In his book, Metaphysics of Presence, 20th century philosopher Jacques Derrida asserts that people tend to assume that words alone – words without the assistance of voice, body language, facial expressions, etc. – can capture “presence” in a person… but he makes clear that this is a false assumption!
Our words, according to Derrida, communicate only a fraction of the meaning that can be communicated with our total presence (e.g. body, body movement, voice, smell, etc.) and thus, words taken alone are unreliable.
Decades later, Derrida’s philosophies are now supported by a large body of scientific research. Words (textual cues) are responsible, we now know, for about 7% of a first impression that occurs during face-to-face conversations. 55% of that impression is communicated through body language, facial expressions, and smell (visual and olfactory cues). And 38% is communicated through tone, syncopation, and style of one’s speech (auditory cues).
Why are words so unreliable when it comes to first impressions?
Well, because words without physical presence offer almost no solid evidence about who we are and what we’re really communicating… for three primary reasons:
- We like to lie! Research shows that people lie about twenty-five times per day… or between one and six times per conversation. People lie more when they know they’re less likely to get caught… and they are less likely to get caught when there is little evidence to corroborate or debunk their claims (like in an instant message conversation… where very little we might say about ourselves can be confirmed).
- We don’t know ourselves nearly as well as we think! Research shows that our expressed preferences are a function of biochemical hardwiring that makes us partial to what we already know and like… rather than what we might (and likely will) know and like if we give ourselves the opportunity to experience it. When we communicate using words alone, for instance on a dating site, the process of formulating those words forces us to make decisions and statements that are partially true or even false.
- Words are ambiguous. This is why, for instance, there are so many denominations of Christianity. Every denomination – and every pastor within that denomination – interprets the Bible differently.
On the other hand, physical presence gives words “meaning” that they couldn’t otherwise suggest without it! The benefits of presence are evidenced by how it allows us to address the above communication problems.
- On dealing with lies: When people lie to us in person, we aren’t just absorbing their lie. We are also watching their body language, listening to the tone of their voice, and using other cues to better judge the “meaning” and “truth” in their words.
- On getting to know people despite people not knowing themselves: Though we may think we prefer a certain characteristic in a mate (a full head of hair, for instance), mere exposure to someone who doesn’t have it… but has other qualities we like, can often changes our minds (just ask my mother!).
- On clear communication: Words are highly ambiguous. To gain clarity, we often need much more than just more words! We get that context from presence. Our voices, syncopation, body movements, facial expressions, etc. all work together to provide clarity and convey “meaning” in ways that words alone can’t do.
Presence is a requirement for people who want to make “meaningful” connections. Without presence… communication is oftentimes too unreliable to take seriously.
Yet technology has evolved to enable communication with little to no presence (instant messaging services, e-mail, blogs, etc.)… and with each passing day, it gets easier to bypass presence in favor of quicker, easier forms of communication that can potentially reach more people.
And the results are telling. Studies have shown that although people have successfully used social networks to maintain already established connections, they haven’t been nearly as successful in facilitating new “meaningful” connections. And though millions of people have flocked to online dating sites – because they are a faster way to reach more potential dates – not a single study published in a scientific journal has shown that dating sites are a more effective meeting place than real life… but many studies have shown the contrary.
So what? Should we toss our computers in the garbage and start introducing ourselves to people at coffee shops? No and not unless we want to!
But we should take the benefits of physical presence very seriously as we continue to create newer, more “meaningful” technologies. If we can infuse online connections with some of the benefits of offline “presence”, then we can start to create an online world where “meaningful connections” (whether in romance, business, government, or friendship) are at our fingertips…
So how do technologists pull this off? Well… Wilford and I are revealing our thoughts to alpha testers of our super-stealthy Web 6.0 technology right now… and we’ll be revealing them to you in a beta version of Avanoo soon. But in the meantime, I’d like to hear some of your thoughts!
Best,
Dan
I think this is a great point, and a very astute observation that even a lot of people caught up in the speculation over “web 2.0″ futures fail to make. I’d say that the lack of accountability and verifiability is the single largest obstacle the net now faces on the road to becoming, as you say, meaningful.
Ultimately what gives individuals credibility in the real world has little relevance online. Online identity in its current form to me is almost analogous to branding. That is, to a typical user Newsweek online is going to be more a more credible source of information than someone’s blog. And in the cases where individuals’ blogs have become credible in most cases it takes time, committed toward establishing an online presence that demonstrates expertise in a given field. For better or worse, it doesn’t matter who you are - you have to demonstrate value in a very different way than we’re accustomed to in the real world. People are - rightfully - still very skeptical of the internet and connections it might enable because it remains a very impersonal place. They say that people love to hide behind the anonymity of the internet but growing number of people are consciously longing for a digital equivalent of that “presence” you speak of. And obviously MySpace etc. are only incremental steps toward real identity and presence.
Great piece, very insightful. I look forward to seeing what you’re working on!