So, what you're saying is... you might have a job you can get me...? Thanks man, I owe you a biggie. I dunno, I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing after around P3. But that can wait for a second. In regards to P1-3: sounds like some good reading. I kind of love this field of discussion, but as you may have surmised, haven't gotten to study up on it in any academic sense. I'll have to check those out. Regarding the whole "honesty" versus "tact" thing- you've got my idea a little spun around. I don't equate honesty with tact. But I come close to equating the inverse, and your words read as though you kind of agree- "'tact' is being mildly duplicitous in the interests of fostering communication." So yeah, I believe that in some cases, no, a lot of cases, tact is a form of dishonesty. Or at least a bending of light around honesty, which is, by any other name, dishonesty. And I don't think this is a particularly naive or offensive viewpoint, but rather an interesting one. That's me and the ol' feelings again, though! After that, it sounds like we're saying the same thing. Except for the waiter thing, which, I gotta admit, I didn't go out yesterday for a meal. But! I'd argue for the hell of it that a "waiter" (or, I guess in your original words waitress) is a role being played by a person. Something along the lines of "user" as a role being played by me. Each role requires a certain amount of shaping/shading/ignoring of the truth to function as it should in its setting. Thus, I can look at my waiter, but I'd have a hell of a time seeing the person behind the waiter's costume. In something of the way I can see the username, but not the user behind it. Each has its strengths and weaknesses as far as the parameters of human interactions go. Yeah, with my hypothetical waiter, I can observe metalanguage in a way I can't with people online. But then again, that metalanguage is still being strained through the waiter persona. So unless I'm really really good at registering, say, pupil dilation and sweat levels and tiny facial movements (and I live in the Pac NW, so half of that hypothetical face will be covered by beard), I'm only going to see what the person lets me see through the "waiter" disguise. Anyhow, conversely, with online interaction, I only see what the author lets through to the narrator. And that doesn't include metalanguage, unless you count italics or emboldening or caps- thanks for employing all three by the by, it helps me "get" what you're saying! But even the way somebody crafts their online persona might tell us something of the person behind that persona. In a way that we don't learn from the waiter, who's constrained not only by their social role, but their professional one. They can only volunteer so much in the name of being a waiter before they're tipped poorly or fired. With online interaction, I'm allowed to be much less tactful/much more honest because they only thing riding on it is my online reputation, which may or may not have any meaning to me. So there's that. Only other thing I'd say is that I never really said you were wrong, only that I disagreed. Also, that I may or may not have understood a few points. But I think you clarified some of them, so there's that! Seriously though, give me a job I need money.
Well, what can you do? And where can you do it? As to the rest, you are - again - overestimating the context one can get from the written word and underestimating the context you can get from interpersonal interaction. Hell, let's skip interaction. Let's just go to the context that's possible from an image. What can you surmise about this person? We're not jumping to conclusions, now. We can see that he's a young adult male. We can guess as to a few other things and those guesses will help establish our other assumptions about him. It's not a lot to go on, but it's enough to distinguish them pretty distinctly from this person: ...yet they both come up for the image search "waiter." Compare and contrast by what you can tell about a person from their name: You seem to be insisting that you can somehow "learn" something about a person by interacting with them online. I'll say for the third time that you are grossly, demonstrably, succinctly incorrect. You can disagree with that all you want, but it will not change the fact that the facts, the research and the general experience of online interaction are at odds with your theories. And, once again, my assertion is that those who grew up "online" are worse at picking up the differences. How old are you?
I'm 30. Just on the cusp, but spent most of my formative years internet-free. As for marketable skills: I've done audio editing for a good ten years, but I've only been decent at it for four or five. Done some production work (spanning from setting up for live events to recording to "can I get you more coffee?"), learning more about recording but didn't go to school for it because of the cost. Studying under some Real Deals, though. And I've got a good ear. I have no experience waiting tables, so that's right out.
You already figured that out from another exchange we had. Who says you can't tell anything about a person from brief online interactions? I'm only halfway serious about the job thing. Truth be told, I don't know if I can stand Seattle much longer- we're probably making tracks in the next year. I appreciate even the ghost of seriously considering my request, though.
;-) But there you go - there's no reason to presume I would remember the exchange. I trade emails with seven or eight Redditors regularly. They initially found me through Reddit. But I cannot - for the life of me - keep track of who they are on Reddit. We remember the details that are important, and in a sea with no memory, details like that drift away.