(no subject)

[wispfox]

Finally, I have a stronger sense of _why_ in-person is so necessary for me to cement relationships of whatever sort.

It's the difference between being told something, with words, and _knowing_ it via empathy and/or small, but meaningful actions.

People I converse with a whole bunch via text, I know. Well, assuming that what they say isn't conflicting bizarrely with itself or the sense I have of them.

People I meet in-person, but don't interact with (or have some other reason to focus entirely on them, in a socially acceptable manner), I don't remember. This means I don't remember most first meetings of people.

People I meet in-person, but have some small amounts of direct interaction with, I get a sense of. Generally enough of one to know if I want to get to know them better. Even if sometimes too late to get contact info.

People I converse with, via text or in-person, and with whom I have enough in-person time, I _know_. I don't have random stupid insecurities about stuff, or when I do, I have things to point them at to make them shut the hell up. I can handle not being able to interact with them for a while, without too many problems (well, presuming it's just a happenstance of life, and not something more... intentional). I can be patient because the various stupid fears in my life have nothing to latch onto and grow. This is true even without the ability to converse via non-in-person methods, although this lack will annoy me and start to give the fears somewhere fertile after a while.

Comments

[phaedra-lari.livejournal.com]

I'm intrigued but not entirely clear on what you mean.

So between the people you communicate with text-only vs. those with whom you have in person - are you saying you know them differently, or that you know the last category of people better than the others, or that you react differently to having intuitive vs. intellectual style knowledge of them?

[echospiralheart.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I was talking about this this past weekend with my best friend. *chuckle* it seems I understood this concept much better when we were talking about it in person. *smile* tee hee. But I think I understand ... you get so many more cues when you are in person than when you type or talk on the phone. :)

[farrell.livejournal.com]

"People I meet in-person, but don't interact with (or have some other reason to focus entirely on them, in a socially acceptable manner), I don't remember. This means I don't remember most first meetings of people."

"People I meet in-person, but have some small amounts of direct interaction with, I get a sense of. Generally enough of one to know if I want to get to know them better. Even if sometimes too late to get contact info."

^- This is me to a T. I'm horrible at even remembering most people's names after a first meeting, and it sometimes takes me a week to forge the mental link of "Face = Name", and by then I usually know if they're an okay person or not-okay. Drove me nuts at ex-work because of the constant in and out flow of people through our department, even more so because it was a not-okay person who had a hand in getting me fired.

I'm even worse on the Internet; I refer to more people by their chat handle than I do their real name, even if I know it. There's only a handful of people who's names I've memorized, and that's been over years (aside from those I met at a get-together last summer.)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

I know people in-person vs online differently, but the in-person sense of a person is absolutely necessary for me to be able to feel that I truly know a person.

(I'm not sure that made any more sense...)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

you get so many more cues when you are in person than when you type or talk on the phone.

Yes. Yes, indeed!