, to the extent that norms for feedback lead us to ineffective techniques for soliciting or giving feedback, they may do more harm than good. But I would approve cultivating a norm promoting effective asking and giving of feedback.
That’s a nice opportunity for feedback. Who goes first?
I’m not quite sure I have much to say that will be useful; the F2F impression has kind of overwritten what was there previously. And correspondence bias all but guarantees that I will be wrong in attributing to you some character traits that were only a result of the specific situation we met in. But here goes anyway.
Online, you came across as fairly pleasant but at times edgy, generally cocky (i.e. confident but sometimes excessively so), perhaps a bit elitist in your interests, close-minded at times. In person you seemed a lot more relaxed and smiling than I’d have predicted, more curious too.
Augh, this is difficult. My mouse has hovered over the “Comment” button for like five minutes now.
In person you came across as… more muted, or more meek, than your online persona. Your emotions and interests didn’t really shine through you in personal interaction, though I know they’re there because I know you online.
I’m guessing some of that was shyness, some of it was dysthymia (treated since). You should have seen me wowing an audience of 100+ last week in Grenoble with my talk on cognitive biases applied to software development. :)