On Internet Communication

So, I go to the library today (and get my lost card replaced, I am now free to check books out all willy-nilly all by myself!) and end up checking out this book. It's actually very timely, given that I have just kind of been going back and forth with someone on LJ about online v. offline personae, and noticing several recent posts from another friend about being misunderstood online and off, but mostly, or maybe just worse, online.This book addresses both of those issues, and quite a bit more. So, much like the last stupid book I checked out, I hauled off and ordered it from Half.com. I can see that having a library card is going to be substantially more expensive than I had hoped.With the first one, online v. IRL personae, the person with whom I was trading posts had originally written that he was somewhat miffed (*totally* my word, not his), or at the very least quite confused that a person with whom he had built what he characterized as a strong online connection did not seem to carry that connection over into an in-person meeting as strongly. My initial (and continuing) reaction to that was one of dire non-surprise. Me, my background in terms of social psychology is that of symbolic interactionism, including the work of Erving Goffman. I think he was genius and I think that everyone should read "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life." Better still, everyone should read that book *and* "Stigma.". I can only imagine the heyday he would have with internet culture and communication. To sum up, his theory was that we create and maintain our identities on an ongoing basis, and that these activities are context-bound. To wit, I engage one identity when I am in my "therapist" role, and it will not be the same as the identity I engage in my "shoe shopper" role. Although there are some congruent elements between the two roles, they are not identical. However, when two roles collide (like, how about a client who sees me at the bar?!) things can get messy and turbulent. This is a good argument for why initial offline meetings between people who met first online can be awkward; two different roles are colliding. I like this theory, mainly because it makes sense, and also because it nicely describes what I do, which is handy, because normalization is always a neat thing.Another factor to keep in mind is that many people who are lively online may be more on the introverted side offline. Hanging out with people at a coffeehouse or a bar may not be as comfortable for me as hanging out in a chat room or trading IM’s. Then there is the fact that we Netheads tend to put a lot of time and juice into our web personae. Also, we can experiment with who we are and what we project about ourselves, not to mention building and maintaining multiple online identities that have no real corresponding offline partner. It can be a fantastically fun social experiment. Just ask my alter ego Lola Canola, the Cajun stripper. But, this can become anxiety- and fear-producing as well. When the opportunity for an in-person meeting pops up, there is maybe more awkwardness to that than even a normal blind date. At least with a blind date, I've had relatively little time and received relatively little info to make an assumption about who you are and/or what you’re all about. With the migration from an online relationship to an in-person one, there are expectations and projections to be confirmed or denied, both our own for the other, and the other's for ourselves. Eep. It's almost enough to just live the online life and not meet at all, because there is always the ambivalence and anxiety that accompany the fear of disappointment (on either the receiving or giving end). Or, y’know, to just live offline, but I’m sure we can all agree that that is just crazy talk.As it turns out, the research bears out that (duh!): people tend to be less inhibited online than they would be in person due to the increased level of anonymity. If you do not believe the research, I invite you again to talk to Lola about this. She would assure you that this is the case if she were not performing lap dances for weary bleary truckers right now. Since this is the case, it is logical that one might be even more reticent or closed upon meeting in person. This is, after all, about boundaries, and people are generally about balance. If I really let loose the boundaries online, because I'm anonymous and neenerneener, I may very well feel greatly compelled to present as somesuch very serious lady and not at all loosey goosey upon meeting someone in person. I do not, after all, want that person to think I am a total and complete wingnut in *all* my facets, right?The second bit was about being or feeling misunderstood. As applied to the Net, we all see this all the time. I can't count the number of times some thread has gone awry and when it doesn't end in an all-out "fuck you!" fest, it ends with some variation of, "I guess there was some miscommunication there, sorry."Communication is primarily non-verbal. Even the tonal aspects of communication are generally perceived as being more important than the actual words. In the Parent-Child Interaction Therapy I sometimes do, we are supposed to code a 5-minute portion of each session. One of the things we code for are "critical statements." Technically, the words, "You're a little goofy" would be coded as a critical statement. However, (thank goodness) we were trained that tone trumps content. So, if the tone of the statement was more kind and loving, it would be coded as a description. If the tone raised at the end, it would be coded as a question. It reminds me of that one skit that illustrated all of the ways you can say "dude." Happy! You are *so* busted. Chainsaw murderer outside my bedroom window...But we can’t do that online for the most part, although I have to say, I love those voice posts; they’re mesmerizing, but not entirely practical or feasible for every post and comment. And there would still be the visual aspect of communication missing. Since most communication is, in fact, not what we generally think of as communication (i.e. the words), no wonder we misunderstand and are misunderstood. We can't convey ourselves the way we can and would in person. The other party is unable to observe us for cues and clues in order to make an accurate assessment and meaning out of what we intended to communicate. There doesn't seem to be a quick or easy fix for this other than to be mindful that this is the case, and to check in with people before jumping to what may very well be (and I think often is) the wrong conclusion. Because we are what the book describes as "cognitive misers" which means that we will tend to form opinions about one another from looks to intelligence to personality characteristics to ______ (fill in blank) as quickly as possible in order to make sense of each other, and then be hard-pressed to make alterations to that initial assessment. So, be hip to that, that's all I'm sayin'.