I feel her. I used to hate emoticons myself, and they ranked fairly high on a long, obnoxious and completely hypothetical list of things I considered romantic dealbreakers, somwhere between an inability to catch car keys and enthusiasm for Eric LInklater. (Reality has forced wisdom, humble pie, and a collection of heist DVDs on me.) Along with e.e. cummings punctuation, it was the sort of thing which some modern U (as opposed to Non-) Did Not Do.

And then I got a job on a blog. And in our particular bit of the blogosphere, we communicate almost exclusively via IM. Since we're always on deadline, these communiques are generally terse, even curt. And I soon learned the value of the emoticon: a handy shorthand for softening a brusque one-liner, indicating sarcasm, and, occasionally, injecting completely inappropriate whimsy into an otherwise grim day. Whereas a text can be succinct - we're paying for them, and typing them out is a pain - these indicators are often necessary in other media where the implication might otherwise be, "it's not me, it's you." (Indeed, so precious is our time that we never use that archaic bit of iconography, the em-dash "nose.")

Says Williams,

What is it about the emoticon that fills me with such loathing? Maybe it's the wastefulness of the enterprise, the redundancy of it, the implied lack of confidence in the writer's ability to communicate, or mine to comprehend. If you say, "I'm looking forward to seeing you tonight," I think you're looking forward to seeing me. If you say, "I'm looking forward to seeing you tonight. :-)," I think you're not sure I understand the extent of sentiment in that seven-word message. And if you write, "I'm looking forward to seeing you tonight ;-)," I think your assumption of getting laid this evening may have been a bit premature, Winky.

But, see, nowadays I'd look at that first unadorned statement and it looks, without benefit of so much as a gratuitous exclamation mark, both naked and aloof. Email is, in a way, a cold medium: anyone who's worked in an office has probably trebled his use of excited punctuation, to sweeten requests and imply enthusiasm. And emoticons are just the next step. I wonder if this is what the emoticon's creator had in mind in the early days of computer profileration. And, yes, there was a creator, as Williams tells us.

That man was Scott Fahlman. On Sept. 19, 1982, the Carnegie Mellon computer scientist sent out a message with the subject head ":-)." It was intended to clarify communication on a message board at the university, and it read, "I propose the following character sequence for joke markers: :-). Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to mark things that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use :-(." The genie was out of the ASCII bottle.

The crying face, the animatronic gif steaming with rage, the bashful, blushing neo-Pac Man were inevitable outgrowths. Of course, in one regard Williams' rant is inarguable:

Of all the crimes perpetuated by the emoticon, surely the most grievous is its role in the passive-aggressive insult. There's at least an honesty to a plain old sarcastic, snotty comment. A group e-mail or Facebook comment to the effect of "Nice dress – I didn't know there was a hooker convention in town. ;-)" or "I guess I'll do all the cooking again like I always do! :-)" is just bullshit. And sarcasm with a wink isn't sarcasm. More than a quarter-century into Internet culture, we can safely say the emoticon has not eradicated flaming or general online assholery. It' s just another useful tool.

But by the same token, I'm guessing the assholery would exist in the absence of the emoticon. The problem, after all, is the brain, not - wait for it! - the smiley face.

Death To smiley [Salon]

'I think there's a worry that an excessive use or an almost exclusive use of text and emails means that as a society we're losing some of the ability to build interpersonal communication that's necessary for living together and building a community," Archbishop Nichols says, "We're losing social skills, the human interaction skills, how to read a person's mood, to read their body language, how to be patient until the moment is right to make or press a point. Too much exclusive use of electronic information dehumanises what is a very, very important part of community life and living together."

While Nichols was moved to speak on the matter after the death of a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide after being bullied online, his statements seem to imply that all social networking is detrimental for "real world" relationships, as the online universe tends to create a sense of reality that doesn't always translate in the world we live in once we walk away from our screens.

I spent a good part of my day online; most of it for work purposes, but I also connect with many of my friends through keyboards and screens, as we all went our separate ways after college and grad school, and it's the easiest way for all of us to keep in touch. In that way, social networking provides a means to stay connected to people you actually know and love in "real" life, without having to live two blocks away. But what of the connections we make with virtual strangers? The people we speak to everyday that we've never actually met before? Are they helping us, or hurting us?

