Fun with text message dating...

“In class it was discussed with personal examples on how the content messages would change slightly between written word, face to face dialogue, and text messaging. But wouldn’t what was being communicated take precedent over how it was communicated? Wouldn’t human drama, circumstance, or knowledge would still be conveyed and remain the message? After reading over recent posts by my classmates I see that this concept is widely being pondered over. I would agree that it is very difficult to get a grasp on how the content is only another medium. If I were to research the life of Benjamin Franklin on the Internet, wouldn’t I still be receiving the message of knowledge on his life despite the medium? Couldn’t I receive the same knowledge by watching a television special on his life or by reading a book about him? If anyone can break It down for me please leave a comment.” POSTED BY R. REYNOLDS

I agree on some level with the idea that R. presented in regards to “what” is being communicated taking precedence over how it is being communicated. This agreement comes with a huge exception when communicating over text messaging, IM, or e-mail. A friend of mine met a girl at a bar where they exchanged cell phone numbers. What makes this situation unique is they got to know each other entirely over text messaging (thus void of any other communication cues), but when they did go out together they would directly talk very little and text message each other (yes text message) while sitting at the same table. As the relationship developed it was quite entertaining to see how many different ways text messaging could be interpreted in the (arguably) “emotionally attaching” courtship that ensued between the two. Simple statements that were filled with emoticons text short hand were, when devoid of both, vigorously scrutinized and became cause for alarm on the part of my friend. I remember one conversation that I had with my friend as a result of his new lady friend had not putting a smiley at the end of her “Good Night” message to him. This was such a shock to my friend; he then thought that she was irreconcilably upset with him.

McLuhan submits the medium is not inherently good or bad, but it is the way that it is used that determines its value. Further McLuhan believes that the medium "shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. Now certainly “Would you like to have lunch at noon?” would be communicated through speech or text message equally as well, but we must ask why. Facts are very distinct (and more easily interpreted) than emotional exchanges. Sure you could read, view, or hear about the experiences of Ben Franklin with the goal of learning about his life. That is simply fact-finding, and the issue of conveying “human drama, circumstance, or knowledge” in the message is irrelevant; irrelevant for the reason that in history generally the written accounts of the individual and others are all that we have little to go off of. It will be interesting to see how current history makers are considered in the future because we can see them through video and audio more regularly than ever before, thus increasing the potential that we might have to get to know a historical figure.

History aside we must ask ourselves what is missing from our interpersonal communication over text, IM, and e-mail. If I had to pick one thing that would increase the effectiveness of conveying “human drama, circumstance, or knowledge” to users through these mediums it would have to be inflection. The sharpening of a sarcastic remark, or the sweet and kind inflections of a “good night” from a loved one would necessitate different distinctions. The distinctions could be in the form of italics, bold, or other font modifying changes, or another viable option would be color. But who wants to read sarcasm? Will our society adopt another beloved delivery method of witty insults or scorn , or will something else emerge?