Internet communication
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
This question will bring forth a very subjective answer, but that is intentional on my part: In your experience, just what kind of percentage of the total information we are trying to communicate is lost using internet communication?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It may not be optimal, but it's more than adequate.
Please explain why you think it is adequate when the majority of communication face-to-face is non-verbal. Tone and body language tell us more than words actually do.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
If it wasn't adequate, we wouldn't have the conversations we have here. The conversations are happening, and in many cases, with less ambiguity because we have the words right in front of us, without the possibility of misinterpreting body language (what we think we see, or want to see).
My (admittedly and necessarily) subjective take:
It also seems less important to be able to read nonverbal cues when engaging with an adversary or a passing/detached online acquaintance. Where I miss non-verbal communication is when communicating with people I care about, whose well-being both online and IRL is important to me. Even then, nonverbal's not necessary, because IMO a mind-to-mind conversation can go places that perhaps a face-to-face conversation might never. Interactions IRL tend to be on the surface and easygoing, so meeting someone for lunch or coffee isn't necessarily going to go existentially deeper than the weather. Not saying at all that it couldn't or wouldn't, I've had both - but in day-to-day experience with my own friends, we're not talking about the death of civilization when we meet for coffee in the middle of a weekday afternoon.
Also, I can talk about things online that I can't talk about in real life with most people in my circle of conservative family and friends, because my views as they are now just wouldn't fly, so there's a certain amount of self-preservation going on. At this point in my life I appreciate the ability to communicate freely online even as it comes without the very real advantage of nonverbal cues.
Having said that: Nonverbal conversation weights pretty heavily in human interaction, 2:1 or even more, so I don't dismiss at all the importance of being able to read someone's face, look them in the eye, read their body language, even gauge their silences. Extended to the fullest possibility, your life could depend on it.
But in real life, I've also been hurt by those very same things, only to have the person deny that's what they did, even though that's exactly what they did. Their words say one thing, their body language another. So are they lying to me, to themselves? Or are they that non-perceptive and unaware? Could be one or the other, or both.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
couldn't say, but this convo illustrates one common problem - i forgot about this thread
LOL. That happens to me on a regular basis.
I don't understand why you would think the majority of communication missed is not necessary just because you don't know someone. To me it makes that lost information even more critical because it is much more possible to misunderstand the wording of someone you don't know. Just being unfamiliar with another person's temperament, background, tendencies in how they communicate, etc... makes it much more likely to misunderstand what they are saying. Add in the loss of non-verbal communication such as tone of voice and body language the chances of misunderstanding what someone actually means skyrockets. To me it's like you're saying, if I don't know someone very well I could care less if we really understand each other or not. I can only shake my head in amazement at that attitude. I mean, if you don't care about how well you're communicating with another person why even bother to post? What's the point? It seems to me posting is then just about an agenda.
What you point out as a negative in reading non-verbal clues as to what someone means I don't see as negative. I see it as positive for without the non-verbal clues you have no idea what you're missing out on. It's important to know if someone is trustworthy, or they show themselves likely to be dishonest in what they say by their non-verbal communication. If someone shows no symptoms attributable to lying you know the chances are good they are being truthful with you, or at least deeply believe what they just said. And, when someone shows non-verbal symptoms of being dishonest you know not to place much reliance on what they say. That's important in every day life. As to someone lying about what they just said, I've seen that time and time again. I have adult in-laws like that, and I've seen 3 year olds do it too. I guess I don't understand why reading those kinds of people's non-verbal communcation becomes hurtful. To me reading the non-verbal communication means I'm less likely to get hurt by that type of person.
