Communication: RL vs. IM

[Adahn]

[size=2]I've toyed with this idea for a while, and I thought it would make an interesting topic to discuss.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Just for clarity, RL stands for "real life" and IM stands for "instant messaging".[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The purpose of this topic is to compare and contrast communicating in person, and communicating over the internet through an instant messaging system. I exclude writing on forums and private messaging because they are more related to writing letters than speaking face to face.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]As is expected, I will begin with my own thoughts on the subject.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][b]Communicating in person:[/b][/size]
[b][size=2][/size][/b]
[b][size=2]Pros:[/size][/b]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]When communicating in person, one can get a good 'feel' for the other person. That all-important first impression really can only occur when two people meet face to face. There is body language, tone of voice, response time, and all other aspects of a conversation that are lacking in internet communication. Not many people are touchy-feely, but there is the option of physical contact, such as physically comforting someone if they are distressed about something. Some people can hide their emotions and intentions, but discovering such things can be easier in person, depending on the type of person you're talking to. Some things can be hidden or faked by noone, like a genuine smile. Flirtacious looks and gestures can be used to show a romantic interest in someone. The last thing I'll mention is that while someone can lie about their identity, you probably won't mistake a 40-year old balding fat man for a smokin' hot 18-year old girl.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[b][size=2]Cons:[/size][/b]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]When talking in person, one's insecurities can be at their strongest, especially for the self-conscious. Some things you may have wished to hide will come out while speaking in person, and nothing said can be taken back once spoken. Depending on how you perceive someone, you may choose not to approach someone due to their looks, or how they carry themselves, when in fact you may have many good things to share with each other. There is less privacy in person, unless you are alone and secluded, which are probably not the best conditions for meeting new people. Also, in person there is always the fear of being the object of undesired advances, be they sexual or something different in nature. Some people are quite skilled at deception in person, and can charm someone to do something they may later regret. When speaking, one has less time to think about what to say, as a pause for any amount of time will become awkward. Lastly, if one [i]does [/i]want to pretend to be someone else (roleplay), it can be harder in person to lower one's inhibitions enough to really get into it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I was going to write out the pros and cons of IM communication, but they're pretty much the opposite of what is written above, so I won't bother repeating myself.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Well, what do you guys think?[/size]
[b][size=2][/size][/b]

[visualkei]

Well, Adahn, since you've already stated some pros and cons for RL, and added that the pros and cons of IM is about the opposite, I'll just add a little more about IM.

[B]Instant Messaging:[/B]
[QUOTE]
Some things you may have wished to hide will come out while speaking in person, and nothing said can be taken back once spoken. [/QUOTE]
What I think is most advantageous about IM is that you always have the option of erasing what you've said before you press that "enter" button. Since IM is a written or typed message, there is a lot of room to edit what comes out before the other person reads it. In IM you can sound witty and intelligent if you wanted to. The person at the other end of the line didn't know that it took you 10 seconds to think of a smart reply (or do a quick online research), whereas in real life there is a wait time when your replies may seem too late to affect the moment.

And in IM communication, you can delude yourself into believing what the person is actually like. All you see is what they've written, and it's up to you to interpret what it means. You can think that the smiley face that comes with the IM means that the person is being light-hearted, joking, or sincere. That person you're communicating with, their image is mostly up to you. By image I mean a sort of idea of what their personality is like if you were to never see or hear them speak.

Yes, it's easy to conceal your identity with IM. It's also easy to be honest, because there's no RL social risks associated with IM. You can reveal a lot of things by talking through IM.

There is a certain convenience with IM. It allows you to multitask or ignore someone without seeming you're ignoring them. All the while still "conversating" with them.

[B]Real Life:[/B]
It's just easier to hold back, restrain in real life.

[QUOTE]Some things can be hidden or faked by noone, like a genuine smile.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes, you don't need to communicate to people in words. It's great to have someone you know you can be around, and not have to say a single word. That's definately something you can't do with IM.


Your identity in IM may be separate from RL, but it's an identity. You can't be one face all the time. There are a lot of pros and cons with each, and they're different ways of communicating. You can do without IM, but you can't do without RL. These are both ways to interact with other people, and it's up to you to shape what kind of identity you want in each.

[Mnemonica]

Hey. New kid cuttin' in on the conversation. :) Here's hoping you don't mind.

