After the initial acceptance letter, the mailed document most important and exciting to an accepted Cornell student is the housing information, that is what dorm you are placed in and who your roommate(s) are. After being given the name of my dorm ("Yes! Mary Donlon! The social one!") and roommate, I rushed to my newly created Facebook account to find out all I could about the people I would be living with, forming close friendships and celebrating all the freshmen rites of passage Cornell had to offer. After being slightly disappointed that my new roommate didn't have a Facebook, I e-mailed her from my new net I.D. a message with a lot of words like "excited" "ohmygod" and tons of exclamation points.
The response I got back was as equally enthusiastic and soon our interaction progressed to instant messanger. I was determined to make a good impression on my soon-to-be roommate. We had a lot in common together: we were both from neighboring towns in Long Island, considered Judaism a big part of our lives, applied to Cornell early, and liked the same types of music and movies. Through our instant messaging conversations, I inferred that she was funny (when I told her of my weird sleeping patterns she teased me and called me a vampire), was close to her family (I messaged her and ended up talking to her mother who was using her screen name), very smart (we talked about the upcoming AP tests we were taking), and friendly (she asked questions about my life, and seemed very open about answering my questions about hers). Soon enough, she created a Facebook profile and posted her prom pictures. My impressions were that she was very tall, athletic (she listed many sports and her job as a lifeguard under her interests), well liked (she made many Facebook friends and received a lot of wallposts her first couple of days of joining Facebook) and outgoing (she seemed to have many friends with her in her prom pictures and always messaged me first when we were online).
The Hyperpersonal model played a big role in how I perceived my perspective roommate. Using her perceived height from her photos, and listed interests on Facebook, I attributed her to be very athletic, levelheaded, active, and cool. In addition, her sense of humor and friendliness on instant messanger made me believe she was equally personable and worth having as a good friend. This was due to selective self presentation via Facebook on her part, as well as the over-attribution process on my part. The fact that her mother occasionally went on her messanger account allowed me to overgeneralize that she was very much close and played an active role in her family. Due to all these positive attributions, I was very intimidated to meet her and hoped she would also like me and want to be good friends. Suffice to say, my perception of her was inflated.
When we left virtuality and met face to face, the impression I got was quite different. Since there was less control over the information and manner in which it was shared, I got quite a different perception. I was shocked to meet a short (about my height, 5'2"), meek and quiet girl. I remember being so surprised at how high her voice was. The first few days in our room were awkward, quiet and tense between us as the flowing conversations we had online did not occur face to face. As I got to know her more, I found that she was quite neurotic, messy, procrastinated, and prone to hysterical outbursts. She was nothing like the polished, cool, outgoing person I had pictured when we interacted over the Internet.
As Ramirez and Wang (in press) point out, my experience with my freshman roommate constituted part of an EVT, or Expectancy Violation Theory. The expectancy violation, or "behavior that deviates from or is inconsistent with currently held expectations" occurred when my roommate's behavior was inconsistent with my positive expectations of her. These violations led to my evaluation and interpretation of the valance of the violations, which influenced future interactions between us. I would say our CMC interaction was relatively long term (over the span of 4 months), and yet contained many violations when we met face-to-face, consistent with Ramirez and Wang's findings. As in the study, since we had a long term interaction, I was more likely to rate my partner's behavior more negatively (which I did) than if we had talked in the short term. In addition, I would be more likely to have a higher degree of uncertainty FtF following a long term CMC interaction than if I had talked to her for a short amount of time.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Assignment 11: All that, for this?
Since I use the Internet frequently, it is quite common for me to interact with strangers online, whether it’s a common interest site or a discussion debate. Now, especially with Facebook, it becomes much easier to communicate with people online, even those you don’t know. Most of the time though, this CMC interaction rarely leads to a FtF meeting, at least for me.