In this format all those means of understanding another person are gone. And if they express themselves differently than you do all you can judge their expressions by are your own experience and since everyone has different backgrounds, educations, ways of expressing themselves that leads to major miscommunication problems. As human beings we often see the same words as having different meanings. That's one reason I post so many dictionary definitions. It helps eliminate miscommunication when the meaning being being used is pointed out. It's like the thread on bitterness. Most people see it as meaning anger and/or rebellion, when it also means deep grief and distress. Those are almost diametrically opposed definitions and make any discussion of the term apt to misunderstanding.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Maybe because I don't look at it the same as you. No surprise there, right? Remember, "out of curiosity," you're intentionally inviting subjectivity here, which isn't necessarily going to mesh with yours or anyone else's. Ideally that would be without expecting or directing it to mesh with your own subjective reality. Like, if you wanted to know why or how people think about verbal online communication, it's hopefully not so you can tell us we're doing it wrong?
Maybe the point I want to make is this: Not having nonverbal communication doesn't make verbal communication worthless. You still have 100% of each person's verbal communication to work with and in many if not most cases it's at least "adequate." Often it's more than adequate for me, and frequently it's quite satisfactory. That's my experience, which won't be the same as everyone else's, nor do I expect it should be.
As for why I bother to post? Many years of internet conversations have formed me as much as I've formed them and one outcome is that I've learned how to conserve energy. That makes it easier to walk away from a conversation that's just not working, and I don't happen to see anything wrong with that, nor do I think it has to be seen as a failure of communication or a negative reflection on why I'm here. It represents how I use my energies, and if I perceive that the cost of staying in a conversation that isn't working outweighs the benefits of soldiering on, then whether or not I cut bait often will depend on a number of factors, including who I'm talking to.
We all have bias filters. It's very human, so even if you were talking to someone face-to-face and were able to read every nuance of tone and body language, you're still going to perceive all of it through your filters. Nonverbal is important and invaluable but it's not a guarantee of understanding.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I will explain to you how I would answer this question the next time I see you.
What is your address please?
Well, I'll say this for you, you've verified the reason I had for beginning this thread. You've done it both explicitly and implicitly. The implicit verification is the lack of caring as to whether or not you care to finish a conversation or even fully understand the other person. The explicit verification is your statement that using the internet has changed you.
Internet communication is changing us in ways we hardly comprehend. It's lessening our desire to have as full of a range of communication as is possible for human beings, and at the same time causing us to not care about both that lack of complete communication with our fellow man and our fellow human beings themselves. In other words, making us even more self centered. It is also rewiring our brains. Literally.
Oh, wow. Did you actually create that mindless response yourself, or was it a collaborative effort?
Depends, I suppose, on what it is you're trying to communicate. And how effective you are at communicating through writing.
Skype seems to work pretty well for my interactions with my new grandson, although I would much prefer to be in the same room with him. He has his dad's red hair and blue eyes, and his jovial demeanor. Love to hear him laugh when I talk to him.
Skype seems to work pretty well for my interactions with my new grandson, although I would much prefer to be in the same room with him. He has his dad's red hair and blue eyes, and his jovial demeanor. Love to hear him laugh when I talk to him.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
So you confirmed your bias.
You're seeing what you want to see, since I never said I didn't care, did I? In fact, I'd say you totally misread my intent - could it perhaps be because you don't care much for me or for what I have to say? Do you think that's possible? Because I specifically said that online communication for me was "frequently quite satisfactory." I also told you whether I walked from a conversation depended "on a number of factors, including who I'm talking to." That means that the more I care for a person, the more likely I am to persevere. If I perceive the other person is convinced I'm an 'evil leftist scumbag' and so discounts anything I'd say as worthless, do I owe them the same courtesy as to a good friend or even a friendly adversary? No. That's real life too.
And you see that as personal verification? I've been seeing and saying this:
for quite a while now.
And when I most recently did, it got called "fear-mongering."
And that's okay, I can live with that, because I've seen others screaming about socialism with what in turn I see as fear-mongering. (I grew up with that kind of fear-mongering, but that's for a different discussion.) One person's fear-mongering is another person's honest attempt to be the canary in the coal mine, so I try to remember to see both sides but these post-Trump days it's not too appetizing a task.