This is an interesting topic that I actually had to write a short essay on recently. Communication over the internet, especially through IM, is the best possible example of impersonal communication. You can be a complete jerk to the person on the other side of the chat screen, and suffer very little, if any, consequences. This whole train of thought generally grinds down to how children are affected by impersonal communication, which is where I'll skip to in a second... Just to save some time. Let's pray that I don't condense it too much.

This is one of the many arguments: Children exposed to impersonal communication at a young age, and who have had little exposure to face-to-face communication with people outside of their family, will be underdeveloped socially. And, if there are a large group of children who have grown up in roughly the same environment, and then became more involved in face-to-face communication later on, their 'impersonal social skills' would be transfered over to their 'real life' social skills.

Now all of that's fairly general. So I'll highlight a few things that I think are key. First off, by young I mean someone who has not yet self-identified. People who have been abused sexually/emotionally generally don't have complete self identification until they reach their late thirties or early forties (which would explain certain statistics concerning divorce, but that's another topic entirely). A couple of the reasons self-identification is important before impersonal communication is introduced in an individual's life are as follows; there will not be consequences for the individuals actions/words, there isn't a whole lot of verbal communication, and of course there's a lack of body language.

Consequences are important because without them, an individual cannot learn, or will refuse to.

Verbal communication is important, because that is (generally) how human children first learn to communicate. And verbal communication outside of the family is essential because it allows the individual an opportunity to step outside of their 'comfort zone' (which practically doesn't exist in impersonal communication). And learn things such as the fact that yelling isn't always associated with getting into trouble. ;)

And last but not least, body language. This isn't necessarily essential, but I still find it interesting. It seems that most people less accustom to face-to-face communication have a very hard time understanding body language. This is due, I believe, to a couple of very obvious things. Such as the fact that you cannot see somebody if you're IMing. Things such as sarcasm and subtle humor are very hard to pick up on if an individual is under-exposed to verbal communication and body language. This trickles down to other forms of communication, and in the end hinders the individual's ability to communicate.

Bottom line: There are pathways in the brain that need to be created, and a person must attain their self identity before impersonal communication is allowed. This is due to the fact that if these things are not accomplished before hand, then impersonal communication will hinder that person's future emotional, social, and mental development.

[Adahn]

[font=Tahoma]visualkei,

You said a lot of things I had thought of, but left out. I agree with what you said, especially about having time to think about what you type.

Mnemonica,

It's a pleasure to have you here:animesmil

Your post makes a lot of sense. I hadn't considered what it would be like to grow up in an environment where IM'ing could cast a shadow over one's personal interactions, because I was already communicating quite well before Instant Messaging become useful and available.

Since you have such a rich understanding of the topic, I'd like to hear what you have to say about people our age, who have already socially matured before IM'ing became available. It seemed to me that you talked mostly about the consequences of younger people using it in place of personal interactions. What do you think about us?
[/font]

[Mnemonica]

Honestly I think we're a different breed entirely. There are three main groups of 'online chatters'. The first being the up and coming generation (Middle schoolers, and now high schoolers or younger), the second being the of college/late twenties peer group, and the third being from the early thirties and on.

Obviously there are a couple of different sub-groups, but that's kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. When you're talking about the second group (us), it varies depending on whether you grew up in a pc or mac based house-hold... Just kidding. There really isn't a whole lot to go on, seeing as how most of us adapted to impersonal communication after already self-identifying, it seems that the majority is very well rounded. There is the odd case where an individual uses all caps when 'yelling' (so you can hear them better, obviously), or chats using 'txt speak'... But that isn't the majority. So that boils down to how they developed personally with impersonal communication being either a small part of their social learning experience or not a part of it at all (e.i. it's another thing that's outside the realm of the current topic).

There is a certain point at which the peer groups show proof of a definite split. The point being around '93-'95... Before that point computers were fairly common, but not everybody used them to communicate with others via the internet. Basically if you were born in '91 or later, you've probably always had access to the internet in some form. Everyone born before that point, but later than ~'70, is the transition group commonly referred to as 'us'. ;) We grew up knowing about computers, and most of us have experienced life with computer that had no internet access.

Ask a twelve year old what he'd do without the internet, he'd probably resort to asking his mom to bring him to the mall. How embarrassing.

