Technology and Virtual Communication

So for those who don't know me personally, I have issues with virtual communication - if you know me personally you have to be aware of my love/hate relationship with IMs and emails and webboards etc...

What is my problem with such things? Well, earlier i posted on the dangers of communities and being held responsible to such communities (http://originalrudeboi.blogspot.com/2005/04/virtual-identitycommunity.html) .. but I want to tackle this issue in a different way.

So I've recently been having conversations about enhancments to the virtual communication bit. One of the early problems is that with simple text (in an email, an IM or on a message board or blog) much of the communicative information is lost. Ya know, things like sarcasm or gestures and other non-verbal cues. This has got to be accurate. I won't dispute it.

What I want to throw sand into is the idea that things that help give these missing modes of information back - are better. In fact, I think they are worse. I'm referring now to webcams that give you access to gestures and expressions and oral communication through telephones, or now through teleconferencing and microphones/speakers.

The argument goes that as technology improves, we will be able to better substitute face-to-face interaction - and noone thinks it should be substituted when its possible, but rather that when people are thousands of miles apart - hey the closer we can get to the real thing the better. And I think, I disagree.

We all know that a picture isn't the same as a person - that the human on camera (in the movie) is no reflection upon reality, and that even our home videos never seem to "get it" or "us" -- we don't sound right on recordings and over the phone, we hate our voice on answering machines and so many folks claim to be "camera shy." Sure this is all anecdotal, but the point remains that cameras (video and still) and recording devices just do not capture - life. Even Kodak admitted that in an add campaign by saying "as close to life as possible" stuff. So what? This isn't disputed methinks, but rather the idea is that this Kodak Quality is better than no Kodak Quality - or more specifically, better than just Words on a Page.

But this seems to fail in something - the attentiveness we offer words. Words are good. Language is one of the most powerful tools known to man. The ability to express oneself articulately, or creatively boggles most minds. They do indeed have a huge impact - when used properly and given proper attention. Sure sarcasm doesn't come through easily over IM, but is that in the fault of the medium (partially) in the speaker (partially) and in the listener (partially). The truth is, written sarcasm can be expressed very clearly - read anything by Christopher Moore to find it. The problem is that the medium doesn't help in its essence - but more importantly the way the medium pushes US, as users into certain modes of being, and in particular, modes of attentiveness is the problem. OUR ability to focus and articulate and "listen" clearly is what the medium doesn't encourage. Not with "smilies" not with all sorts of distracting buddy icon, pictures, animations, advertisements, etc...

And thus, we get to webcams and the like. I think they do not help encourage attentiveness to "communication" or "getting what the other person is trying to say." I think the written text can do that better, and with more force. It seems that the webcam offers a strong illusion of connection, but its still not reality - and it takes away the focus from written communication into something both visual and oral. Whats wrong with this? Well studies show that as professors show powerpoints, students learn less. Studies show that its more difficult to present information through a visual media than a print (the telecast news show over the newspaper). All in all, we as people do NOT respond to these "visual and audio" technologies in strong ways. When we see simple written text AND we want to learn something - we absorb more from IT than we do when we see complicated images and sounds and text AND we want to learn something. Bottom line, is that while the webcams and sound thingies might "seem" good, i think its more visual or mental masturbation than better communication than a blog. Maybe. I'm prepared to rethink this....but you'll have to show me that this video and teleconferencing indeed encourages active attention to the other.....