Now if you'd wanted a discussion about that, I'd have been more than willing to join in, since it's a subject of great interest to me.
But not if you're going to continually bat away anything I have to say as useless. See how that works?
So you confirmed your bias.
You're seeing what you want to see, since I never said I didn't care, did I? In fact, I'd say you totally misread my intent - could it perhaps be because you don't care much for me or for what I have to say? Do you think that's possible? Because I specifically said that online communication for me was "frequently quite satisfactory." I also told you whether I walked from a conversation depended "on a number of factors, including who I'm talking to." That means that the more I care for a person, the more likely I am to persevere. If I perceive the other person is convinced I'm an 'evil leftist scumbag' and so discounts anything I'd say as worthless, do I owe them the same courtesy as to a good friend or even a friendly adversary? No. That's real life too.
And you see that as personal verification? I've been seeing and saying this:
for quite a while now.
And when I most recently did, it got called "fear-mongering."
And that's okay, I can live with that, because I've seen others screaming about socialism with what in turn I see as fear-mongering. (I grew up with that kind of fear-mongering, but that's for a different discussion.) One person's fear-mongering is another person's honest attempt to be the canary in the coal mine, so I try to remember to see both sides but these post-Trump days it's not too appetizing a task.
Now if you'd wanted a discussion about that, I'd have been more than willing to join in, since it's a subject of great interest to me.
But not if you're going to continually bat away anything I have to say as useless. See how that works?
Your bias is showing. You're assuming that what I'm saying about you is a personal condemnation of you. It's not meant that way at all. Yeah, I dislike your political stances because they hurt poor people far worse than they do the rest of society with respect to economic consequences, but that isn't a personal dislike of you.
Your confirmation of the ideas I had in mind in starting this thread isn't a slam against you, no matter how you perceive it. This entire site is a confirmation of the fact that the internet is changing the ways we communicate and rewiring our brains in ways of which, unless we think seriously about it, we are unconscious. That includes me. We're all being changed, and for the worse.
Look at how much the political polarization has deepened and widened in this nation since internet usage became endemic in our society. It's a consequence of internet communication. It's not only a national problem, but also an international problem created by the shallowness inherent in internet communication. We have become a society that has major problems in interpersonal relationships. A good example of it is a couple I saw the other morning. I was sitting in the park resting my weary feet while walking my dog when I observed a couple walking. Both had their phones out and both were texting. They walked two blocks while I was watching them and they didn't speak a single word to each other as they were both 100% involved in their phones. It was a beautiful morning. Birds were out in big numbers and sounds of their songs filled the air, but this couple missed all of it as their entire focus was on their phones. They shared non of all that visual and audio beauty with each other because their internet devices controlled their perceptions.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Instead of rebutting anything (I agree with you on some things, which might surprise you) in your above post, I'm going to go in a slightly different direction.
First of all, I care about you because you're another human being. I care enough to respond to you because it seems to me you're wanting to have a conversation, that there are things important to you that you want to communicate to others because you care about others. It's true, we're quite ideologically separated, but if we lived next door to each other and there was an emergency, I'd be right there to help you however I could. Because when it comes to what matters, a lot of us would instinctively and willingly do the right thing (I'd like to think most of us, but my faith in humanity is a bit damaged).
I care about what effect the internet has had on us psychologically, socially, cognitively. (ABC... Affect, Behavior, Cognition. Psy 101 stuff, but such a good distillation.) So there's one thing in which we have a common interest. It may end there too :chuckle: but it's something.
I agree with you regarding the couple you saw the other morning - not only have I observed scenes like that countless times, I'm also guilty of same myself.