Ask a twenty year old what he'd do without the internet when he was twelve, he'll probably say something about calling some friends on the phone and asking them to come over.

Ask a fifty year old what he'd do without the internet when he was twelve, he'd go outside and play with a stick, or do chores, or kill a small animal.

[visualkei]

[B]Mnemonica:[/B]
[QUOTE]Children exposed to impersonal communication at a young age, and who have had little exposure to face-to-face communication with people outside of their family, will be underdeveloped socially. And, if there are a large group of children who have grown up in roughly the same environment, and then became more involved in face-to-face communication later on, their 'impersonal social skills' would be transfered over to their 'real life' social skills.[/QUOTE]

IM is impersonal, popular since the nineties, and there is a large number of children using it as a form of communication. I don't think it necessarily has a negative effect on developing social skills. Children can use impersonal communication as a step toward face-to-face communication. I'm not basing this on scientific research, just generalizing, but it's worth considering. There are other opportunities to socialize such as by going to school or doing extracurricular activities. Since there has been a rise in the emphasis on the importance of education, school has extended opportunities for children to participate in activities before/after school with other children. Not only that, but school goals have changed, with more emphasis on developing on socialization and cooperation skills in the past 10 years. This is where they often exchange IM information, communicate, and even network with each other, and each other's friends. I definately think that the internet has made it easy for children to gain and keep up with "friends." It's an additional tool they can use to communicate to other people.

I do agree with you that if this is their main means of communication and they do not step out of their comfort zone, it will hurt their social skills development. But I think that for "normal" 12 year olds who use the internet, by the time they're 15, they've mastered how to navigate the internet and network with people by adding friends to their IM lists that they've accumulated. They still socialize as much the other "generations" did when they were our age, but they just have different means and choices now.

I don't disagree with the general statement you made about asking a 12 year old today what they'd do w/o a computer, and they'll answer to be taken to the mall. The way I see it, though, more stores and entertainment places have grown in the U.S. in the past 2 decades giving kids more choices. Kids often meet kids up. They go to the mall or the movies together, and they're still with other kids. It doesn't say much about their socializing, just that the places in which they socialize are different.

[sakurasuka]

[quote name='visualkei'] I don't think it necessarily has a negative effect on developing social skills. Children can use impersonal communication as a step toward face-to-face communication.[/quote]

[FONT=Arial][size=1]I agree with nearly every aspect of your post except this bit. Online communication shouldn't be considered a prerequisite, or even first-step to real world interaction, as that would cause immense social deformity.

The kiddos shouldn't be given keyboards and mouses 'till they know how to act and conversate in person. Who knows what sort of relations a 10-13 year old will foster with online strangers without first gaining proper knowledge of social interaction?

But in the end, it is up to the parental figures of each child how often/when they're allowed online.

Personally, I'm somewhat cyber-crippled. I never did make friends well as a child, Neopets boards became my crutch. Thankfully I'm not quite as socially awkward anymore, but I really do wish my mother would have regulated my internet conversations a bit more as a child.

[/size][/FONT]

[Boo]

[quote name='sakurasuka][FONT=Arial][size=1]Personally, I'm somewhat cyber-crippled. I never did make friends well as a child, Neopets boards became my crutch. Thankfully I'm not quite as socially awkward anymore, but I really do wish my mother would have regulated my internet conversations a bit more as a child.[/size'][/FONT][/quote][size=1]Maybe you were just socially awkward anyway. I can't say that internet improves you socially, but you can't completely blame your social awkwardness on the internet. It was probably just a way to be able to act social without the awkward situations that you'd normally have.
[/size]

[Japan]

[QUOTE=Boo][size=1]Maybe you were just socially awkward anyway. I can't say that internet improves you socially, but you can't completely blame your social awkwardness on the internet. It was probably just a way to be able to act social without the awkward situations that you'd normally have.
[/size][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkRed]
When I was growing up, I was already somewhat shy and very conscious of my actions. Internet was just a 'safe haven' so to speak. In way for me to be myself and be as silly or goofy as I wanted. It gave me a chance to not care or care as much as I wanted. Though, in a way, I do prefer IM over RL mainly because I stutter a lot sometimes and it takes me a while to say things the way I want them. I end up saying some really stupid stuff because of my disability as it takes me a while to process information.