In some ways, I think the virtual social world is helpful to many of us, myself included, who are painfully shy in real life: it can serve as a type of practice run for actually speaking to people in person. But in other ways, the validation and gratification one gets from doing his or her socialization strictly via the internet can make it seem like going out and actually hanging out with people isn't necessary, which can certainly become a problem if people become too isolated from the world beyond their computer. The retreat into the online world can be especially problematic for those who are being bullied and harassed; the few who choose to spew hateful, awful remarks at an individual suddenly appear to be the spokespeople for the world, if there are no non-internet people around to provide a much needed reality check.

As with most things in life, a balance is needed: if used correctly, social networking sites can help you meet new people in "real life" and serve as a means to continue socializing when you're stuck at work or in a place where it's hard to make new friends. I disagree with Nichols assertion that the online environment makes it harder for us to read moods, or to know when to make a point or to back off; if anything, I've found that I've learned more about how to approach people in certain situations via social networking, as people tend to be more honest and direct in their typing than they are face-to-face. Still, one wonders if that balance is easier for some to find than others—perhaps instead of condemning one form of socialization in favor of another, we should be educating people of all ages on how to live a life both online and off, with healthy boundaries set up to ensure that they don't lose themselves in either realm.

So what say you, commenters? Is social networking hurting your "real world" social skills? Or is it making them stronger?

Transient Friendships On Facebook And Bebo Can Lead To Increase In Teen Suicides Warns Archbishop [DailyMail]

The Times article focuses on the blog-abandoning phenomenon, wherein a well-meaning internet user starts up a blog and then decides that the blog isn't worth the time or the energy. I know, you guys, this is pretty deep stuff. I'd post about it on my Friendster/MySpace/Blurty/Xanga/Angelfire/Geocities/Blogger/Wordpress page, but I don't remember any of the passwords to those and haven't used them in a looooong time. Where's my NYTimes trend piece?!

Anyhoo, the article focuses on blogger Judy Nichols, who once started a soccer mom blog before getting sick of it and abandoning it completely. "Like Mrs. Nichols," Douglas Quenqua of the Times writes, "Many people start blogs with lofty aspirations - to build an audience and leave their day job, to land a book deal, or simply to share their genius with the world. Getting started is easy, since all it takes to maintain a blog is a little time and inspiration. So why do blogs have a higher failure rate than restaurants?"

Quenqua notes that blogging platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have killed off the need to blog for many people, and that the immediacy of such programs has rendered long-form blogs into tl;dr territory. Many bloggers, he notes, drop their blogs when they realize that nobody is reading them, or when they feel that their privacy is at risk. Some people, he claims, get sick of blogging and want to do other things. I know, right? My mind is also blown.

So here's to you, blog orphans. May you go on forever, time capsules of those three weeks we were really bored in 2004, a memory locked in a basic blogging platform format, left to wander in the Dickensian hallways of the internet, darkened corners filled with the detritus of the era and lost to technological revolutions, so that our children may someday find you and have the ability to mock us for our lame taste in music and emo poetry. And here's to you, New York Times Style Section, for always keeping it real, 5 years after the fact. Hit us up and we will totally let you in to our ICQ chat room.

When The Thrill Of Blogging Is Gone [NYTimes]

When Della launched earlier this week to promote the computer manufacturer's line of Inspirion Mini 10 netbooks, the site included a video on shopping for vintage clothing and "Tech Tips" explaining how ladies could use this strange device, as of course, we don't know how to use real laptops.

Joanna Stern summarized on LAPTOP magazine's website:

The Tech Tips page, with its patronizing "Seven Unexpected Ways a Netbook Can Change Your Life," is full of stereotypes of how women's lives can be changed with a mini-notebook... "Track your exercise and food intake at free online sites like Fitday," is Tip Number One, like any self-respecting women's magazine would recommend. Number two: Find recipes online (just because we have laptops doesn't mean we don't still belong in the kitchen). Dell, is this all you think us women do with our laptops? Or do you think women are that slow at the technology uptake that we don't know that a netbook is capable of these activities?

