Killing the Online/Offline Friend Myth
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
There's a vicious little rumor that keeps going around that the relationships we foster online are somehow in conflict with the relationships we foster in real life. I keep hearing unfounded concerns that all this time we spend clicking around Facebook is stealing quality time away from the moments when we connect with people offline. That Twitter is breaking up loving couples(John Mayer!? Jennifer Aniston!?) (Guess what? Their problems probably went a little deeper than Twitter use...)
First let's agree to scrap the entire concept of "online" and "in real life." The two are no longer different from each other in any meaningful way.
[Just to be specific, and in spite of its inconvenience, I'm going to refer to these two states as "relationships unmediated by digital technology" and "relationships mediated by digital technology". I'm happy to entertain alternative suggestions : ) ]
Relationships mediated by digital technology - be it a website or a cellphone - are mostly continuations or extensions of relationships that exist without the aid of digital technology.
Rather than getting in the way of relationships unmediated by digital technology, relationships mediated by digital technology either foster or create unmediated relationships. Most of the time digital technology either enhances and extends relationships that already exist without the aid of digital technology, or it serves as bridge from mediated acquaintanceship to unmediated relationship.
If you know of any research out there that either supports or disproves this assertion, please link it up in the comments.
First let's agree to scrap the entire concept of "online" and "in real life." The two are no longer different from each other in any meaningful way.
[Just to be specific, and in spite of its inconvenience, I'm going to refer to these two states as "relationships unmediated by digital technology" and "relationships mediated by digital technology". I'm happy to entertain alternative suggestions : ) ]
Relationships mediated by digital technology - be it a website or a cellphone - are mostly continuations or extensions of relationships that exist without the aid of digital technology.
Rather than getting in the way of relationships unmediated by digital technology, relationships mediated by digital technology either foster or create unmediated relationships. Most of the time digital technology either enhances and extends relationships that already exist without the aid of digital technology, or it serves as bridge from mediated acquaintanceship to unmediated relationship.
If you know of any research out there that either supports or disproves this assertion, please link it up in the comments.
13 Comments:
Mike, great post. I would argue that digital technology expedites deeper relationships. Many times, you get to know people "in person" on a very superficial, surface level. It would take a lot more time to really get to know them without social media outlets like Facebook. As FB friends, you can rifle thru pictures and thoughts, links and loves. Couple that with a Twitter feed and Flickr sets, and you start to formulate a much deeper opinion of that person rather quickly. That's not to say that you can't do all of those things in relationshipping 1.0...just saying it's super easy now.
Conrad, I like the relationship 1.0 / 2.0 phrase. Concise and I immediately got what you meant.
I've never quite understood the notion that online relationship were different than offline. Is this not me right now typing a communication to Mike Arauz? This digital communication is being sent by some sort of Rick Liebling doppleganger and the real me is actually asleep, ignorant of doppleganger Rick's nefarious deeds? Of course not, I'm putting just as much thought and care (more?) into this as I would if I met up with Mike at a pub or event.
The channels & forms may change, but the only dividing line is engaged or not engaged. You can have a fully engaged interaction with someone via Twitter, IM, etc. just as easily as you can sit across the table from someone, nod your head and say, 'uh huh' while you're thinking about what you plan on watching on TV tonight.
I'm going to go ahead and play devil's advocate here. Because I'm kind of a hippie and I'm married to a woman who's a true hippie and thinks that technology will be the death of us all (even though she still loves her iPhone).
Here's the thing about interacting with people via the web. You're doing it via the web. People communicate some high percentage (70-80%) via non-verbal cues. I've had internet friendships that went on for years before I ever met the person in real life, but when I did it blew my mind how in the matter of seconds I learned more about that person that I had in all the years of blogging, emailing and looking at each other's photos.
Thinking that you're 'getting deep' with someone through their created online persona - let's be honest, an online persona is just that, a fabrication of a fabrication of who a person *really* is - is foolhardy at best. Touching them, smelling them, hanging out with them silently in a car on a road trip, going through a traumatic experience with someone... THAT is what forms real relationships.
Anything less is just an illusion.
the web [and all the things that this includes] not only improved but also expanded all sort of human relationships. there is and there will always be information asymmetry in human relationship - "a person perception is a model built on its peers, not what he/she really is" - this is practically axiomatic. what the critics of online relationships doesn't understand is that this concept is a little lighter on this world (instead of worse!) and you can go deeper on your peers knowledge and (even!) filter it, we can´t get better than that. :)
I think it's more about the quality of those relationships and how previous or subsequent mediated communication sets particular expectations of communcation norms in the ongoing relationship.
---
On texting: "It helps young people avoid conversation," said Turkle. "People text because it's easy and also because it allows you to not do the sometimes very hard work of confronting something difficult. You avoid conversations and you avoid looking someone in the eye and seeing that you hurt them, you avoid developing some of the very small but precious signals." She added that a lack of interpersonal interaction can have the unintended consequence of making people seem tactless."
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/18311327/detail.html
---
It's the constant availablity and increased conversational bandwidth of our various communication technologies – in sum – that influences these expectations. We don't always notice how technology subtly shapes our interactions and behavioural norms.