Do not get me wrong, I do love the physical aspect of real life. As I learned from online relationships....IM is great and all, but nothing beats the physical aspect of real life.[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Japan_86][COLOR=DarkRed']As I learned from online relationships....IM is great and all, but nothing beats the physical aspect of real life.[/COLOR][/quote]
[size=1]Very true. I don't think the internet hinders social development, but when it becomes a replacement for real life social interaction it is detrimental. Using internet conversation as a retreat from real social interaction is a problem... you end up being afraid of talking to a physical person.[/size]

[Mnemonica]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']you end up being afraid of talking to a physical person.[/size][/quote]
That's the perfect example of an extreme situation. The problem lies with people who have not self-identified using impersonal communication on a daily bases. I use the term "self-identified" or "self identification" a lot because it is the barrier between the solidification of ones own ideas, beliefs and personal freedom... And the state of being a child, really.

A person can learn to adapt to life without ever self identifying, and this can be seen in abusive relationships (individuals that are raised by abusive parents generally marry an abusive spouse), some cases of -slight- mental deficiency, and in individuals that lack a sense of tact. I believe, and have seen, that most middle school children who have grown up with unrestricted access to various forms of impersonal communication are hindered in their understanding of social enviornments in general. And sense impersonal communication has very little consequences, it does not provide sufficient instruction to be an acceptable tool for social development before an individual has self-identified. I think the pieces fall together quite nicely.

That's really the only point that I have so far. Because once you get past that barrier, impersonal communication becomes slightly more personal.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]the question here is 'does talking irl matter?' After all, if a generation was born on AIM, wouldn't it be enough for them? There standard? The things which are limitations to us aren't there for them.

I like the idea of internet communication dominating IRL. Why? Because in real life we contain ourselves. We forfit our ambitions and dreams in hopes of keeping alive. I think a lot of that is changing now. With the internet, people can do whatever they want, befriend people they actually like, fall in love with people they actually love, and live their real dreams. To us it may seem weird, but to them it won't.

Ignoring the imminant world war beginning no more than 2 years from now, I think it won't be long before we establish some form of virtual reality internet where we could directly interact. IRL will be useless at that point.[/COLOR]

[Boo]

[size=1][center]:stupid:[/center]

I'm sorry, but you're still alive. You'll have to somewhat have to remain alive on the world without the virtual/digital world. The idea of a whole internet communication thing dominating actual face-to-face communication is thinkable, but it would just mess up the world. If there's one place where people can act like something they're not, it's the internet.[/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange']the question here is 'does talking irl matter?' After all, if a generation was born on AIM, wouldn't it be enough for them? There standard? The things which are limitations to us aren't there for them.[/COLOR][/quote][size=1]Of course it matters. You miss out on an essential component of the human experience if you don't talk in real life. There's a deeper level to communication that transcends words; facial expressions, tone, pitch, sarcasm, inflection, you miss all of those by talking on AIM. Communication would be horribly crippled without face to face communication.

[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange]I like the idea of internet communication dominating IRL. Why?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]Quite possibly because you're afraid of talking IRL? Just a guess.[/size]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[quote name='Retribution']Of course it matters. You miss out on an essential component of the human experience if you don't talk in real life. There's a deeper level to communication that transcends words; facial expressions, tone, pitch, sarcasm, inflection, you miss all of those by talking on AIM. Communication would be horribly crippled without face to face communication.[/quote]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]Did you ignore the part about virtual communication? It's not very far away. It isn't until that point that Internet communication tkes over.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Retribution']Quite possibly because you're afraid of talking IRL? Just a guess.[/quote]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]Ah, my true reason was right there in my post. I don't enjoy the people around me. I don't enjoy the limitations of life based on location. I have no fear of interpersonal communication, in fact I do it all the time, but it's a horribly disappointing action.[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange']Did you ignore the part about virtual communication? It's not very far away. It isn't until that point that Internet communication tkes over.[/COLOR][/quote][size=1]I assure you, I didn't ignore that part. The fact of the matter is internet communication is probably not going to "take over". That's a sort of thing people said about TV, the telephone, and e-mail. Don't be silly.

