DiscussMormonism.com

That's not surprising, necessarily, but it's interesting from the perspective of identity itself as something that's both expressed and mediated by digital spaces. We tend to assume, perhaps wrongly, that our online selves are separate from our "real-world" ones. ("Real" world, after all.) And that who we are online is somehow secondary to who we are everywhere else.

But digital spaces -- Facebook and all its counterparts -- allow us to ask in ways we couldn't previously: How portable is personality, actually? How malleable is identity? And to what extent is the whole concept of "the real world" itself in need of some rethinking?

SAUCE

I think there is something to this, and part of the reason why I rarely buy the, “ But so-and-so is sooooooooooooo nice in person.” excuse for people like Dan Peterson.

I'm so very not surprised.

Though I think we are who we are, all the time (including online), I do see a problem with essentializing the character of a person after witnessing his or her online behavior. Those who are confident, articulate critical thinkers are going to have a more appealing online persona than those who are less so.

My grandfather would have come across as an angry bigot had the web existed in his day. A good portion of this was the defensive façade he put on for the world. Another part was a manifestation of his inability for self-reflection. He was still a very good man.

I don't think you can generalize this from Facebook to message boards, especially if someone is adopting a persona. That's a common thing. Facebook is where the connections between the offline world and the online world are at their strongest as people attempt to project a digital extension of themselves.

I don't buy people who clearly aren't adopting an affected character who insist they are very different in the "real world." I expect the personality to be roughly the same. And it's a pet peeve of mind when people distinguish online interactions from the real world. If you were a dick to somebody online, you are a dick in the real word. Online interactions are part of the real world. You aren't conversing with a bot. I don't care if someone like Pahoran spends all his offline activity doing charity work for victims of landmines. He's still been incredibly mean to tons of people and that is no less part of who he is simply because he did it on message boards rather than in person or over the phone.

EAllusion wrote:I If you were a dick to somebody online, you are a dick in the real word. Online interactions are part of the real world.

Yep.

Blixa wrote:

EAllusion wrote:I If you were a dick to somebody online, you are a dick in the real word. Online interactions are part of the real world.

Yep.

AMEN!!!

This brings up a burning question for me: Would any random BYU professor's real world academic rigor be any better than that exhibited in his apologetics?

Morley wrote:This brings up a burning question for me: Would any random BYU professor's real world academic rigor be any better than that exhibited in his apologetics?

Well peer review should deal with that problem so far as his publications in real academic journals are concerned.

by the way, to consider an obvious example, how many academic articles or monographs has DCP actually published? Has anybody ever heard of any? The only two given on Wikipedia are:

Peterson, Daniel C. (2007), written at Grand Rapids, Michigan, Muhammad, Prophet of God, Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (published February 26, 2007), ISBN 0802807542.

Peterson, Daniel C.; Ricks, Stephen D. (1998), Offenders for a Word, Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies (published October 1998), ISBN 0934893357.

Any non-LDS linked scholarly articles? I mention these because articles tend to be more rigorously reviewed than books.

Chap wrote:

Morley wrote:This brings up a burning question for me: Would any random BYU professor's real world academic rigor be any better than that exhibited in his apologetics?

Well peer review should deal with that problem so far as his publications in real academic journals are concerned.

by the way, to consider an obvious example, how many academic articles or monographs has DCP actually published? Has anybody ever heard of any? The only two given on Wikipedia are:

Peterson, Daniel C. (2007), written at Grand Rapids, Michigan, Muhammad, Prophet of God, Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (published February 26, 2007), ISBN 0802807542.

Peterson, Daniel C.; Ricks, Stephen D. (1998), Offenders for a Word, Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies (published October 1998), ISBN 0934893357.

Any non-LDS linked scholarly articles? I mention these because articles tend to be more rigorously reviewed than books.

When DCP was involved with the Mitchell trial, the SL Trib published his CV, and it showed that the vast majority of his publications are Church- or apologetics-related--it was something like 90%. This is yet another reason why I find it odd that he kicks up such a stink over people saying that he gets paid to do apologetics. When FARMS joined up officially with BYU, DCP and the other FARMS people arranged things so that their apologetic writings could count towards academic promotions. While his title may say "Professor of Middle Eastern Studies," the fact remains that the bulk of his actual, "scholarly" work is in LDS apologetics.

But back to the OP: I'm sure that Dan is frequently nice to people in person. Then again, I doubt very much that he ever hangs out with the sort of critics who would tell him to his face that they've got problems with his behavior. I have it on very good authority that he has totally nuked his own reputation among the younger generation of rising Mormon Studies people--I was told that they view his antics as "juvenile" and "unprofessional." But, of course, none of them would ever say anything like this to his face, for fairly obvious reasons. They don't want to create waves that might hinder their careers, and it's quite clear at this point that Dan is vindictive, and that he carries grudges, etc.

It is, and always has been, harder to be rude in person than on paper or pixels. I think that what is new is that it's easy now for people to create quite elaborate alternate identities in digital space.

I've never met Dr. Peterson, but when I've read or heard him (on Mormon Stories, for example) explaining his digital/MI persona, he's sounded either insincere or self-deluded. His apologetic writing, which, unlike his academic work, I've read, raises the same questions. It's hard to believe that anyone with any analytical ability would be satisfied with his arguments. Even his most elaborate productions (I'm thinking of the Gadiantons vs Masons stuff) is entirely unconvincing to an (this, anyway) outsider.

When I first started reading Mormon apologetics, I was in an odd sort of way rooting for it. It would make things a lot more interesting if Nephites turned up somewhere. I was almost immediately disappointed. The fact is that most apologetics, not just Mopologetics, is written to keep people in, not to bring them in. It's there to reassure the insecure. And when the apologetic task is well night impossible, there's an awful lot of smoke-blowing and invective.

hc