<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:<BR><BR><EM>what is the extent of your idea of territoriality? are you interested in mental territory or only projected spacialities? </EM></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Mainly I am interested in how online non-verbal behavior is used to indicate either. How are you defining projected spacialities? An example of the types of things I am looking at is the flame war phenomena. I feel that flaming is a great example of how humans defend territory online. In comparative gender studies, men typially take up more physical space during face-to-face type interactions. An analogous online study reflects that on message boards men will typically post more frequently and write longer posts. So what I would be looking at in that instance is how people use their posts to establish that a certain message board is part of their cyber territory.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard Cutler wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>I believe that you must establish what you believe is non-verbal behavior</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For my specific assignment I am using our class definition of non-verbal behavior which is: all behavior is considered non-verbal except the actual words. The tone, style, volume, font, etc that deliver words are non-verbal behavior. To me it means anything a human can observe (consciously or not) from another human through their interaction including information one transmits and recieves without intention. While that's rather broad and vauge to narrow it down I am focusing the most on behaviors outlined by our text that are concerned with how humans use space and territory. Groups of behaviors that revolve around how we mark, defend, define our territory plus how we interpret proxemic observations to indicate social constructs like status are the focus. As an aside I am also interested in the VR which is becoming more frequent on the web partly for the indication of non-verbal behavior but also because of the import of visual context and relationships that I think are more representational of how we think and learn. Although from my experience we tend to study in small bits we certainly don't seem to learn that way and having more extensive external models to share will give us a better way to communicate things we can only clumsily do so now.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>"Is there a real, core self, or just a shifting constellation of socially constructed <BR>selves, and where does the virtual self fit in?" </EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for this question it's a good one and although I don't think my class audience would like to listen to me "go there" it is something I've thought about and would be interested in reading more about. In our celebrity enriched culture it seems that people strive to be symbols which is pretty interesting.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Also thank you for the book references!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Susie Crowson wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>Have you considered space as defined in an Educational MOO?</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV>No I had not thought of that. Thank you for the idea. The MOO's are an excellent example of how we use artifacts to define our territory plus their visuality brings more non-verbal behavior on board than does text-only online communication.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you all,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chris</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:hecklec@uah.edu">hecklec@uah.edu</A></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag1_etl_EN.asp'>Click Here</a><br></html>