But one thing I have to remind myself of (all the time) is judgmentalism. So regarding that couple, we don't know what their situation was. For all we know, they've lost a friend or family member and they're connecting with others making funeral arrangements. That's not a stretch of imagination, either. I have a photo of my mom's kitchen table the day she died. One of my sisters was sitting at it, her face full of grief and exhaustion, and scattered across the table were no less than 5 or 6 phones, because everyone in the house was in constant communication with hospice, extended family, the mortuary, her church, and so on. Looking at that photo, someone could say "look at all those cellphones, what's the matter with people! What is this world coming to?!"
There are so many advances in technology that we've benefited from, but the other side of the coin is so dark. I read this morning about the horrible jobs that contract moderators for FaceBook have - the violent, degrading things they have to see in order to moderate FB content. Their moderating jobs have left them with PTSD, anxiety, depression - because of what they had to see to do their job. Child abuse and violence. Animal abuse for fun and entertainment. Murders.
Maybe what's so disturbing is that without the internet, we can forget )or pretend there isn't) this seething underbelly of human depravity. With the internet, it's only a click away, and we have visible proof that millions of people live their lives in abject misery. Those who don't are privileged, whether they realize it or not.
Anyway. I'm glad you got to enjoy a beautiful morning out walking your dog. That's a blessing in itself, and I hope you have many more.
Thanks for a human response rather than an ideological response.
Some of the things we are seeing from internet usage is brain atrophy in the frontal lobe, and a couple of others that are directly related to the ability to have positive relationships with other people. When the frontal lobe atrophies our ability to judge between right and wrong is greatly damaged. The frontal lobe is the difference between the behavior of dogs and cats. Dogs have a large frontal lobe and cats have a small one. Dogs have, as a general rule, a much greater desire to please and to obey than cats. That translates directly to the human brain for destruction of the frontal lobe due to injury destroys a person's character. It's been documented well over the years that a man who is a strong family man and highly moral will turn into someone who abandons his wife and children and loses his moral guidelines after the destruction of the frontal lobe.
The implications of the frontal lobe atrophying from internet use--mainly text usage--is extremely disturbing. Our society is going to become much more violent, much less able to distinguish between right and wrong, much more rude and the divides between us are going to become much more extreme.
I ran across all this a few days before starting this thread. Below is a link to a series of 4 sermons given by a techie who has been researching this for a few years now. In this series he lays out in concise logical steps just how bad this problem really is. You may not be interested in listening because the subject is presented from the Christian perspective, but I'll give a link here just in case you, and others reading this thread, may be interested. You can download the files and listen on line or listen to them from the page to which I'm linking.
https://www.americanchristianministries.org/index.php/tech-transformation-23901.html
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Thank you for misunderstanding my reply. It points out your lack of critical thinking.
I have been listening to some of the messages by Christian Berdahl per your suggestion. So far it does not hit the nail on the head when it comes to assessing the impact of social media. He makes a few good points and then some very poor ones. But I will keep listening.
I want to say something about just one of the poor ones here because it is very important. The medium has never been, and never will be, the message. Marshall McLuhan was a charlatan, an entertainer, a narcissist, elevated to popularity by those who lack discernment. He made his living by "seeming" clever without substance; a man who stroked his ego by inventing one line pop phrases and embedding them in his writing for people to "discover" and make him famous. It was a game to him to see if he could use his 15 minutes of fame to gain another 15 minutes. He could actually be considered a father of the Twitter generation.
Media has always existed because language has always existed. There is nothing new under the sun. Medium is innocuous. It is the words themselves that convey the message - period. What McLuhan should have said is that it is the misuse of medium that often becomes the message that is heard; but that would not have sold books or made him famous.
If anything, the Twitterites and the Textites and the Viralites and the Utubeites and the Chatites and the Facebookites give us the ability to peer into the world of those who have nothing of substance to say but say it anyway because it is now made so easy. The thing that needs to come out of all of this, and is not, is how little we know about communication at all, regardless of the medium. We have lost most of our knowledge about our own language. Reading and writing is done, very often, without cognition.
:first: