This week’s readings shed light on the trade offs between face-to-face conversation (FtF) and the developing computer mediated communication (CMC). From CMC as solely a medium for the transmission of data and email in its early years, we have now warped it to create our own unique community, adhering to various societal needs. Last week we discussed in class how we feel text based communication is impersonal and we only practice it for our convenience. We have already identified these limitations such as non-verbal cues, which at times disclose more about a communicator and conversation than the actual words being spoken. Interestingly, the readings pointed out that because of the lack of non-verbal cues, CMC communicators rely heavily on minimal cues and eventually engage in expression that cannot be done through FtF. I can think of various examples that we use via facebook, aim, or other blog/networking sites, such as the common happy faces, the “hehe”, overemphasis on text using “!”, and text slang like, “kewl.” Through this expression, we save ourselves from becoming a transactional being like the computer. The new ways of expression we create through CMC shape our individuality.
On the other hand, the readings noted that through CMC communicators strengthen their decision-making process, rationality, and increased task orientation all through a transactional process. Surprisingly, the anonymity of a CMC group creates greater cohesiveness. Here there is a greater distribution of group member communication, and a lack of dominance or charisma between members that create effective CMC groups. With these barriers that we find in common FtF communication absent, communicators in CMC have significantly higher levels of self disclosure and hyperpersonality (psychological processes that exceed FtF interpersonal communication). This we saw happen in the chat rooms on Wednesday. Anonymity allows one to comfortably express their true self, which is why we saw people randomly disclose their likes and dislikes in a wide range of topics in the chat rooms. The notion of hyperpersonality, was clearly illustrated in the dialog between Dark Mystery and The Flame, where Dark Mystery said something along the lines of , “The Flame looks at the ground and sees a hose..” The creativity here wouldn’t normally be used in FtF conversation.
Some questions I have for discussion are:
1. How do you feel about the inevitable over reliance on minimal cues that we use to get to know communicators through CMC? Do you find it a hassle, impractical, or convenient? How do you rely on these cues?
2. Research shows that long term CMC groups have less attraction and affinity if they see a still picture of a fellow communicator. Why do you think this is?
3. The readings reveal how CMC groups are task effective. Our last reading discussed collective action through CMC. Do you think collective action movements via CMC have a better chance than through FtF communication?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Here are my answers to your discussion questions:
1. I find minimal cues to be convenient and annoying. The use of minimal cues in CMC is convenient because it is a way for communicators to better express themselves in a limited text-based form of communication. Your example of the happy face is a convenient and simple method of expressing one's emotion/facial gesture :) But I find minimal cues to also be annoying, as the cues can become too abstract for one to understand such as internet slang "nvm" or "np." However, I rely do rely on even the annoying minimal cues when I'm instant messaging in a hurry or if I'm set on leaving a short and simple message to whoever I'm communicating with.
2. The still image may deconstruct the anonymity for the communicators, and because being anonymous is a huge part in certain CMC, it may be the reason to the lower attraction/affinity in long term CMC groups.
3. I think collective action through CMC can be more effective than FtF communication because of its convenience. Collective action through CMC is more accessible and it can reach a broader group of people. An example would be the event application in Facebook. Instead of meeting up to discuss and plan events, my friends and I resort to planning, inviting guests, and communicating to the guests through mass messaging in the Facebook events application.
I agree,minimal cues are essential in the way we communicate in CMC. Nonetheless, I think that CMC leaves a lot of room for uncertainty and misunderstandings, like we discussed in class. Perhaps it is true that CMC in the work place is more tast driven, but I feel that misinterpretations can happen often and hinder the effectiveness of CMC.
I was reading an article that discusses the miscommunication that occurs through CMC.
The article discussed how a study had been conducted to test the effectiveness of emails. Even though communicators thought they were being effective in sending their messages and the receivers thought they had correctly interpreted the email, 56% of them had misinterpreted the email message.
The article discusses the limitations of CMC. It mentions some of the problems seen in our readings, but it also mentions one problem I thought important to highlight.
'the prospect of instantaneous communication creates an urgency that pressures e-mailers to think and write quickly, which can lead to carelessness'.
This made me think of myself in the workplace. I often finish off tasks fast just so that I can respond to an email fast enough. Therefore, I believe that even though it is argued that tasks are better achieved through CMC, it is very important for internet users to be aware of the costs that can result from CMC.
The article I make reference to is: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/p13s01-stct.html
I used to be resistant to using cues (emoticons, italics, etc.) until I realized that though they are a hassle, and though they are sometimes difficult to understand, they are sometimes essential for actually getting my point across in text-based communication.
While I understand the argument that these visual cues are needed in CMC, I have to disagree. While visual cues are important, I also believe that tone and pace are important in communication. Both of these features of communication involve the spoken word (not just the spoken word face-to-face). I find it interesting that there has been little discussed about the differences between CMC and phone conversation, which is most-definitely not FtF.
As for the second question, I believe that the sense of mystery that is involved in CMC amongst strangers is appealing to some people. They can make the person they are talking to look like anybody they want. This is lost when an image of the person is shown, therefore removing that appeal.
Finally, while I understand the argument that groups can be more task effective using CMC, I still believe it is necessary (and much more efficient) to meet FtF. Groups can organize online easily, making planning and logistics a much simpler task. However, I still believe that in order to get people thinking and moving, there is a need for a meeting. It's hard to generate a mob-mentality online, while a group meeting stirs up emotions and gets people moving.
Post a Comment