However, there was one instance where I actually met someone FtF after interacting with him for several months through Facebook. It was actually quite sketchy, now that I look back on it. This person apparently read a comment I wrote on some group wall, looked me up, messaged me and then to top it off, he got my AIM too. Needless to say, he IMed me soon after and we began to chat regularly. Thanks to Facebook, I found out he was a friend of a friend and according to our profiles, we actually had some things in common. Our chat topics normally consisted of sports teams (since we came from a similar area), our mutual friends, classes, etc. He was extremely sarcastic and loved to talk about how awesome he was. Maybe it was due to my naïveté as a freshman, but pretty soon I believed everything that showed up in our IM windows. Our interactions definitely followed the Hyperpersonal Model. The cues were very limited; I basically knew that he loved to drink, partied frequently, had numerous friends, hated Ithaca and was in love with himself. The fact that he was so sarcastic and insulted everything led me to conclude that maybe he was as cool as he appeared online. That was all I knew of him and gradually I became more intimidated, especially when he suggested we meet in person. Finally, after months of persuasion, I finally agreed to see him in a public place. Now I know that there was definitely some selective self-presentation going on, as well as over-attribution of resources. The fact that he had my Facebook profile available to him meant that he had the goods and could edit how he communicated with me.
Our meeting, like the Ramirez and Wang paper stated, was definitely a “turning point” in our relationship. The person did not meet my expectations at all, which agreed with the Expectation Violation Theory. He was rude, awkward and just plain weird. The FtF meeting, after our CMC interactions, was disappointing and led to a chain of events which basically ended up with no (or rare) future interactions. The research was correct in that the impressions I made through CMC failed to match physical reality during FtF, and there was a huge difference in my initial expectations of the person’s “communication behavior and physical appearance” and what was present during the FtF encounter. Thankfully, I learned to be not so naïve and trusting.
However, there was one instance where I actually met someone FtF after interacting with him for several months through Facebook. It was actually quite sketchy, now that I look back on it. This person apparently read a comment I wrote on some group wall, looked me up, messaged me and then to top it off, he got my AIM too. Needless to say, he IMed me soon after and we began to chat regularly. Thanks to Facebook, I found out he was a friend of a friend and according to our profiles, we actually had some things in common. Our chat topics normally consisted of sports teams (since we came from a similar area), our mutual friends, classes, etc. He was extremely sarcastic and loved to talk about how awesome he was. Maybe it was due to my naïveté as a freshman, but pretty soon I believed everything that showed up in our IM windows. Our interactions definitely followed the Hyperpersonal Model. The cues were very limited; I basically knew that he loved to drink, partied frequently, had numerous friends, hated Ithaca and was in love with himself. The fact that he was so sarcastic and insulted everything led me to conclude that maybe he was as cool as he appeared online. That was all I knew of him and gradually I became more intimidated, especially when he suggested we meet in person. Finally, after months of persuasion, I finally agreed to see him in a public place. Now I know that there was definitely some selective self-presentation going on, as well as over-attribution of resources. The fact that he had my Facebook profile available to him meant that he had the goods and could edit how he communicated with me.
Our meeting, like the Ramirez and Wang paper stated, was definitely a “turning point” in our relationship. The person did not meet my expectations at all, which agreed with the Expectation Violation Theory. He was rude, awkward and just plain weird. The FtF meeting, after our CMC interactions, was disappointing and led to a chain of events which basically ended up with no (or rare) future interactions. The research was correct in that the impressions I made through CMC failed to match physical reality during FtF, and there was a huge difference in my initial expectations of the person’s “communication behavior and physical appearance” and what was present during the FtF encounter. Thankfully, I learned to be not so naïve and trusting.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
11 - a good friend?
I knew my good friend Amy through mutual friends; we never met in FtF. We talked for almost a year before meeting in FtF. I needed a place to stay for a week in NYC, and she offered her place. At first my impressions were more negative, but along the course of the week, my impressions became more positive. I adjusted to her “true” personality and understood her more.
My relationship with Amy is best explained by the Social Information Processing Model. It took time for me to get a good impression of who she was.
Factors that affected our relationship were proximity, common ground, and removal of gating features. We have high intersection frequency being on AIM frequently. We had a strong common ground being in the same organizations and sharing friends. Through CMC, we had a huge proportion of similarities. We had high self-disclosure because we did not know each other. In this sense removal of gating features was present because we did not judge each other.
The Gibbs article supports three hypotheses based on the SIP model which were true for me as well. Amy and I held importance on a long term relationship resulting in more honest, more frequent, and more intentional self-disclosure, though not necessarily more positive.