So to answer your question, yes IRL communication matters. It's value is immeasurable. Those who don't communicate with people IRL usually don't get very far in life. Social ability is a skill that gets you far in life. So go ahead and argue its obsolescence -- you're really walking into a dead end with that train of thought.

[QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange]Ah, my true reason was right there in my post. I don't enjoy the people around me. I don't enjoy the limitations of life based on location. I have no fear of interpersonal communication, in fact I do it all the time, but it's a horribly disappointing action.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]I won't really bother arguing with that, considering it's your opinion.[/size]

[visualkei]

[QUOTE=sakurasuka][FONT=Arial][size=1]I agree with nearly every aspect of your post except this bit. Online communication shouldn't be considered a prerequisite, or even first-step to real world interaction, as that would cause immense social deformity.

The kiddos shouldn't be given keyboards and mouses 'till they know how to act and conversate in person. Who knows what sort of relations a 10-13 year old will foster with online strangers without first gaining proper knowledge of social interaction?

But in the end, it is up to the parental figures of each child how often/when they're allowed online.

Personally, I'm somewhat cyber-crippled. I never did make friends well as a child, Neopets boards became my crutch. Thankfully I'm not quite as socially awkward anymore, but I really do wish my mother would have regulated my internet conversations a bit more as a child.

[/size][/FONT][/QUOTE]

I think my statement has been taken out of context. What I mean is for normal children who have RL social experiences. They can use IM as a means to extend their social networking or choices of communication with others. I don't even want to imagine giving a kid a keyboard before sending them to pre-school.

[QUOTE]
[B]Boo:[/B]
Maybe you were just socially awkward anyway. I can't say that internet improves you socially, but you can't completely blame your social awkwardness on the internet. It was probably just a way to be able to act social without the awkward situations that you'd normally have. [/QUOTE]
I agree with Boo on this point, too. I don't think you should credit your social awkwardness so much to your dependence on the internet. The internet provided an additional choice for you to interact with others.

[sakurasuka]

[quote name='Boo']Maybe you were just socially awkward anyway. I can't say that internet improves you socially, but you can't completely blame your social awkwardness on the internet. It was probably just a way to be able to act social without the awkward situations that you'd normally have.[/quote]

[FONT=Arial][size=1]I never blamed the interwebs, kiddo. I blame my un-restricted use of it. An eleven year old homeschooled girl who's never made a real friend in her life isn't going to be likely to make any sort of effort to sociallize with peers if she has unlimited access to alternative impersonal means of communication. Which is why children shouldn't have unlimited access to the internet.

You see, I have absolutely no problem with online communication. But is shouldn't be preffered to face-to-face interaction. I think people should be around thier friends, rather than IMing them.

Meh. To each his own. I still like being able to see people's expressions when I tell a joke, rather than see an 'lol' pop up on the screen.

[/size][/FONT]

[James]

[font=arial]I think there are a lot of interesting aspects to this discussion.

I have found that although there are negatives to online communication, I have also noticed a few surprising positives - things that I really hadn't thought about before.

For example, we sometimes see threads on OtakuBoards where people are asking for advice or help (sometimes related to fairly serious issues). Although these threads are sometimes questionable in terms of their authenticity, I do believe plenty of them are legitimate. Some members who have had trouble at home or at school (and who maybe don't have many "real life" people to talk to) have told me that discussing their problems with our community has helped them a lot. Sure, nothing said here could ever replace real counselling or professional advice...but if it helps, it's good.

And I have come across plenty of people who simply aren't very social in real life, or who are quite isolated in terms of friends and family. For them, OB (and other online communities) have become places where they can express themselves - whether it's a discussion, or sharing artwork or participating in an event...I've been told by quite a few people that this has been good for them. It makes them feel involved and part of something, where they may not have that kind of positive group interaction at home or school.

So I do see a lot of positives with online communication, despite the obvious problems that are often repoted in the media (such as predators, scams and so on). Few media outlets discuss the benefits of online interaction.[/font]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#656446]Whether it's RL or IM, I guess it really depends on the person. Some who feel comfortable with the degree of anonymity the Internet offers may opt to communicate online while other people (like me) find it hard to keep up a conversation when there's no body language nor eye contact they could go by.

Ah, I guess the only thing positive I see about talking via IM is that it connects you to people in places you can't easily get to in real life. Say, Tunisia.[/COLOR]