Yeah, what’s up with that? Is it something about not seeing the person face to face that makes us so prone to opening up in this way? The absence of normal social pretense maybe?
People keep their defenses up more when they have to do “facework”. If you’re not having to make eye contact, it’s easier to speak freely.
Even though it’s rare these days, it’s the reason behind that whole Freudian idea of therapy where the patient lies on the couch and isn’t looking at the clinician.
I saw an article years ago about the best and worst psychologists, and it listed Freud in both. Almost everything he actually suggested has been discredited, but he made people think about the brain in new ways which allowed people who weren’t obsessed with shagging to come up with some decent theories. Truly the Cave Johnson of the mind, throwing science at the wall to see what sticks.
Cave Johnson is a great way of putting it. Was he kinda a quack? Yeah… But, did he also advance psychology in a variety of ways? Also yeah.
A different theory I once heard is that a lot of his supposedly discredited theories about early development and fetishes/maternal attachment that arise might actually bare more truth than we realize. The caveat is that they only apply to the super isolated children of wealthy families raised by caretakers(whom Freud almost exclusively did his research on). So some of his “crackpot” theories might actually just be a window into a very specific set of humanity.
Knowing someone (only) online means they probably don’t intersect with your in-person friends, colleagues and family, and so what you say stays compartmentalised rather than leaking into the rest of your life. This means you’re more willing to take conversational risks and be authentic, because it can’t affect your other personal or professional relationships.
I feel like it’s a combination of anonymity making you invincible: If the other person attacks you with the infos you’ve given them, you just close the chat window and continue with your life.
…and anonymity stopping others from helping you: If you open up to someone, there’s an implicit expectation that they should try to help you, if they’re not an asshole. But many people don’t actually want help, because they don’t want to be a burden. They just want someone to listen.
So, you either open up to an asshole (which is how many, traditionally mostly male friendships function), or you open up to some trapped behind a glass screen.
Yeah, what’s up with that? Is it something about not seeing the person face to face that makes us so prone to opening up in this way? The absence of normal social pretense maybe?
People keep their defenses up more when they have to do “facework”. If you’re not having to make eye contact, it’s easier to speak freely.
Even though it’s rare these days, it’s the reason behind that whole Freudian idea of therapy where the patient lies on the couch and isn’t looking at the clinician.
In fairness, Freud also advocating giving the patient cocaine to open them up. Tho he’s not entirely wrong…
I saw an article years ago about the best and worst psychologists, and it listed Freud in both. Almost everything he actually suggested has been discredited, but he made people think about the brain in new ways which allowed people who weren’t obsessed with shagging to come up with some decent theories. Truly the Cave Johnson of the mind, throwing science at the wall to see what sticks.
Cave Johnson is a great way of putting it. Was he kinda a quack? Yeah… But, did he also advance psychology in a variety of ways? Also yeah.
A different theory I once heard is that a lot of his supposedly discredited theories about early development and fetishes/maternal attachment that arise might actually bare more truth than we realize. The caveat is that they only apply to the super isolated children of wealthy families raised by caretakers(whom Freud almost exclusively did his research on). So some of his “crackpot” theories might actually just be a window into a very specific set of humanity.
True, and there are other reasons too.
Knowing someone (only) online means they probably don’t intersect with your in-person friends, colleagues and family, and so what you say stays compartmentalised rather than leaking into the rest of your life. This means you’re more willing to take conversational risks and be authentic, because it can’t affect your other personal or professional relationships.
I had no idea that came from Freud! What a mixed bag of a guy.
I feel like it’s a combination of anonymity making you invincible: If the other person attacks you with the infos you’ve given them, you just close the chat window and continue with your life.
…and anonymity stopping others from helping you: If you open up to someone, there’s an implicit expectation that they should try to help you, if they’re not an asshole. But many people don’t actually want help, because they don’t want to be a burden. They just want someone to listen.
So, you either open up to an asshole (which is how many, traditionally mostly male friendships function), or you open up to some trapped behind a glass screen.