In response to the huge amount of criticism the site received online, yesterday, Dell revised the site, adding the message, "Some of you have read this article over the last several days & will notice a few modifications. You spoke, we listened. Thank you for your ongoing feedback." The "5 Ways to Use a Netbook" section now boasts that the product can help women get organized, read eBooks, track workouts, and is easy to take along when traveling. The page on "featured artist" Robyn Moreno and her video on vintage shopping are still up.

"Some brands go too far with the girlie stuff, and that's when they start getting into trouble," said Andrea Learned, author of Don't Think Pink - What Really Makes Women Buy in the New York Times. Learned said Della emphasizing netbook colors and computer accessories, but burying price information and specifications, seemed condescending to women. "Della's marketing strategy sounds like it's advertising a purse," Ms. Learned said. "There's a level of consumer sophistication they're missing."

"There was certainly no intent to offend anyone and if we did, we apologize," said Dell spokesman Bob Kaufman, according to MSNBC, adding, "Many people do see their laptops and netbooks as a style statement, and we want to be part of those conversations." Style is an important consideration, especially since you'll hopefully be staring at the computer for several years, but it isn't the most important factor in purchasing a computer, nor is it something only women care about. As several of our commenters pointed out earlier, Apple and many PC manufacturers have used style as a selling point to both male and female consumers, but don't assume in their commercials that people don't care about the product's performance as well.

Though Dell revising the more egregiously annoying aspects of the site is a step in the right direction, it still takes a few clicks to find any specifications on Della. The section about Mini 10 Netbooks on Dell's main page seems to include a comparison of the three netbooks' prices, processor speeds, and display sizes. We're not sure what all those crazy numbers mean, but we still don't want a Dell netbook, even if it does come in pink.

Dear Della, Sexism Doesn't Sell Laptops [LAPTOP]
5 Ways To Use A Netbook [Della]
What Do Women Want In A Laptop? [The New York TImes]
Let's Market PCs Like It's 1959 [MSNBC]
Mini Notebooks - Products [Della]

Earlier: Marketing Madness

Though the Maryland teenager didn't have an address for the boy, the police, with the help of the British Embassy, tracked down his location; the boy, 16, had overdosed on pills but was still alive. He has since made a full recovery. [BBC]

The world, sadly, doesn't offer as many "take backs," and as of today, there's no method of retracting stupid statements that fly out of our mouths within 10 seconds of saying them. There are excuses, and apologies, but for the most part, life doesn't offer many "undo" situations. But let's just imagine we live in a Bedknobs and Broomsticks type universe wherein Professor Emelius Browne could supply us with such a thing. If you had a chance to undo anything, what would you choose to undo?

At first, I came up with a list that included several bad middle school haircuts, things I yelled at my parents during my extremely moody adolescence, decisions on what to major in at school, certain relationships, the majority of clothing I bought at Contempo Casuals in 1995, and every single encounter I've ever had with gin. But upon further reflection I'm not sure I'd undo any of those things; some were embarrassing, some were heartbreaking, and some were incredibly stupid, but all of the mistakes I've made have made me who I am, and without going through a period of shitty or awkward times, none of us would ever appreciate how nice it is to pull it together and finally feel comfortable just doing our own thing.

However, I would totally undo my "trademark" of wearing glitter all over my fucking face in 1999. I know, you guys. I KNOW! 10 years later I'm still picking it out of my hair. Tragic!

So what say you, commenters? Is there anything you would undo, if you had the chance?

Gmail's New "Undo Send" Feature Saves You From Outbox Regret [Wired]

She helpfully differentiates between geeks and nerds using the "PC v. Mac" debate. See, Mac users are cool geeks, who are computer-savvy without being seen as lame. PC users are the nerds, the (specifically) white males who can't dress themselves but still know CBASIC like the back of their hand. Sadly, the stigma of being a nerd hasn't died, even though everyone is suddenly wearing "nerd" glasses and dressing geek chic: "'Nerd' is a stickier term that is applied to people in a more negative way, 'Geek' is something you can do and then leave behind, but 'nerd' is what you are," Kendall says. [EurekAlert]

Writer Delphine Schrank quotes psychologist Susan Pinker, who says the Internet "will increase the skills that you already have." Schrank continues,

Preliminary evidence suggests as much, she said. Violent computer games didn't encourage violence in boys, but violently inclined boys were naturally more attracted to violent computer games. And, she pointed out, women latched onto emoticons, those colorful smiley faces and such, as bonding devices for use in Internet chat rooms. Such use, Pinker said, was an organic outgrowth of women's natural tendency to use language socially.

