Personal space versus net life

[chipotle]

Spurred by introspection this weekend—not only the trip around Sonoma on Saturday, but the relative peace of Sunday as well—I’m coming to the conclusion that I’m too connected. I don’t mean that I’ve got too many friends and relationships, nor do I mean this in the Zen way of having too many attachments (although that’s not entirely far off). No, I mean this in the uniquely net-enabled, wireless fashion of the early 21st century.

In the past I’ve quipped, “The good thing about having a Sidekick is that I’m always reachable; the bad thing about having a Sidekick is that I’m always reachable.” But it’s only been recently that the “bad thing” has really started to weigh on me.

When you’re always easy to get in touch with, people are not only always in touch with you, they get worried—or even angry—when you’re offline. But really, it’s not them, it’s you.

You expect to have that connection all the time. It feels a little awkward when you don’t. Even though objectively you know just keeping up with all the text-based conversations in IM and IRC and MUCK is taking up way too much of your brain’s processing power and you’re being more stressed than relaxed, you don’t want to “give up.” You don’t want to disappoint people and make them worried and angry.

Unplugging is like having caffeine cravings at the same time you’re thinking that, at least at that point in time, you don’t like caffeine very much. This is what I ran into on Saturday—even with the intent of being in a nice bubble of solitude, I’d still turn on IM and invariably get caught up in multiple conversations from which disengagement was difficult. I felt like I was disappointing people by not being available on IM, felt a little lonely by not doing so, yet when I was on IM, it didn’t take too many simultaneous chat requests for me to start feeling harried.

So. What I’m going to try to do, recognizing that it’s easier said than done, is just be a little less of a net potato. I need my personal space back, and it’s not the physical space I inhabit that’s been encroaching on me as much as the virtual space.

This isn’t about methodically restricting my net access as much as it’s about giving myself permission to restrict it—to not run IM all the time, to not idle on MUCKs “just in case” (just in case what, I have no idea). This isn’t easy for me, particularly thanks to some virtual relationships some of my characters roleplay; I get a lot of “you’re never on” from people because many of my characters aren’t on that much. But at least one of my characters is on virtually every waking moment, and right now I don’t think this is real good for me.

This doesn’t mean I’m not going to still be around, particularly in quieter virtual venues. And it certainly doesn’t mean I’m not going to be online in general—like it or not, most of my professional and personal life, from jobs to hobbies, revolves around the internet. It just means I’m feeling like I have to do a better job of tending to myself than I have been for a while.

Now it’s past time to head out to lunch, and to do something there I haven’t done on a lunch break in a long time: sit in a completely offline place, reading a non-technical book.

Comments

[shaterri.livejournal.com]

I've struggled with this a lot myself, though a little more MUCK-centrically. For me, the guiding force seems to be feeling like I'm not using my time to the fullest -- if I'm just sitting there watching TV, or out eating lunch or whatever, then yes, I'm *doing* something, but I could be doing that AND talking to people. Thankfully having my only useful connections be laptop-oriented has kept me out of the pit the Sidekick seems to put you in, but I think that's just a matter of degree. While I don't really have helpful advice on how to get there, I think the key is to figure out how you can be satisfied with what you're doing and have some faith that you don't need to be doing everything, that you're not 'missing out' on anything.

[rancourt.livejournal.com]

I remember discussing this phenomenon with you about five years ago, then again, about a year and a half ago. Yep. Know it well, man.

It's why I don't MUCK or IM anymore. If I log on, I will, invariably be set upon by anywhere from five to twelve people, all (or at least most) of whom wanting enormous chunks of my time and attention, and usually also parts of my body. If I fail to show *all* of them, simultaneously, the level of attention and quality of reply they expect, then the ones who feel slighted will whine, and stamp their feet, and attack by saying "It's personal! You just don't like me as much as you like everyone else!"

