[brains] More words on previous post, possibly some clarification

[wispfox]

How good I am at noticing people posting frequency may not be the most useful metric, since people I almost entirely interact with on LJ will suffer from the fact that I have trouble getting a sense of regularity of contact via LJ. This makes it much more difficult to notice if someone is around less, since I have no sense of 'normal'. I am far more likely to notice someone I know entirely online emailing me less than normal, if there is a base sense of 'normal', but it's still likely that I won't think of them outside the context of checking my email (or email-related thought patterns). People I have an in-person sense of are _far_ more likely to be thought of out of context.

Noticing someone is not enough to get a sense of them, but getting a sense of someone does mean I've noticed them. Interacting with a person in-person does not mean I have a sense of them, either, at least not a terribly useful one. Having a good strong sense of a person _does_ mean I'm more likely to be able to recognize them out of context, although I don't know if my ability to recognize their physical self affects that or not.

The speed with which I will get a sense of a person can vary (partly depending on how easily I can read someone, although my ability to read someone will also strongly factor into how clear/detailed my basic structure/sense of a person is), but tends to need that either I am interacting directly with the person, or I can watch them interacting with other people. I'm not entirely sure how I get to a point where I notice someone enough to pay attention to how they interact with other people or myself, or to actively _want_ to interact with them (because if I don't, my attention can't be kept there. It just can't).

Clarity/detail of a basic structure does seem to strongly affect how close I feel and can get to a person, probably because it determines if they are real in my head, if I think of them out of context or not, and how comfortable I can feel around a person (if I have a good strong sense of a person, I can be far more comfortable around them). Aside from my ability to read a person, and whether or not I have had a chance to interact with them or watch them interact with others (preferably, both), I have no idea what affects the strength/clarity/detail of my sense of a person (note: I'm having trouble finding words to describe this particular idea). It does seem to be true that how well a person knows _themseves_ at a basic level also affects the detail level of my sense of them.

*sudden amusement* Yes, you people are all really big puzzles. The most amusing part about my current metaphor for describing this, in my head at least, is the fact that it requires dimensionality - and I don't think in dimensions! (although, I'm also amused by the fact that I've never tried to verbalize this before. And the fact that I now have a really good example of the distinction between in-person and not in-person interactions in terms of how I handle it is quite useful)

May add more to this/attempt more clarification as I continue thinking, but I must bring my cat to the vet soon!

Comments

[dancingwolfgrrl.livejournal.com]

One of my friends refers to people she's heard about but not met as "sock puppets" :)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Hee! No, but see, I can actively interact with people online, and still they only are sorta real. It doesn't even have to be just people I've heard about!

[dancingwolfgrrl.livejournal.com]

The theory still applies, sort of -- that they talk and stuff, but still aren't real :)