"Although asynchronous communication all but guarantees that the e-mail messages we recieve were composed at some point in the past, there is a tendency to experience them as if they were being communicated in the present (Strate, Communication and Cyberspace. p. 379)."
When you are having an Instant Message conversation with someone over gchat, facebook or AIM there is a synchronous interaction happening. When you are reading an email thread or a discussion on a message board you are reading a asynchronous interaction. However when you read an IM and you read a discussion thread, what is the difference besides waiting for the instant reply from the other person? After you complete the IM conversation with with someone, you can go back and read the conversation as if it is happening instantly again. There is a "sense of immediacy," as Strate points out, when you read a discussion, whether synchronous or asynchronous, and the reader can't help but to feel that the conversation is happening instantanously when the reality is that it could have happened hours, days or weeks a part.
This is sort of related to an implied textual emotion. Those who text, IM and leave facebook wall posts know that a different connotation can be applied to any blurb of text and by adding symbols like "!!!!" or ":)" and can make all the difference. Sure, text is text and a word is a word, but when you add these symbols to your online writing, you create a textual personality for yourself almost to the point of others being able to sense if a person is not who they say they are on the other side based on the textual emotion being exuded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the idea of creating a "textual personality" is really interesting. It's quite an intriguing thought that you can create your own persona just through stringing words together. But I do think people need to be cautious with what they write and when they write it, because many times things you are expressing are not fully represented in text (for example, it is very hard to convey sarcasm online).
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with, what I guess, one could call obsession with the little parts of instant messaging. When "!" is used or a smiley, it can really change the dynamic of a conversation. It's the closest thing we have to what the percieving that a person really feels because all we have to base it off of is text of an instant message.
ReplyDeleteOutside of symbols online. It's interesting to note the effect of the way somebody types online as well as the font they choose.
ReplyDeleteFor example: In a discussion thread. If a person engaged in a serious (not flames) argument writes back "tYpiNg lYk3 DiZ" in pink comic sans font, I'm less likely to take them as serious as the person who properly formats their response with correct spelling.
For example, when somebody responds "your stupid!!!" the impression I get is this person just made a bigger fool of themself. Despite not seeing people face to face online, it's interesting how these textual personalities emerge.
The important point in all this is that we are constructing a self and presenting it to others when we communicate online, and these choices are not just content sent by the source, but also messages about the source.
ReplyDeleteEven with smiley faces, "!", and other textual convo symbols, the true expression from the speaker is never felt. It is often hard for the audience to tell if there is sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteThough asynchronous interaction makes day to day responsibilities more convenient, it does not replace face to face human interaction. I think this speaks to the idea that human beings are becoming too dependent on digital interaction. I believe that people can create what ever persona they want in the digital realm, therefore eliminating the true essence of communication. To me then any real, true, meaningful discussion between two parties is tainted because you may construe the meaning of words based on your own biases, and in turn any real interaction between the two parties may be mis-interpreted.
ReplyDelete