Ramirez and Wang state in their article that modality switching allows access to new social information, filling blanks left by CMC impression formation, “enhance partner perceptions, and further relationship growth.” This is in accordance to my own experience. I did not have a complete impression of Amy, but meeting her in FtF definitely solidified it. Ramirez and Wang also state that “impressions formed through extended period of CMC typically fail to match the physical reality experienced” which was also the case for me. I found Amy to be more sarcastic and less open. This in turn follows what Ramirez and Wang state that “modality switching (MS) diminishes communication processes and social outcomes” when FtF doesn’t meet CMC expectations. This was true for an initial time span. The Expectancy Violation Theory also held for our situation because I expected Amy to be less sarcastic and more open which was inconsistent with my FtF impression. Over time, a chain of events, which involved more discussion, explained the difference in my impression of her. Meeting Amy was definitely a “turning point”, as Ramirez and Wang state, in our relationship. It solidified the strength of our relationship.
My relationship with Amy is best explained by the Social Information Processing Model. It took time for me to get a good impression of who she was.
Factors that affected our relationship were proximity, common ground, and removal of gating features. We have high intersection frequency being on AIM frequently. We had a strong common ground being in the same organizations and sharing friends. Through CMC, we had a huge proportion of similarities. We had high self-disclosure because we did not know each other. In this sense removal of gating features was present because we did not judge each other.
The Gibbs article supports three hypotheses based on the SIP model which were true for me as well. Amy and I held importance on a long term relationship resulting in more honest, more frequent, and more intentional self-disclosure, though not necessarily more positive.
Ramirez and Wang state in their article that modality switching allows access to new social information, filling blanks left by CMC impression formation, “enhance partner perceptions, and further relationship growth.” This is in accordance to my own experience. I did not have a complete impression of Amy, but meeting her in FtF definitely solidified it. Ramirez and Wang also state that “impressions formed through extended period of CMC typically fail to match the physical reality experienced” which was also the case for me. I found Amy to be more sarcastic and less open. This in turn follows what Ramirez and Wang state that “modality switching (MS) diminishes communication processes and social outcomes” when FtF doesn’t meet CMC expectations. This was true for an initial time span. The Expectancy Violation Theory also held for our situation because I expected Amy to be less sarcastic and more open which was inconsistent with my FtF impression. Over time, a chain of events, which involved more discussion, explained the difference in my impression of her. Meeting Amy was definitely a “turning point”, as Ramirez and Wang state, in our relationship. It solidified the strength of our relationship.
Friday, November 23, 2007
What an A$$hole-#11
Just as I moved into Cornell last year, I, like many other freshmen, sought to make as many friends as possible. If I was to live here for four years, I figured I should find myself good company. One day one of the girls that I had just met asked me if I used Xanga and if I had ever read the blog by a particular Cornell student who I will name X. When I told her no, she suggested I read it and so I did.
X's page was the most testosterone driven page I had ever viewed. He constantly discussed his sexual escapades and expressed his views on women. His information claimed that he sought to know everything about women. How they think, dress, act, and *explicit word.* After reading through several of his blogs, I reached a conclusion: X is a complete A$hole. Furthermore, my friend had also told me that she had already met him and he was well known for his conquests. I did some more exploring on his Facebook and it only furthered my distaste for him. All I could think was that this kid was a male chauvinist and a complete pig.
My views on X played right along with the Hyperpersonal Model by Walther who claims that we will have exaggerated positive or negative views on a person due to a limited number of cues. Some of the qualities which worked with the model include the over-attribution process, selective self-presentation, and re-allocation of cognitive resources. Even though I had yet to meet X, I felt like I knew everything about him. Since there was less information in which I could draw about X (all I knew was that he is male, a Cornellian, and what he posted in his blog), I developed a much more exaggerated impression of the type of person he was. X utilized selective self-presentation in his blog. He only showed off the testosterone driven aspect of his personality, all while using a witty style of writing which keeps many members of the Xanga community compelled. Finally, due to the re-allocation of cognitive resources, I focused more on what he wrote in his messages because there was nothing else to focus on. This lead me to over analyze everything he said and lead me to the conclusion of what he was like.
