Reading People? Or Words?Introduction:The internet is praised for being the middle man that instantly connects us to each other, allowing us to communicate more frequently. Many confuse this as an advantage to gain a better understanding of one another. It actually does the opposite. By giving people the opportunity to sit behind a digital wall and twist their personalities, it is difficult for the ones at the other end of the screen to see the person for who they really are. Not only that, but the fact that we aren't really talking to that person, but rather just interpreting their words without any physical indications, leads to big gaps between the actual message that is being given and the message that is being received. Online social networking tools have made it harder for us to understand each other by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
Argument 1:People say computers and phones were built for convenience, but this type of convenience includes a lot more than just letting us stayed connected with each other 24/7. It saves us the trouble of having to talk to someone face-to-face. Words seem easier to spill online than through our actual mouths and as a result a lot of us end up saying things we won't usually say. This alters our personalities and as a result the other person is given a false impression of us. For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.). It's this crave for wanting someone to like us, or hate us, or whatever we want them to think of us, and the fact that the internet is such an easy way to carry out this plan that we choose to take this short path rather than the longer path where we feel more vulnerable.
At one point during Mr. Tsui's history lesson where he asked "What would be the ultimate example of love?" he had us answer the question based on what we see in our friends. I instantly thought of one of my friends and said having good communication. Of course that isn't the ultimate example but it does play a big part in having a good relationship. It's ironic. I said it because my friend stressed that point so much yet she and her boyfriend based their whole relationship through the phone and instant messaging. Every confrontation and every issue was addressed online. Their first I Love You's were exchanged through AIM. Every time they're together though, they never have conversations as serious as the ones she had shown me on AIM. I believe they do have a meaningful relationship but a connection developed through electronic waves can never replace something made in "real life." Choosing the keyboard over "chats over coffee" (Gavin) shows a lack of maturity. If we are really that determined to get to know the other person better, then we wouldn't go for short cuts. It shows that we aren't as serious or as committed as one would like to think. Basing a connection through interpretations made on the net would only lead to false impressions, false expectations, and false happiness. This bond would be too easy to break because once we find out that the other person is only our dream guy/girl /friend online and that they never act the part outside of the screen, we'll come to realize that in order to really get to read or understand a person, we can't be using digital representational devices that inaccurately represent our words and our personalities.
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face. This lack of physical confrontation has him at a loss for words and he has no idea what to do when faced with one. It is seen too that he is chatting with a man through a monitor when the man is literally sitting next to him. The fact that he prefers to interact digitally rather than physically shows a human's natural fear or nervousness of physical confrontation. Because of this, the humans in Wall-E fail to create close bonds until they were off their devices and we see that the same man and another woman met each other and fell in love. Digital devices do not contribute to a better understanding of one another as much as we would like to think it does. The two experiences are completely different and as Wall-E depicts, when we tear ourselves out of chairs we begin to move away from our meaningless, isolated lives and begin to live in real situations and form real connections with real personalities.
A New York Times article was explaining how the internet is frequently used for finding partners and how as a result, the relationships we create become much more meaningless because we've abandoned our traditional "social scripts" and "courtship rules" (Brooks). We don't take the time to go out of our way to meet each other and get to know about each other one on one. Our digital forms of communication has made it easier to snag a partner. We "use [our] cellphones to disaggregate, slice up, and repackage [our] emotional and physical needs, servicing each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead" (Brooks). Texting, facebook, and instant messaging has made it easy to split ourselves into different personalities and mingle with multiple persons at a time. It enables us to put on a facade and to fool people into thinking we fit their preferences. If we are really serious about finding a partner, we should not rely on digital means of communication because it's extremely difficult to know if the person is really who they portray through the screen. The high chances of misreading people through these devices can lead us into relationships that are way less than what they have us expecting.
The issue of internet sex predators is another example of a deceitful ploy in one's identity, and in this case the motive is to sexually take advantage of someone else's body. These predators purposely pretend to be someone they're not, someone the prey would find likable and relatable. This false connection would then be used to lure the victim in, all in hopes of cheating something sexual out of the relationship. These individuals are often willing to devote considerable amounts of time, money and energy in this process. They listen to and empathize with the problems of children. They will be aware of the latest music, hobbies, and interests of children” (Fried). The fact that people are actually falling for traps like these shows how the internet has become an advantage for sexual predators but meanwhile a threat for their targets. Because these people were only exposed to their predators online, they had nothing to read from but words. As a result they fall victims to these words and their misinterpretations for who the person really is.
Argument 2:Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of our identities, communicating digitally through just written texts isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. There will always be gaps between what is sent and what is received especially if all we're sending and receiving are words. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, silliness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning because now they're forced to imagine you saying it and how you intended it to be said and understood. Rachel said, "In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
A sentence can be said in many ways and one bad misinterpretation can break the whole conversation. I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online, to make sure they never misinterpret my comments as something mean when it isn't. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take their words offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpreted as anger or rudeness so people tend to feel the need to add an "Lol" after it. Misinterpretations like these do happen on a larger scale where relationships are bothered and characters are misunderstood. The frequent confusion because of situations like these goes to show how physical aspects need to be present if we want to understand a person better.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book, because there are less misinterpretations throughout their talks. They delve into deeper and more "real" conversations in person than on the Feed and were able to learn about each others' upbringings, families, political views, etcetera. Titus falls in love with Violet's personality despite her anti-conformist attitude. While their relationship grows stronger, we see that in the background the rest of their friends haven't changed at all. They're so stuck in their shallow lives and meaningless relationships because the Feed has brainwashed them into thinking that trends and looking good were all that mattered. While Feed consists of teenagers being pressured to fit in, the internet today is also filled with people with virtual personalities feeling the desire to impress (which leads us back to the first argument). This leads to mass interpretations and people no longer can see each other for who they really are.