As opposed to men's tendency to use language for what, exactly? Eating steak? Football? Online researcher Gordon Hotchkiss offers a more nuanced view. Faced with a slow-loading page, women were more likely to sit and wait, while men navigated away. But, says Hotchkiss, the men and women in his studies "eventually ended up in the same place, on the page or scanning the same material."

Psychiatrist Gary Small, meanwhile, think that the Internet might bring the genders closer because it requires the same skills of everybody. Others worry that "its fractured, viral, weirdly random world" might just make us all dumber. But Schrank's intro is, perhaps, the most telling part of the article:

Say you're halfway through a turkey sub when you have a sudden urge to Wikipedia the word "crush," because your nephew was bashfully asking what it meant, which reminded you of when you, too, were 13 and tripped on a chair on your way to the blackboard right in front of the girl with the pigtails, whom you suddenly feel like searching for on Facebook — after all these years — so you log on to your homepage, which is blitzed with photos from Nick's mushing trip in Alaska, including one with a comment about you that just landed in your inbox, where you have five urgent messages from Bob about a football blog that you click to and really mean to finish reading, but only after you're done smacking the ball on that pop-up Orbitz ad, the one with the baseball bat, once, twice, six times and . . .

Why did you leave your sandwich for the computer again?

Is this your brain, the male brain that is, on Google?

This is perilously close to the "men are so dumb, we can't trust them to do anything" rhetoric so popular in beer and fast food commercials. Whatever the Internet does to our brains, let's not let it become yet another forum for stupid stereotypes.

The Online Male Takes a Licking and Keeps on Clicking [Washington Post]

94% of girls studied said they used a computer or laptop at home, while only 88% of boys did. Interestingly, both boys and girls preferred to turn to their moms for tech help — 50% of kids said they asked their mothers for such assistance, while only 22% asked dads. Parents take note: 40% of kids said they wanted their parents to be more involved with their technology use. My mom used to keep me busy at grown-up parties by giving me broken electronic equipment to take apart (I remember one mouse particularly fondly). Were you a techie kid? Are you raising one? [ScienceDaily]

Kate Hilpern of The Guardian takes a fascinating look at the strange "disappearance" of 18-year-old Tom, a young man who found kindred spirits through an online community called "Freedomain Radio, which invites discussion around philosophy, politics and personal freedom." Tom would spend hours on the website, along with his girlfriend, engaging in conversations with other members and becoming a true believer in the group's philosophy that everyone has the right to choose their families, and that "ultimate personal freedom can be gained by cutting yourself off from any involuntary relationships (ie your family) and entering into completely voluntary ones (ie your new mates online)."

Tom's mother, Barbara, suspects that the community is actually a cult designed to lure unhappy young people away from their families by playing up the idea that their parents are responsible for all of their problems. "We did our best to be a happy family," she says, "Knowing what I do now about the website, I think Tom was being convinced by the online community that he had been cheated because he didn't have a perfect family upbringing. But who does? We really did try our best."

The community offers tips on how to escape your "Family of Origin" (FOO) by going through the "deFOO" process. The form letter that Tom left for his parents was written by the site's founder in order to buy the community member "six to 12 months before your family come looking for you and that will give you time to get used to living without them."

The founder, Stefan Molyneux, denies accusations that his group is a cult, claiming that his only objective is to encourage people to disengage from unhealthy "involuntary" relationships. "It's the furthest thing from a cult," Molyneux says, "First of all, I don't charge anything for what it is I do. And cults isolate people. What I'm talking about, what I strongly suggest to people, is that they should get closer to the people they're with, and of course cults don't suggest people go to therapy to deal with their issues."

Hold up, Stefan. "Cults isolate people." So wouldn't encouraging people to cut off their families using a form letter that you wrote set off some isolation alarm bells? Molyneux appears to be taking out his own issues on others, claiming that "deep down" he doesn't believe there are "any really good parents out there" and using his community members' concerns and fears as a means to twist them against their own families. Hilpern reports listening to an FDR radio program wherein Tom discusses his views on animal rights and Molyneux attempts to convince Tom that "he is the one being treated like an animal and abused by his father, and by Barbara because she is his mother and she didn't leave his father - and for even having Tom at all."