Later on into the semester I finally met X. My opinion about him was only partially correct and of course, there was a lot more to him than what I knew about him from his blog. This played right into Expectancy Violation Theory by Wang and Ramirez because I had expected his offline persona to be the same as his online one. After learning about him through different online sources for an extended period of time (about 5 weeks), I thought I had him all figured out, but I found myself being completely wrong. Today, he is actually one of my closest friends on campus and we both know each other's deepest, darkest secrets. He still continues to write on his blog and nothing has changed as far as topics or his writing style, but my opinion of him has completely changed.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=2154232752274977833
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=347346585241167108
X's page was the most testosterone driven page I had ever viewed. He constantly discussed his sexual escapades and expressed his views on women. His information claimed that he sought to know everything about women. How they think, dress, act, and *explicit word.* After reading through several of his blogs, I reached a conclusion: X is a complete A$hole. Furthermore, my friend had also told me that she had already met him and he was well known for his conquests. I did some more exploring on his Facebook and it only furthered my distaste for him. All I could think was that this kid was a male chauvinist and a complete pig.
My views on X played right along with the Hyperpersonal Model by Walther who claims that we will have exaggerated positive or negative views on a person due to a limited number of cues. Some of the qualities which worked with the model include the over-attribution process, selective self-presentation, and re-allocation of cognitive resources. Even though I had yet to meet X, I felt like I knew everything about him. Since there was less information in which I could draw about X (all I knew was that he is male, a Cornellian, and what he posted in his blog), I developed a much more exaggerated impression of the type of person he was. X utilized selective self-presentation in his blog. He only showed off the testosterone driven aspect of his personality, all while using a witty style of writing which keeps many members of the Xanga community compelled. Finally, due to the re-allocation of cognitive resources, I focused more on what he wrote in his messages because there was nothing else to focus on. This lead me to over analyze everything he said and lead me to the conclusion of what he was like.
Later on into the semester I finally met X. My opinion about him was only partially correct and of course, there was a lot more to him than what I knew about him from his blog. This played right into Expectancy Violation Theory by Wang and Ramirez because I had expected his offline persona to be the same as his online one. After learning about him through different online sources for an extended period of time (about 5 weeks), I thought I had him all figured out, but I found myself being completely wrong. Today, he is actually one of my closest friends on campus and we both know each other's deepest, darkest secrets. He still continues to write on his blog and nothing has changed as far as topics or his writing style, but my opinion of him has completely changed.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=2154232752274977833
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=347346585241167108
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
10: Second Life
Like many of you, this was also my first experience with an online video game. Second Life, a multi-user virtual space, seems to have been a great first choice. I first entered the Orientation Station as Charlize Ponnier and spent some time learning the game. Having read Yee and Bailenson’s research before starting the game, I wanted to test their theory of a Proteus Effect. This Effect is the idea that users in an online environment conform to the perceived expectations and stereotypes associated with the characteristics of an avatar. For the most part my avatar resembled my “girl next door” look, with the exception of a significantly enlarged nose and thicker body build. Generally, I’m a pretty secure person. I thought changing these characteristics might have a negative impact on my confidence level while interacting with other players. I played second life for nearly an hour and a half, but did not feel that these changes had any effect on my interaction with other players, although, I will say that it might have had an impact on who interacted with me. I talked with both attractive and less attractive players. It’s possible that some of the less attractive players would not have approached me if I were better looking. I found that I still had the confidence to approach some of the best looking players. Introducing myself as being new to the game, I asked questions about how to play and activities they enjoyed and recommended. These “good looking” players still gave me the courtesy of responding and offering advice. Overall, I spent a lot of energy trying to figure out the game and exploring different opportunities. This caused me to feel a bit distant from the game and focus on what I was doing rather than how I was doing it. In their analysis of the Proteus Effect, Yee and Bailenson argued that one’s self-presentation would transform their behavior. I did not have this experience. This may have been the result of being a knowing participant in an experiment and trying to get adjusted to the game. However, if I came to feel comfortable within the game and to believe that my avatar was some reflection of me or of a psychological manifestation of who I wanted to be, then I can easily see the potential for a Proteus Effect.
Assignment # 10: My Second Life Isn't so great
For this assignment, I chose to spend my time interacting in the online psychological space, Second Life. Being a novice to this type of online psychological space, I experienced many initial reactions and feelings which developed and changed as I became more acquainted with Second Life. To be completely honest, I feel that I may have had many preconceived notions before even entering the world of Second Life. Since I have never entered any type of virtual space online and because I didn’t know anyone that had (or at least it was never discussed), I found the entire concept strange and bizarre. Therefore, upon entering Second Life, those preconceived notions had a huge impact on my initial experience.