Opposing Argument 1:Many may argue that there
are identities portrayed online that is the person's actual identity, that if they are being themselves online, they wouldn't be subjected to misinterpretation by somebody else. Way back at the start of the unit, I asked my friend if she ever felt like she was acting different over the internet and she immediately went into defense mode. She said something along the lines of "No, I act the same way everywhere. I hate fake people." Then after a while of conversing she started slowly adding tidbits of confessions where she begins to admit that on certain occasions she would fake excitement or sympathy. But she claimed that that wasn't enough to be called a fake.
As stated before, even if they aren't intending to lie to us about their personalities, the possibility of a misinterpretation is far too frequent that characters overall can be seen in the wrong light. Regardless of how much we intend to be seen and analyzed the same way we are in real life, the barrier of the screen will always pose some kind of limit. The problem here is that one person is trying to express his emotions while the other is expected to understand it through nothing but the trading of soundless words. So even if she hadn't intended to fool anyone of anything, she probably had been judged incorrectly one time or another.
Opposing Argument 2:The popular belief is that social networking sites benefit us by allowing us to meet and converse with people we otherwise would never encounter in our lifetimes. This is seen to be an opportunity to enhance our social skills and learn more about the different personalities that exist out there. Steven Johnson in Everything Bad is Good For you argues that these "new social networking applications have done something that the visionaries never imagined: they are augmenting our people skills as well, widening our social networks, and creating new possibility for strangers to share new ideas and experiences" (Johnson 124). He's basically trying to justify our excessive computer use by describing how it benefits our social lives.
However, if we become too caught up in socializing online, we will be stuck in the habit of dealing with conversations the internet way. This means that we won't be able to stop in the middle of saying something, delete it, and start all over again and still sound like that was what we meant to say all along. Like Wall-E, we'll get so used to connecting digitally that our people skills will diminish and when we are faced with a physical confrontation we will be lost and awkward. Also, there is no use in having a large social network when everybody on our list was "artificially" encountered. There is no real relationship between us and each and every one of these people, no deep and personal connection. Like the saying goes, "It's quality, not quantity." It is meaningless to have all these contacts if we haven't gotten to know them in real life. Johnson's other point about meeting new strangers is a pretty skeptical one. How do we know that these strangers' "new ideas and experiences" aren't all made up in order to impress us, that these aren't fake personalities attempting to interest us? This all goes back to the importance of not relying on the web for forming deep bonds. If we really wanted to get to know people for who they really are, to understand them at a more personal level, we can not use the short cut because the shortcut will only lead to meaningless relations.
Connections and Significance:It is human nature to desire relationships and dread loneliness. We have this natural desire for acceptance and for people to like us. We like it when others understand us and we are curious about understanding them. Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. If we are genuinely interested in getting to know one another, we should not rely on social networking applications such as Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and texting to get us closer to each other. They will only create a false sense of understanding because their representational abilities are dim. The inaccuracies in their simulations of reality makes it easy for us to jump to conclusions and create assumptions that are untrue. If this becomes a habit, the future will be bombarded with shallow relationships, awkward social skills, and the need to impress with fake personalities. It is important that we keep conversations face-to-face. So far, out of the list of simulations of reality, vocal and body language seems to be understood the best. If we take away the physical aspects in it, the message will lose its meaning.
Conclusion:Social networking tools have complicated the already confusing process of understanding one another. These applications have narrowed down the factors that are essential to reading a person's character. They have eliminated the physical aspect of communication and have made it easier for others to develop a second personality so that we can no longer read faces and body languages. We can no longer hear the quiver or the confidence in a voice. Being able to read someone correctly (or to some extent) is crucial to finding out if that person is someone we would want to associate ourselves with. Without all these extra factors to help us along, it makes it that much harder to determine who the person is and whether or not we can click with them.
CitationsAnderson, M.T.
Feed. Somerville, Massachusett: Candlewick, 2002. Print.
Brooks, David. "Cellphones, Texts and Lovers."
New York Times (2009): 1. Web. 8 Nov 2009.
.
Fried, Robert B. "The Internet: A Breeding Ground for Online Pedophiles ." Computer Crime Research Center. 17 January 2005. Computer Crime Research Center, Web. 6 Nov 2009. .
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For You. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2005. 124. Print.
DVD, Wall-E
Q&A with Rachel and Andy L.
Mr. Tsui's lecture
When you think of someone cool, what are the first personality traits that come to mind?
So when u think of a cool person, what are the first personality traits that come to mind?
What's your definition of cool? When u think of someone cool what are the first personality traits that come to mind?
So what types of personality traits come to mind when you hear the word cool?