People fail to realize that just because it's *technically* possible to hold fourteen isolated, interpersonal conversations at once, doesn't mean it's *logistically* possible. And though many people would deny it, and balk at the suggestion, their answer to this often amounts to 'So blow off someone else so I can have a bigger share of you.'

Offline, these sorts of social issues are much more respected. I don't hear 'you don't go to class on Saturday or Sunday, you can hang out all day on the phone with me.' Why, then, is this expected on chats? Anyone who believes that the amount of attention taken up by chats is 'negligable' is probably trying to justify chatting at work to their boss. ;P Or at least hasn't been an object of desire online.

You have to draw lines, dude. If you don't, then others, however well-meaning they may or may not be, run your life for you. I am a person, not a service. I reserve the right to set my own availability metrics. My life is lived amongst atoms, not ASCII, and in the end, my online time, my recreation on my computer, must serve an end in my life -- my own enjoyment -- or not be worth it.

Sounds like you've got too many fanboys, or as you termed it years ago, "Rancourt Syndrome."

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I don't think "Rancourt Syndrome" was my fault as a term, although I won't swear to it. :)

I've had a MUCK-specific version of this before, probably close to a decade ago, when I had one character in particular who would get a dozen pages when she connected. (This was, not very surprisingly, Jemara.) I still have some who get pounced on, which of course creates a Catch-22 when I don't want that kind of attention... having it happen makes me connect that character less frequently, which makes it more likely that the next time they connect they'll get more frantic "Where have you been?" pages.

This has been more of a problem for me since I've let myself get (relatively) known on AIM/IRC, though. I think it's the combination of multiple networks trying to suck at my attention that's tripping the overload circuitry.

In an acknowledged note of irony, the personal projects I'm feeling like I need to cut back on "net time" to get back to are in part projects related to, well, net time -- several revolve around the successor MUCK to Bandari, which I will never manage to build if I'm constantly volleying stuff thrown at me from other online places. :)

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

Enjoy reconnecting with yourself; online'll always be there when/if you decide to come back to it. People will adjust--many have other ways of getting in touch with you if they really needed to, anyway, I'll bet.

[lynn-onyx.livejournal.com]

Ah! Okay, ignore my email...I was just worried about you.

Can I make a date with you though? :)

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I'll still be around, virtually speaking, although I'm going to try to be taking things deliberately lightly this week in particular. I'd like to clear my internal fog enough to start recollecting all the things I'm really supposed to be working on...

[lynn-onyx.livejournal.com]

Okay.

If you want to find me, you know where to look.

[kereminde.livejournal.com]

My advice doesn't change, no matter who says it:

Do what is best for you, I will understand it. I won't chastize you for not being online for me. I won't demand you spend any time with me at all, just make wistful comments such as "we really need to finish that sometime in the future".

Thing is, with me, I do mean "in the future", as I was [before the move] never having a clear schedule of times I'd be around, and it was catch-as-catch-can. So . . . I'm not one to demand immediate conversation :)

But I'm rambling and i'm being overly personal and selfish about this. A refrain of my original point: You do what is best for YOU.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I know I've been pretty catch-as-catch-can myself and that this isn't going to help with that, at least short term. (I'm hoping more "medium-term" it _will_ help, in that by decluttering and reconstructing my schedule I might do better in time management.) Thank you for being probably excessively patient. :)

[chastmastr.livejournal.com]

Good for you! Try the new Harry Potter. Well, if you like.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I'm actually reading a biography of Jack London (accurately but unimaginatively titled Jack London: A Life). Beyond that, I have a different huge tome of very British fantasy to get through: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. It comes with such modest recommendations as Neil Gaiman referring to it as "unquestionably the finest English novel of the fantastic written in the last seventy years."

[chastmastr.livejournal.com]

So how did you like them? And what did you think of the new Harry? :) (Have you read them? They are fun, not profound on the level of Tolkien or Gaiman, but I've found them to be page-turners, definitely, and I haven't had a lot of fun reading like that in a while!)