The first step in creating a name and general appearance of my avatar seemed pretty simple, however, once I was transported into the world of Second Life my feelings of comfort quickly disappeared. I felt as if I were split in two. Part of me was sitting in front of my computer in my room with the door closed, by myself. The other part was in a place called Orientation Island where my every move could be observed by any other Second Life user. As I learned more about this virtual world through instructions and exploration, I began to feel more comfortable and was able to get over my initial concerns.
The next important step I took was to edit my appearance. I found myself excited with the ease and little thought required to create and alter my outer appearance which contrasts with real life where it requires far more pain and effort to do so. This helped me to see why individuals might prefer online communication as opposed to real life interactions. They can change their appearance and have more confidence. This makes Second Life a great resource for those who are perhaps more shy, however, it seems likely that Problematic Internet Use could be a likely consequence. As I started to modify my avatar, I became astonished with the wide range of features that could potentially be changed. To be honest, I didn’t know that all of these features existed in real life. I made the decision to alter my appearance by making myself rather unattractive. For almost every feature, I chose the opposite of what I would ideally choose for myself. For example, I requested to be short, rather heavy, have short legs and arms, sagging breasts, pointy ears, and an under bite. I also changed my clothing to be tight and rather revealing of my many flaws.
With my new, not improved, appearance, I began to explore the world of Second Life, transporting to different places, trying to converse with anyone who was willing. My first few interactions with others contradicts the predictions made by the Proteus Effect which says that a transformed self-representation will alter a person’s behavior by conforming to behavior that they believe others would expect of them. At first, I completely disregarded my transformed appearance and behaved similar to how I would in the real world. Unfortunately, this unwillingness to conform made me an outsider of the virtual world. If I tried to walk up to someone and start a conversation, I was usually ignored and most people just walked away. After feeling rejected multiple times, my behavior began to conform to my new transformed self-representation. I realized that I could not ignore my appearance anymore than other Second Life users and instead, I become more of an observer to this online world. My experience can be explained by the Proteus effect. Even after reading about this effect and consequently trying to avoid doing it myself, the pressures from other online users ultimately led to conformity behavior based on my unattractive appearance.
These details also show how the Proteus Effect differs from the SIDE theory with regard to conformity among the group or the individual. The SIDE theory emphasizes conformity to the group whereas the Proteus Effect emphasizes conformity to an individual identity. Although my conformity was a result of pressure from others in the online space, my behavior conformed to reflect my altered individual identity, not that of the group of people.
The first step in creating a name and general appearance of my avatar seemed pretty simple, however, once I was transported into the world of Second Life my feelings of comfort quickly disappeared. I felt as if I were split in two. Part of me was sitting in front of my computer in my room with the door closed, by myself. The other part was in a place called Orientation Island where my every move could be observed by any other Second Life user. As I learned more about this virtual world through instructions and exploration, I began to feel more comfortable and was able to get over my initial concerns.
The next important step I took was to edit my appearance. I found myself excited with the ease and little thought required to create and alter my outer appearance which contrasts with real life where it requires far more pain and effort to do so. This helped me to see why individuals might prefer online communication as opposed to real life interactions. They can change their appearance and have more confidence. This makes Second Life a great resource for those who are perhaps more shy, however, it seems likely that Problematic Internet Use could be a likely consequence. As I started to modify my avatar, I became astonished with the wide range of features that could potentially be changed. To be honest, I didn’t know that all of these features existed in real life. I made the decision to alter my appearance by making myself rather unattractive. For almost every feature, I chose the opposite of what I would ideally choose for myself. For example, I requested to be short, rather heavy, have short legs and arms, sagging breasts, pointy ears, and an under bite. I also changed my clothing to be tight and rather revealing of my many flaws.
