Rorschach Tweet - tweets containing enough social cues to be read 100% accurately by groups A and B, with both groups having violently conflicting reads.
A Rorschach Tweet example.
X: "fjlsuk adrhl chdet jdtyuf."
Group A: "Yeah, dogs are totally cute!"
Group B: "This monster wants to kill cats!"
X: "fjlsuk adrhl chdet jdtyuf."
Group A: "Yeah, dogs are totally cute!"
Group B: "This monster wants to kill cats!"
I have felt frustrated seeing tweets that make sense to me, and others also think it reasonable.
Then, I see others without those cues who have reads that I think are ridiculous. But are their reads really invalid?
I have zero moral high ground on this. I've been on both sides.
Then, I see others without those cues who have reads that I think are ridiculous. But are their reads really invalid?
I have zero moral high ground on this. I've been on both sides.
I don't know if this is a feature of Twitter, tweets, or just language in general.
This is awfully "postmodern" of me, but I'm seriously doubting we all share the same abilities to interpret even fairly straightforward tweets. I think it's more social than mental.
This is awfully "postmodern" of me, but I'm seriously doubting we all share the same abilities to interpret even fairly straightforward tweets. I think it's more social than mental.
Don't know what I'm going to do with this info. I'm just putting the concept of Rorschach Tweets out there, maybe even to remind myself to look for them.
Oh, and we can't just pretend everything is "dogs are cute", because there really are enough people that want to kill cats.
Oh, and we can't just pretend everything is "dogs are cute", because there really are enough people that want to kill cats.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
