(no subject)

[rivka]

I'm putting together a research proposal that, among other things, is going to involve an analysis of the emotional content of writing samples. I'm planning to use techniques that are developed by a Texas psychologist named James Pennebaker.

On his website, he's posted reprints of several of his research articles. I was scrolling through them, looking for titles which might be relevant to my study, when something I moused over brought up a URL in the status bar that contained the words "LiveJournal." Surprised, I looked up and saw the article title "Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001," and a note that they studied language use in 1000 LiveJournals for the period around September 11.

I felt an immediate surge of revulsion and violation. My stomach churned. All I could think was, "But I keep a LiveJournal." I was completely taken aback by the strength of the sense of utter violation.

It lasted until I got far enough into actually reading the article to realize that my LJ wasn't included in the sample. (They only included people who gave permission for their LJs to be spidered by web browsers. They didn't, however, individually ask people for permission to analyze their LJs.) Then it slowly subsided, especially as I realized that no one's journal was actually quoted. The negative emotions didn't dissipate entirely until I went on and read another article, a dry technical one.

Here's what I want to know: am I weird? Or does this seem like a violation of privacy, an intrusion, to anyone else?

Comments

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

That's not the point I was making.

I just wouldn't retroactively try to claim my unspoken intentions as having privilege. Maybe I'd be upset about the intrusion, maybe not, but my upset would be directed at myself, not the other person.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I find myself responding to that with revulsion, because my first impulse is to wonder whether that means that with someone who views things as you do, I have to give a complete list of "shalt nots", and take responsibility for whatever unacceptable-to-me thing happens as a result of my forgetting to close a loophole.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I'm saddened to hear you feeling revulsion.

I encourage you to go back and re-read my comments in this sub-thread. I've been reporting on my perspective along with what I see as a difference in our perspectives on this matter. At no point have I said that I expect you or anyone to share my viewpoint on this matter.

If I've not made my I-statements clear enough, I apologize.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

It's not that I don't see you owning these thoughts. It's that there's a sense there being people out there who share your thoughts and would extend them. I'm not sure that *you* don't extend them -- "It wasn't stated that it wasn't okay, therefore..."

I don't think you'd go out of your way to be malicious, but I can envision, at the moment, your refusing to have any sense of (argh, English fails me...responsibility? bearing of burden of action?) if something isn't explicitly proscribed.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

My apologies if my peevish tone impedes our communication here, but I am feeling peeved and not particularly motivated to ameliorate my tone at this time.

It's not that I don't see you owning these thoughts.

That is gratifying to know.

It's that there's a sense there being people out there who share your thoughts and would extend them.

Your language is unclear as to who these people are that have this sense. You? Your squirrels? So far I've been under the impression that I was talking with you and you with me.

I'm not sure that *you* don't extend them -- "It wasn't stated that it wasn't okay, therefore..."

This gives me the impression that you are having a conversation with yoruself and your concerns instead of wit me and my words. While you can certainly do that, I choose to excuse myself from that particular conversation. I've given up attempting to allay concerns by refuting statements I've not made.

I don't think you'd go out of your way to be malicious,

Gee, my fan.

but I can envision, at the moment, your refusing to have any sense of (argh, English fails me...responsibility? bearing of burden of action?) if something isn't explicitly proscribed.

I'm baffled, trinker. I cannot refute your ability to envision me doing anything in the future; it strikes me as trying to prove a negative.

If you have more words to throw at this, I'll certainly read them with interest.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

If you have more words to throw at this, I'll certainly read them with interest.

Okay, but why don't you guys take it outside my journal.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, boss.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I thought you were supposed to be calling me Dr. Rivka.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I thought we'd already achieved a comfortable level of informality, dear Doctor.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

"Boss" is a comfortable level of informality? Who knew?

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Compared to "Your most gracious and illuminated Majesty, She from Whom all wisdom and blessings flow" it is.