With my new, not improved, appearance, I began to explore the world of Second Life, transporting to different places, trying to converse with anyone who was willing. My first few interactions with others contradicts the predictions made by the Proteus Effect which says that a transformed self-representation will alter a person’s behavior by conforming to behavior that they believe others would expect of them. At first, I completely disregarded my transformed appearance and behaved similar to how I would in the real world. Unfortunately, this unwillingness to conform made me an outsider of the virtual world. If I tried to walk up to someone and start a conversation, I was usually ignored and most people just walked away. After feeling rejected multiple times, my behavior began to conform to my new transformed self-representation. I realized that I could not ignore my appearance anymore than other Second Life users and instead, I become more of an observer to this online world. My experience can be explained by the Proteus effect. Even after reading about this effect and consequently trying to avoid doing it myself, the pressures from other online users ultimately led to conformity behavior based on my unattractive appearance.
These details also show how the Proteus Effect differs from the SIDE theory with regard to conformity among the group or the individual. The SIDE theory emphasizes conformity to the group whereas the Proteus Effect emphasizes conformity to an individual identity. Although my conformity was a result of pressure from others in the online space, my behavior conformed to reflect my altered individual identity, not that of the group of people.
# 10 Second Life
I chose Second life to begin my online gaming experiment. I played some online RPG (role play game) before, which helped a lot when I download, registered and filled out those endless forms.
Second life is like other RPG I’ve played. You have the chance to choose the appearance of your avatar, and need to work or complete certain tasks for money. Always want to try a totally different life style, I chose one of the defaults features “nightclub”. By adjusting her appearance, I tried my best to make her look like me, but improved a lot of course. It’s interesting that although users are permitted to set their avatar to be any way they want it to be, seldom did I come across some horrible looking guys/girls in the street. Most people chose to be “normally” good looking.
Referred to as the Proteus Effect, Yee & Bailenson (2007) suggest that an individuals' digital self-presentation may help dictate that individual’s behavior, independent of how they are perceived by others.
Most girls including myself learned from experience how important their appearance could influence them in their social life. I don’t know how much did my appearance influence me in my second life in the way people treat me, but they are all kind and helpful. Most of the time, I don’t have be the first one to start a chat with strangers. People are willing to chat with a pretty looking girl. But it seems too early to tell how Proteus Effect play a role in this game. Maybe it’s just because I am a newbie, and people are just trying to help. So I decided to change my appearance. In their study, Yee & Bailenson tested the effects of attractiveness, and found that participants with more attractive avatars walked closer to a confederate and exhibited higher degrees of self-disclosure than those with unattractive avatars in virtual reality. I found it really true, when I put more than 20 pounds on my body, I found that I don’t have to stop and chat anymore. People suddenly became obviously less interested.
I found it fun to spend an hour sitting in front of my computer to have another life. But after that, I am not likely to spend more time in virtual space. Maybe the reason why lots of people are willing to spend hours on Role Playing Games is the ability it offered to have an appearance they want and experience a whole new world they failed to experience in real life.
Second life is like other RPG I’ve played. You have the chance to choose the appearance of your avatar, and need to work or complete certain tasks for money. Always want to try a totally different life style, I chose one of the defaults features “nightclub”. By adjusting her appearance, I tried my best to make her look like me, but improved a lot of course. It’s interesting that although users are permitted to set their avatar to be any way they want it to be, seldom did I come across some horrible looking guys/girls in the street. Most people chose to be “normally” good looking.
Referred to as the Proteus Effect, Yee & Bailenson (2007) suggest that an individuals' digital self-presentation may help dictate that individual’s behavior, independent of how they are perceived by others.
Most girls including myself learned from experience how important their appearance could influence them in their social life. I don’t know how much did my appearance influence me in my second life in the way people treat me, but they are all kind and helpful. Most of the time, I don’t have be the first one to start a chat with strangers. People are willing to chat with a pretty looking girl. But it seems too early to tell how Proteus Effect play a role in this game. Maybe it’s just because I am a newbie, and people are just trying to help. So I decided to change my appearance. In their study, Yee & Bailenson tested the effects of attractiveness, and found that participants with more attractive avatars walked closer to a confederate and exhibited higher degrees of self-disclosure than those with unattractive avatars in virtual reality. I found it really true, when I put more than 20 pounds on my body, I found that I don’t have to stop and chat anymore. People suddenly became obviously less interested.
I found it fun to spend an hour sitting in front of my computer to have another life. But after that, I am not likely to spend more time in virtual space. Maybe the reason why lots of people are willing to spend hours on Role Playing Games is the ability it offered to have an appearance they want and experience a whole new world they failed to experience in real life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)