Assignment 9

First, on an unrelated note, I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that this weekend’s “Sunday Styles” section in the New York Times featured an article entitled “The Global Sympathetic Audience” by Noam Cohen. For those who did not come across the article, it was about support systems found online in what are called “miniblogs,” where users write 2-3 sentences at a time about the details of their day-to-day lives. The article distinguishes what they describe as “quick blogging” from more traditional blogs due to the fact that there is continuous and synchronous communication that occurs in real time. The article profiles a number of individuals who experienced various levels of social support, in some cases preventing suicide attempts from being successful.
For those who are interested, the article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/fashion/04twitter.html?adxnnl=1&ref=style&adxnnlx=1194294526-rh4LG5XQ3SxHf9L0p1bdEw

I have a friend who is overly reliant on Facebook as a social indicator and provider of cues that should otherwise be reserved for real-life, face to face interaction. To my friend, an acquaintance from high school who we will call S, an extended period of time between wall posts is a true indicator of a dwindling relationship. Friending or de-friending is a public indicator of social status, and deserving of close analysis. I have even heard her proclaim to a friend that their friendship will be terminated, in real life, if she refuses to remove her ex-boyfriend as a “friend” on Facebook.
I cannot deny that Facebook has adjusted the ways we, as a generation, interact. However, I believe that Facebook interaction must be viewed as an entity set apart from face-to-face communication. In my opinion, Facebook is an extraneous networking tool that should never be able to replace traditional means of communication. Additionally, due to a number of features of Facebook, such as its asynchronous communication, lack of cues and visibility to the public, communication that has the potential to affect anyone on a deeper emotional level should be discussed outside of Facebook, and rather in face-to-face communication. I believe that it becomes problematic when individuals, like S, communicate things, such as the termination of what was an emotional relation, on Facebook, and therefore avoid speaking about such issues in conventional ways.
Since studying problematic internet use, I have been able to analyze S’s infatuation with Facebook in a new light. Caplan’s Theory of Problematic Internet Use structures PIU into three steps. First, the theory states that individuals with psychological problems hold negative perceptions about their social competence. S’s case reveals that psychologically, she is not confident enough to confront certain individuals via conventional methods of communication, and therefore resorts to Facebook (unfriending, sending messages, etc) to convey her true feelings about other individuals.
The second part of the theory states that these individuals prefer online interaction because it is less threatening and they feels as if it is more efficacious. It is evident that S prefers to handle her social issues via the internet and feels that her true feelings will be conveyed through Facebook. However, this is where her internet use becomes most problematic. S’s beliefs that her actions on Facebook will be effective in expressing her feelings make it difficult for those in her social circles to help remedy the situation, for they might not interpret her actions on Facebook as she wished for them to be interpreted. Due to the fact that Facebook is asynchronous and lacks many verbal and non-verbal cues, it is often the case that S fails to effectively deliver what she hoped to express.
Lastly, the theory states that preference for online interaction leads to excessive and compulsive online interaction, which worsens their problems. Specifically, S has become overly reliant on Facebook as a means for communication, which has triggered a downward spiral of ineffective communication. There have been numerous occurrences when I have witnessed a misinterpretation of S’s messages expressed via Facebook. However, due to her increased reliance on Facebook, and in turn a decrease in FtF communication, misinterpreted messages have been the root of problems that then go unresolved, due to the inability of online communication to be as effective in expressing more emotional messages.
S’s PIU stems from a combination of both psychological issues and internet affordances. However, I have noticed most often that S is drawn to the internet due to psychological issues. She seems to be most attracted to the personal locus of control that the internet allows her to have. It is evident that S does not feel as comfortable in Ftf communication and therefore does not have as much control of the circumstances involved in real world communication. She feels a greater degree of control in CMC, due to a number of cues, in particular, asynchronicity.
Overall, I think it is most important that internet users are able to distinguish between real world and online communication. While there may be a beneficial synergy between the two forms of communication, internet use often becomes problematic, as seen in S’s case, when FtF communication is replaced by CMC.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/areee-you-readdyy-skeedaddyyy-its-time.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assign-9-when-forums-cease-to-be.html