Virtual Miscommunication

It is no secret that social media has become a facet of daily life for those who are integrated. Nearly every single piece of media on the Internet is accompanied with a method of sharing it with friends and family through whatever social network is preferred. Not only is this effortless communication facilitated by the growing amount of individuals using social media, it has extended to the point where a person can market themselves to prospective employers, buyers, sellers, friends, or virtual lovers with ease. The convenience of online interaction is clear; however, this technology has started to render personal communication impotent. Essentially, it has established the framework for creating an alternate reality where an individual’s words take precedence without intention, and created a disconnect between what is said and what is meant, so much of it is lost in an obscure mist of impersonal communication.

While we can logically read and effectively understand written words, their meaning can be incoherent because the text lacks a human element. In her article "Is Social Media Sabotaging Real Communication?," Susan Tardanico suggests that “Awash in technology, anyone can hide behind the text” and present their ‘preferred’ face, coloring all of their interactions. Social media is an effective proxy to interpersonal communication. Its brevity ensures quick communication without having to put forth the effort to actually seek out the other half of the conversation. However, “the potential of misinterpretation is growing” (Tardanico). Because we do not hear voice inflections nor do we see body language, we are likely to misconstrue messages or misunderstand the emotion behind the text.  

People are unable to transfer their true emotions in online interactions. Consider a pair of co-workers asking one another for a favor. One responds with a brief answer, and he or she provides no other indication to how he or she is feeling. How does the second co-worker interpret the response? Perhaps, he or she interprets the response as annoyed, so he or she feels confused as to what he or she did wrong. This assumption may eventually lead to an unnecessary confrontation. On the other hand, that brief response may be indicative of someone who flatly “doesn’t want to engage” (Tardanico). This is the incongruity of social media and the evolution of communication. While online communication is incredibly convenient, “we are more connected – and potentially more disconnected – than ever before” (Tardanico). With the growing prevalence and advancements of electronic communication, there is less commitment to developing a face-to-face interpersonal relationship. 

In addition, online messaging does not allow writers to share nonverbal communication. For example, as Ana Nogales suggests in her article “Family Secrets,” an electronic message “cannot convey the nuance of a facial expression” or any other minute complexities. There are key components of interaction that are lost with electronic communication. Namely, the person’s “body language, facial expression, and the tone and inflection” are essential to clearly understanding the intent behind it (Nogales). In any text-based form of communication, none of these could ever be accurately replicated. Beyond this, a relationship between two people cannot fully cultivate “deep, [and] more authentic relationships” (Tardanico). A recurring problem with technology acting as a replacement for face-to-face conversation is that nearly all of the intricacies of communication disappear. 

With this in mind, it is clear to see that communication via the internet is severely limited and becomes problematic by saying too little while meaning too much—or even the opposite. Nogales emphasizes that “A certain dimension of emotion is missing” without human interaction. Because when the human element of this interaction is missing, it loses most, if not all, of its emotion. As Tardanico explains, a conversation’s “context [is] stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases.” In this sense, we no longer have to commit to deep, personal interactions.

The capacity for anonymity on the Internet carries a weighted influence. John Bargh and Katelyn McKenna suggest that with some venues on the Internet allowing individuals to be “relatively anonymous,” their actions, thoughts, and feelings can certainly correlate to their anonymity.  While this is less relevant for some popularized social networking websites such as Facebook, users can still create personalities that they deem suitable to their needs and desires, and one that does not necessarily bear much similarity to their actual personas. 

Accordingly, this is directly influential on developing a relationship. This anonymity offers a veil, particularly for “chat rooms or newsgroups” (Bargh and McKenna). Primarily, this veil offers comfort which allows for users to communicate with others, and thereby not truly be held accountable for their thoughts and ideas. Moreover, the impersonality of words can represent “a completely different reality” (Tardanico).With a degree of inventiveness, anyone who communicates through text will be able to convey a message completely independent of how they might actually feel.  

Technology will undoubtedly continually be a crucial part of modern life and its presence will only spread throughout the world. Despite all of its benefits, it is important to remember that the key to communication and developing long-lasting relationships is not hidden within social networking or technological communications. Because it will only become more ingrained, technology’s facilitations of communication cannot be treated as a replacement for developing relationships and having a conversation away from the keyboard.

Works Cited

Bargh, John A., and Katelyn Y.A. McKenna. The Internet and Social Life. N.p.: University of Vermont Libraries, 10 July 2008. PDF. <http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2004/bargh2004a.pdf>.

Nogales, Ana. "Family Secrets." Psychology Today. N.p., 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 28 June 2013.

Tardanico, Susan. "Is Social Media Sabotaging Real Communication?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 27 June 2013.