On (Mis)Communication

Recent comments on my Anne Rice post have caused me to think (again) about this precarious mode of interaction we have here on the Net. We are a collection of individuals from all walks of life, brought together by the connection of information flowing between our computers. More specifically, we've encountered each other on a particular form of interaction called Blogging. Blogging is a great tool for dialogue, an excellent way to post one's thoughts about life, philosophy, whatever. As many have said the emerging church may not have existed without it. But let's face facts, people - it's crap when it comes to communication.

When I was studying Social Psychology in college, we had a class on Symbolic Interactionism. This class discussed the use of symbols in language, and how meaning was transformed from our minds into symbols and back again. Simply put, we studied communication. I'll spare you the Social Science rundown of the issue. But I will give you the basic description of what communication is, and why Blogging is really quite a poor place for it.

This example is off the top of my head, so be gentle. I have a thought in my mind. This thought has meaning to me. It could be any thought, but let's just say that the thought is, "I'm hungry." Simple, no? Now supposing I'm on a date, and I want to communicate this to my date and let her know it's time to eat. I take the thought ("I'm hungry") and I put it into words - I encode it in a language common to us. But just saying "I'm hungry" isn't going to tell her what I want to do about it. So I choose to say, "Do you want to get something to eat?" The message, heavy with meaning for myself, is encoded and sent out.

My date receives the encoded message. Now she has to decode it. She takes "Do you want to get something to eat?" much differently than I meant it, though. The meaning that she receives is, "You're fat, do you want to go somewhere where you can stuff your face?" This meaning was not encoded in the original message. But she received it anyway. Now she throws her drink in my face and storms off. This confuses me greatly, as I thought I was communicating my hunger to her. She is now hurt because she thinks I was communicating dislike for her physical appearance, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. Not to me - I'm far too smooth. Or rather, I'm not just communicating with my words. The tone of my voice - light questioning as opposed to heavy sarcasm - my body language - casual, relaxed instead of bracing myself for physical violence - and my excessive salivation will all be adding to the words, "Do you want to get something to eat," and increasing the chance that the correct meaning will be perceived - namely, that I'm hungry, and I just want some chicken wings.

In the movie Hitch Will Smith's character states, "60% of Communication is Non-Verbal, 30% is Tone." While I'm not sure where he gets his numbers, I have to agree with the sentiment. So much of our communication is dependent not on our words but on how we say them. Take sarcasm for example - a simple statement such as "I'm sure you will do the right thing" can be either encouraging or biting depending on the tone it was said with. Our body language adds a great deal to our coded messages. I actually have a natural ability to read body language, one which I've cultivated over the years. In my line of work (YFC drop-in for troubled teens) I often learn more from the posture, walk, hand movements and muscle state from a teen than I do from what they actually tell me. It's like there's a hidden meaning in everything they say that I have to wade through conflicting signals to get at.

In Blogging/text-only communication, we have none of that. In Hitch terms, we are relying on the 10% of communication that includes no non-verbal cues. This creates ample opportunity for miscommunication, or for people receiving meaning from a message that was not intended to be sent. In Blogging especially (where high-intensity issues are often discussed) that means many, many chances for people to get hurt. My wife once pointed out to me (after she'd been following some of the blogs I frequented) that half the conversation was spent trying to explain "What I meant when I said that a few comments ago and why you needn't be upset" instead of actually talking about the subject at hand. Once misunderstandings happen, it's easy to have the conversation derail.

On a side note, part of the problem is that even our words don't mean the same thing to one another. "Fundamentalism" means something castly different to an Emerging Christian as opposed to a Reform Christian, or to a Sociologist. Words can have different definitions for people depending on their upbringing, socialization and current field(s) of expertise. When we don't have a common definition for a term or phrase, the chance of clear communication diminishes even more.

I do know that there are those who actually want to be insulting, who are actively trying to hurt or put down others. But I try not to assume that someone is. I think the best thing to do in any case is something that I struggle with doing - having the patience to back up, take a deep breathe, and ask for clarification. Saying, "I think you meant/implied this when you said X. Is that correct?" may prevent further miscommunication. I know it's not always easy to do (especially when tensions are high) but having patience may prevent more hurt and misunderstanding in the long run.

I enjoy Blogging, but I know there are pitfalls. In my opinion this is one of the more major ones, especially when hurt starts to happen. What about you guys? Any stories of crossed wires? Other drawbacks to text-only dialogue? Grey Owl wants to know.