I read an article in Wall Street Journal online edition. Feel free to check it out at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html.
It was about a man who after being married for several years, found the online gaming world called Second-Life. It seems like a MUD to me, though I have never seen it myself, and it is never reffered to as such. This 50 year old started a relationship in this world with a woman who he has never met before in his life. In this world, he asked her to marry him. Keep in mind that he is already married in real life.
The article says that he sometimes plays for 6-8 hours a day, once playing for 20 hours straight. I feel bad for someone with so little quality of life. The article also said that people who play these games average 20-40 hours a week. That's a full time job people.
In relation to deception, this article brought up a good question which we just brushed on in class. Is it considered deception if you are not who you say you are; I am not who I say I am; and we both know both of these things? Who is the sender and who is the receiver? Is it really just one big game of deception detection?
Clearly, this type of relationship could only take place in a CmC, as I venture that all would consider it unethical in FtF because the man is already married. That's not to say what he is doing is any better. This is clearly not technologically deterministic because both parties chose to use CmC to make their "relationship" socially acceptable.
If there is indeed deception here, it is identity-based. In my understanding of this virtual world, there are very few cues which cannot be changed relatively easily (assesment). I would also venture that there is no deception detection, as both parties seem content to remain "anonymous".
I don't believe the theories (Feature-based, Media Richness, or Social Distance) can be properly applied to this type of relationship. The socially acceptable aspect outweighs all of these.
Some of the studies we went over do apply though, indirectly. They are both lying about age and appearance, but they both know this fact.
Regarding relationships, I have a few observations. Both of these people are anonymous, but display a lot of self-discolure (via McKenna's view of identity). They are therefore attracted to each other and as stated in class (more elegantly), disclosure creates more disclosure. The gating features are those in the MUD, not those present in real life. Though, from the pictures in the article, I must say that the man is much more life-like in appearance than the woman.
They both control their own interaction and appearance by themselves. Hyperpersonal takes over, as the man is a rich retail and club owner, and only gets richer and happier in this world, now earning over 1.5 million "lindens" (virtual dollars).
They both don't care to "get the goods" on each other indirectly. According to them, they haven's looked each other up, and keep information raking to CmC conversations.
They still haven't met yet, and Physical Atrratction still only applies in their MUD. They are still in the first step of backward attraction.
Their intersection frequency is high in this MUD, but from what I understand, they don't see each other outside or in other media. They clearly have some common ground, enough to virtually marry. If anything, their both on what the article calls "Everworld Evercrack".
The one thing our class discussions didn't discuss in theories was the effect of online relationships on outside relationships. And, we didn't discuss overuse of the Internet, who defines it, and if it even exists. We also could probe how online social life relates to real life social life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey Josh--
First off, nice find! That was a fascinating article. If you'd walked up and told me that story without a paper copy of the article, I would have immediately classified it as an urban legend... it certainly is confusing to think that someone would live a false life online when they could be living their real one. You only get one, right?
I've heard of Second Life before, though--maybe in Wired or something. What caught my attention was that the online currency was worth REAL MONEY to people! And this is beyond any economic frame I'd heard of, like a couple hundred for a special sword in World of Warcraft. These gamers were shelling out literally thousands of real dollars for rewards in their online world. My little sister loves to play The Sims, so I understand the pull of a "second life" on a computer, where everything's controllable and you don't have to worry about consequences if you make mistakes. But she has no reservations about typing in a cheat code for a couple thousand (or million) Simoleons, or drowning her character by installing a pool and then deleting the ladder (okay.. that might have been me). I guess I would have expected that with real money comes real consequences, and the game would be less attractive; sounds like the opposite happens. Add money and real people (at least their avatars), and suddenly it's too important to desert for real life.
This situation is so warped, so removed from common sense and the Average Citizen that general theories like Wallace's or McKenna's describe, that it must have been difficult to find the relation. Great job!
The article you found was very interesting because it makes us ask what the line is between real and online relationships and does the definition of adultery apply to internet users. One difference I found based on your blog between real-life relationships and online ones is this idea of deception. As you said, if there is any sort of deception going on, it is identity-based but that there is no deception detection because both users accept the fact that they could deceiving each other. It is amazing how internet users can accept deception and still say that their online relationship is intimate enough to be virtually married.
In my opinion, while some people may think of internet marriages as “not real” enough, spending so much time developing a relationship that would be considered adulterous if it occurred ftf is crossing the line. Simply because they remain “anonymous” because the lack of nonverbal cues, it does not mean that their online intimate relationship is acceptable. Based on the studies discussed in class, relationships that form online can be very strong and at times even deeper than real ones. Therefore, not only are online relationships real enough but in reality, it is no different from committing adultery ftf.
This was a great article you found! I really like the last comment you made about what we have not discussed in class is how people's online relationships affect their face to face relationships. In the context of the article you found, we have to ask ourselves is he cheating?
I believe that he is! Regardless of the fact that people believe online gaming worlds such as MUDs are fake and just for fun, as shown by all of the factors we studied in class, people do develop intensified relationships online even when they have never met the person before. In the case of your article, since this man had such a high intersection frequency with this woman, or at least we think it is a woman, they developed a much closer relationship. I like that you focused on the deception aspect of this online relationship, but I think maybe you should have spent a little more of the blog on how Wallace and Mckenna's factors relate to the article. I really enjoyed your blog though, especially the last part because we should really be focusing on how people's online relationships affec their outside relationships. After all, this man was married so i would like to know if his wife noticed any changes in their relationship once he met someone online? She may not have known about this new online relationship, but she may have been able to see that something was definitely different about her husband.
Hey Josh,
(To quote everyone else) that was a great article you found! After reading your blog and I was forced to read the article.
I do agree with you, and I have to say that the whole concept of Second-Life is out of my reach. Of course, everyone is entitled to allocate their time as they chose but I could never spend 20-40 hours online, married to “someone”…while having a full time job and being married to a “real” person.
I also really liked the question you asked at the end, something that crossed my mind. How do online relationships and online deception affect offline (real-life) relationships? How is this man’s wife affected by his Second-Life marriage? And how is he affected by it?
Josh-
Yea I thought about this class when I saw this article myself. Great idea incorporating it in your blog.
I do feel that this is certainly adultery. We've learned that people can develop just as, if not more, close relationships online as they can in the real world. I would pity Mrs. Hoogestraat, but I can't because she seems to be putting up with it.
"You try to talk to someone or bring them a drink, and they'll be having sex with a cartoon." - Sue Hoogestraat.
Apparently, things can get pretty graphic in second life, in case you didn't know.
So I think if you can walk in on your husband cheating on you online, especially with avatars, and not do anything... well than you're just as pathetic.
I really liked your point about how people seem to be more attracted to a world they spend real money in, even though that contradicts the non-accountability appeal to online spaces. Great post!
Wow, I didn't even know such a thing existed. I can see why one would get addicted. People spend endless hours playing computer game such as SIMS, where they are only interacting with a computer. Second-life add another element.
I believe that an online relationship does fall into the category of adultery. Even he was not holding a relationship online, there is no reason for someone to be spending over 20 hrs online. Spend time with your kids, your wife, you real-life marriage. This story is a grounds for divorce and a hefty settlement.
Great post by the way!
Post a Comment