BACK FROM THE LAB…

Ah, I says twisting my hands mysteriously, while at the same time still managing to hold a clipboard, where’s has we beens? Yes?

I consider myself an amateur scientist, of sorts. Amateur only in that no institution has yet offered to pay for these forays into the monkey condition…yet. However, despite my lack of financial credentials, I do uphold to the highest ideals of the scientific method…

“The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:”

1. “Observe some aspect of the universe.”
People spend a lot of time on computers. Doing something.

2. “Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.”
Humans are, by nature, social animals. It follows that, if they are spending large amounts of time on said computer, then they must have found some way to engage in this activity on a social level. It follows, too, that their unprecedented adaptation to the usage of language would allow them to utilize this skill, socially, on said computer(s).

3. “Use the hypothesis to make predictions.”
I predict that, given the large capacity of the monkey mind, and, given their propensity for astounding feats of linguistic brilliance, they will have produced a social environment unsurpassed in the giving and receiving of written communication and will have achieved unprecedented heights of greater monkey understanding.

4. “Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.”
Oh goody—experiments!—that’s always my favorite part.

5. “For the good of all sentient beings.”
(Ok—I admit I added that one myself.)

6. “Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.”
Oh, well, that one’s a little harder.

So, to test said hypothesis, I enrolled myself (anonymously, of course) in several on-line chat forums. Often, for the sake of experimentation, as two separate people at once. One personality would be more “vocal,” more “controversial,” while the other would be what on-line aficionados would refer to as a “lurker.” By being two people, it enabled me to come in, have my say, beat the drums, pound the waves, etc., then quickly disappear with another “me” left behind for the purposes of observation and analysis. I learned many interesting things in this manner:

*** People are much more easily upset and offended on-line than they seem to be in person, largely for reasons of miscommunication. I postulate that this occurs for a variety of possible reasons:

A) Due to the lack of non-verbal communication, impossible to transmit in a text-only environment, cues such as tone of voice are lost upon the recipient. This, perhaps, makes misunderstanding more likely and may be based more upon the recipients’ expectations than the actual intent of the sender of that information, i.e. if person A has the expectation that person B “must” be angry, then anything that person B says will be “heard” by person A as an angry statement.

B) Due to the physical distance and lack of proximity between the receiver and sender of information, it may be deemed “safer” to become upset within that context. In other words, whereas two people standing a foot away from one another might be more compromising and understanding of each other so as to avoid a physical, and possibly dangerous, confrontation, people on-line are really at no particular physical risk by engaging in conflict.

C) Because on-line “relationships” are largely superficial and based much more upon supposition than reality, there is very little “at stake” in maintaining that/those relationship(s). In other words, if I am friends with person A today but decided that I can’t stand him/her (how can you really tell, anyway?) tomorrow, really, there is not that much lost in my life one way or the other.

D) Communication is an individualized art, meaning that each person communicates differently from all others, and each relationship is unique. It follows, then, that attempting to communicate with very disparate and varying people from one day to the next could/would/should lead to problems. It takes time for any two people to learn to communicate effectively with one another, so it is no surprise that in large group forums of strangers communication can quickly become strained.

E) Even within groups of people who largely know one another, miscommunication is more likely. (See explanation A above.) This also happens, I believe, because of the “group” forum, i.e. when person A says X, it cannot be discerned to whom person A is speaking, whether it is “to” a specific person or not, or if it is just non-specific information. It is akin to being at a party where no one is allowed to make eye contact.

F) Similar miscommunications do not occur as readily via email correspondence, perhaps because in that type of communication, explanation E is eliminated. In email, it is quite clear to whom one speaks since that is the specific recipient of the email, and tailor-made communication styles can be employed, i.e. one communicates in the manner in which one is accustomed to communicating with that particular person, as opposed to choosing one communication style with which to communicate to an entire group.

G) People, whether they know you or not, seem to become distressed when someone leaves the group. (This occurs even when said group has spent the last several days calling the “leaving person” all sorts of derogatory names and has repeatedly suggested that they leave the group, the country, and/or the land of the living.) They will, in fact, urge the person leaving not to leave, even after they have already left. (My “lurker” personas reported this phenomena.) This may be due to drive within social groups to obtain cohesiveness and be part of the instinct which makes monkeys social animals in the first place.


“When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.”

Since my observations clearly DID NOT at all match my initial expectations, I must adjust my hypothesis and perhaps form a theory which more closely mirrors reality. My new theory is this:

Though monkeys have the theoretical ability to verbally communicate in an intricate and detailed manner, this ability does not generalize to text-only group formats for a variety of reasons. Traditional written texts are primarily a one-way communication, i.e. a writer writing to a largely silent audience. Therefore, whatever miscommunication may arise, the sender of that information need never hear about it.

So, that being said, I am no longer there—anythere—anymore. Rather I am here, tapping away in the relative cyber-silence of one-way communication, clip board in hand, smiling the slightly smug yet serene smile of the hermetic. My forays into the monkey kingdom are always limited at best, the proverbial jumping into the pool of much too cold water only to swim to the other side and emerge as quickly as possible with enough experience to test the water without ever submerging myself enough to become accustomed to its frigid temperature. They say you’ll get used to it… but I maintain that my clip board would just become soggy and I would eventually drown. No, I like it here on the shore looking back on the lake, never forgetting that the lake is not the whole of reality and that the moon reflected upon it is not the moon itself. Time to set down my notes, shake myself off, point at the moon and howl.

ARRROOWWWLLL!!!!!