Week 8
TURKLE, SHERRY. LIFE ON THE.SCREEN. NEW YORK: SIMON & SCHUSTER,
1995.

Turkle starts her article by confessing that she used to call a computer her second-self as saw her relationship with a computer as identity-transforming. This kind of statement startles me as I have always thought that this is a kind of stuff that science-fiction stories are made of. Apparently it happens to scholars too. She does not stop there though and claims that one-on-one relationship with a computer is a thing of a past. Today, “A rapidly expanding system of networks, collectively known as the Internet, links millions of people in new spaces that are changing the way we think, the nature of our sexuality, the form of our communities, our very identities” (p. 9). I think that Turkle got engaged in the old debate of nature vs. nurture and states that we are made by our environment, in this case the Internet technology.

She then goes to explaining that our children are leading the way in “a nascent culture of simulation” and the adults are the ones “anxiously trailing behind” (p. 10). I am surprised by such revelations. I thought that young people have always led “a nascent of culture” in every era. My father, for example, like many people of his generation, had real difficulty to switch from a rotary to touch-tone phone. One day, when I am his age, I will be clinging to the technology of my days. This is one the facts of life that should not come as surprise to scholars.

I found her description of different games (available in 1995) interesting, as I myself do not play any games except chess. She states, “As players participate, they become authors not only of text but of themselves, constructing new selves through social interaction. One player says, 'You are the character and you are not the character, both at the same time." Another says, 'You are who you pretend to be’" (p. 12). I think that her statement that one construct new selves through social interaction is a general statement applicable to the world outside of the Internet. I see the player’s statement, “You are who you pretend to be” applicable to the non-virtual world. We can ask a question, “do people really show their real self or pretend? As the spouses of serial killers and murders can attest, they shared their lives with criminals not having the slightest idea of the true character of their spouses.

I do agree with Turkle the Internet has supplied a place and means for some people to expose their real character and personality. I argue against all theories that suggest that the Internet (or virtual reality) creates our personality.


Nowak, Kristine L. and Christian Rauh. (2006). “The Influence of the Avatar on Online Perceptions of Anthropomorphism, Androgyny, Credibility, Homophily, and Attraction.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11: 153-178.
Nowak and Rauch begin their essay by explaining what avatar is. Avatars are “[C]omputer generated visual representations of people or bots, are increasingly being used in ecommerce, social virtual environments” (p. 153).
They also state, “The inclusion of avatars in interfaces designed to facilitate interactions has increased without much information about the influence of such images on message and person perception” (p. 154). Their research is on the human response to avatars.

They explain the purpose of their research by saying, “how people perceive avatars may influence both the self-perception and perception of others using a particular avatar as well as message perception and retention. Thus, understanding the influence of avatars is of theoretical relevance to researchers. It is also of practical importance to users and designers of systems using avatars” (p. 154). As I do not use avatars I was particularly interested with their findings.
Their research showed that people preferred avatars that were more anthropomorphic. These were perceived to be more attractive and credible” (p. 174).