I've been tracking the 'always-on-call' expectation, which I've called 'Ambient Immediacy'
http://delicious.com/adamcrowe/ambientimmediacy
(...named after Leisa Reichelt's 'Ambient Intimacy': http://www.disambiguity.com/ambient-intimacy/ )
--
Constant connection makes us chronically impatient. We come to expect everything to happen at the touch of a button – and get angry when it doesn't. As the actress Carrie Fisher once quipped, these days "even instant gratification takes too long." The other day, my neighbour, a multitasking marketing executive, lost her BlackBerry; or thought she did. It turned out that her five year old daughter had hidden it. "I thought it would get you to listen to me when I talk," explained the little girl. Overdosing on mobile communication can also mess up the relationship we have with ourselves. Human beings need moments of silence and solitude: to rest and recharge, to think deeply and creatively, to look inside and confront the big questions, 'Who am I? How do I fit into the world? What is the meaning of life?'. That isn't likely to happen when your mind is constantly wondering if you have new email or if it's time for a fresh tweet.
http://www.receiver.vodafone.com/the-lamp-posts-on-brick-lane
--
I'd simply say that communication technology can both enhance and corrode relationships in very particular ways, due mostly to the unaccounted for expectations that technology both satisfies and frustrates – quite apart from people's intentions and emotions.
--
'We are learning to see ourselves as cyborgs, at one with our devices. To put it most starkly: To make more time means turning off our devices, disengaging from the always-on culture. But this is not a simple proposition, since our devices have become more closely coupled to our sense of our bodies and increasingly feel like extensions of our minds.' -- '"Being put on pause" is how one of my students describes the feeling of walking down the street with a friend who has just taken a call on his cell. "I mean I can't go anywhere; I can't just pull out some work. I've just been stopped in midsentence and am expected to remember, to hold the thread of conversation until he wants to pick it up again."
http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Can%20you%20hear%20me%20now.pdf
--
fabrications of people's personal online is no different than the fabrications of persona's we have in person to person interactions.
I question the... question? What is a relationship and how strong you think it is, is completely relative and dependent on the situation. Trying to define friendships and give meaning to relationships is only how you feel about it in your own head. There is never a real thing, just two people building prejudices about what they think the other person is "like" and who we think each other are. I don't discount that interpersonal interactions build deeper, more intuitive prejudices than online, most people like to fill in that subconscious profile of people they interact with, and meeting them fills that in faster and with more depth.
"There's no normal life, just life" -Doc Holiday, Tombstone. Just like there is no real relationship for fake, just relationships (digital or live).
Mike,
This is definitely an interesting question. One one hand, I agree with @Rick Liebling, who points out that it is the same "you" that interacts on and offline, so to the degree that you value the relationship, the venue shouldn't change much. However, the natural counterpoint to that is that many people assume different identities, or variations on their identity, online as apposed to when they are offline. I also connected with @Mark Schoneveld's point, because there is a lot to body language and the sharing of physical space and experience that influences relationships- those things create an intimacy that is hard to replicate with words and images.
Ultimately, I think this isn't going to be a cut and dry thing. For some, online technology is going to enable and enhance their relationships, while for others it may be neutral or even damaging. It really depends upon the person.
By the way, this peripherally relates to another in-real-life topic that I mentioned in a post back in January (http://www.newfangled.com/using_real_life_imagery_in_design). I was intending to talk more about the difference in experience from offline to online as it pertains to design, but you'll see from the comments that the discussion extended into relational territory like your post.
Chris
I was just doing some research on digital group dynamics, and saw this written by a PhD in Psychology:
"For a community to be healthy and productive - for it to have “staying” power - its members must integrate their online lives with their in-person lives ... As strong as online relationships can be, they are always made stronger when people meet in-person, when they commit to the intimacy of face-to-face encounters. While not everyone in the community can meet everyone else in-person, it is extremely helpful when there is a critical mass of people who have solidified their relationships offline. These people often become the stable, enduring core that hold the community together."
Here is the source
Hi Mike, great question. Sometimes a cartoon says it better than words. Check this one out!
http://bit.ly/schmooze
Hi Mike, the link in my earlier comment does not seem to work. I have pasted the longish one here. And I believe this cartoon captures it better than words.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=HLC3L7B905NL8LQS3C16XCVLLKWA2FT6&sitetype=1&did=4&sid=22719&pid=&keyword=schmooze§ion=all&title=undefined&whichpage=1&sortBy=popular
I completely agree that social media helps foster closer releationships with friends and acquaintances (how else would you remember everyone's birthdays?).
However, I would argue that relationships formed within virtual worlds (also mediated by digital technology) do not sit so well. These are platforms for escapism and as such not necessarily good foundations for meaningful relationships because they are so embedded in fantasy.
I would agree with you to a certain extent. The relationships we build are yes, an extension of a personal relationship. However, there are times where we become to plugged in with all the technology and networking tools we have at our fingertips. There are time when we should disconnect and start reconnecting with people on a more personal level and get back to a face to face relationship.
A little bit of everything:
If it's someone you already know IRL, then yes, online methods can help make the relationship stronger. It's especially great for keeping up with old friends who no longer cross your path on a regular basis.
I've met plenty of people online first (yourself, for example) and been able to carry that rapport over to the real world.
But there are definitely people who use online communication as a way of avoiding actual connections of the kind that happen in the real world. And I agree that meeting someone in person gives you a much better take on them than anything you could share online.
Like with many things, it's all what you make of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home