Description

To use your own concept of exceedingly narrow facets seen by the public, yes, this sums up said facet well. You as a complete person? Per your own statement regarding public/private personality facets, none of us can answer the question because we don't know you.

That wasn't an example of bias, that was an example of responding to a vague question with the assumption it was a continuation of the last time the same person brought up the same subject.

To answer the extremely general question, yes, I am aware of my biases. They're seldom relevant, really.

Your biases pertain to the thread, though, when you're pointing out those that others form of you.

I don't believe humans are capable of completely understanding other humans. We create roles for others to play in our head because it's easier to communicate and empathize with someone you believe you know. Southperrians create roles for you based on prior posting habits because it's easier than having to dissect every little thing you write, or alternatively, disregarding the existence of your username when reading your posts and threads.

or alternatively, disregarding the existence of your username when reading your posts and threads.

Oddly enough I do this naturally. For the most part I disregard the who and only read what's said, unless I am trying to piece together a stream of back and forth between people in a thread, and even then I don't generally associate context based on the speaker so much as divide the conversation in to person a and person b.

When the dialogue appears to be missing subtext, or to contain additional undertones, I fall back on trying to place it into the context of known information regarding the author and previous subject matter.

The vast majority of the time the author is distinctly irrelevant.