Tom's family has accepted the fact that they will most likely never hear from Tom again. So what can be done about situations such as this? Is the FDR really a cult? Or does an 18-year-old man have the right to disassociate himself from his family and friends, if he feels it will bring him greater happiness? I suspect that both are true, though one wonders what Molyneux's real motivations are, in terms of building this community of isolated individuals. The internet is a strange thing; as we've seen on our own site, it has the ability to bring people together, to build real-life friendships and communities, yet as social networking increasingly becomes the preferred mode of communication in society, it's hard to tell where the boundaries have to be placed. We all show up on this site everyday behind a small picture and a stupid screen name, putting out silly comments and laughing as our online "friends" do the same. Yet most of us can turn the computer off and walk away, able to balance our real lives with our screen lives.

Tom, it seems, was more comfortable as the online version of himself than the real version of himself; blending the two together, for him, was impossible, and that is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong.

'You'll Never See Me Again' [The Guardian]

Sites like Askville, Wiki.Answers, Funadvice and many others do indeed play host to a multitude of queries on anything from emotional problems to pet care to home repair -all, of course, best answered by strangers without technical expertise. Slatalla emphasizes the importance of weeding through the morass of information: “If somebody posts something that’s wrong, sooner or later someone else will write ‘That’s wrong and here’s the right answer,’ ” she said. “It’s a self-policing community.” So, how come some of us never use them?

Here are the latest questions on Yahoo Anwers: "Need help in anatomy plz ?" ,"What should i name my crested gecko breeding company and i need some names for the babies?", "What is a good new school mascot idea?" "Any Vodafone users in India??? plz help me?"

So, yeah, obviously people use these sites. But, like, is this their main resource? Are they just checking these sites as a kind of additional "ask the crowd" consensus? And what is this a substitute for? The library? Or, in the case of the more personal questions — are these sites taking the place of human interaction or serving as a source of connection for people who otherwise would have none? All of the above, probably. And even for those of us who read these sites more out of idle curiosity than for information, it's probably a comfort we're not even aware of to know that answers are literally at our fingertips. And maybe the accuracy of the answers isn't even the point; I remember in a very low moment searching "cures for heartbreak" and although the answers were trite and not terribly helpful, it was somehow comforting to see how many others had searched the same thing, and kind of heartwarming that people had cared enough to share the strategies they'd found helpful.

But as to "the internet" as a personality? Far from some kind of all-knowing presence, most of us see the Internet as that windbag crackpot everybody knows with theories on everything. It's useful, obviously, as a compendium of information — having all the journals and recipes and actual experts' advice in one place. And maybe that's a fundamental divide: those of us who see the internet primarily as a technological resource, and those who see it as something more living, warmer, and personal — even if we aren't conscious of these attitudes. Do you go to an "answers" source with a question and get a flawed, human perspective, or hit the search engines for a compendium of more official information? If I wanted to be cute, I'd pose this question to a bunch of the info sites and see what people said. But 'consensus philosophy' seems like a good place for the buck to stop.

Dear Stranger: It’s 4 a.m. Help! [NYT]

These "personalized viewpoints" of beauty are what seemingly makes the world go 'round, but for people with body dysmorphic disorder, their overly personalized/distorted thoughts about their own looks often drive them to obsessive plastic surgery, eating disorders, and other bodily harm.

As pointed out in an article in the current issue of Scientific American, doctors used to think that body dysmorphic disorder (when a person becomes "pathologically preoccupied with an imagined or barely noticeable defect in his or her appearance") was caused by a combination of nature and nurture. As S.A. puts it, "Psychological factors such as low self-esteem, coupled with society's restrictive definition of physical beauty, are likely to play a role in the disorder." But more recently, psychiatrists and psychologists have found that people with BDD might have "unusually acute perceptual abilities," specifically an "overemphasis on visual details," which helps explain why they "worry so much about minuscule deviations in their features." Maybe so, but whether anyone is pathologically focused on details or robotically-concerned with making a model of "universal beauty," they're missing out on the more intangibly human aspects of attractiveness: a sexy laugh, a sparkling eye, a warm demeanor.

[Image via Mathemetician's Pictures.]