Page 31 - March April 2017 FTM

they may choose to remain incognito
for lengthy periods of time (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004). On any given day in cyberspace, Baym (2010) and Preece et al. (2004) estimate the total number of lurkers to be in the millions.
Some lurkers choose to eventually
make themselves known to the groups they have been studying. In some instances, the lurker may have gained enough information about the group
to know whether or not she wishes
to become a contributing member of
the group. In other instances, lurkers have more devious inclinations. When their intentions are malicious, lurkers make themselves known to chat room participants with long-range plans to upset group dynamics (Lanier, 2011;
Lea et al., 1992). For example, after
being accepted as a member in good standing, the lurker may turn on weaker members of chat room societies with a deluge of cruel, inflammatory remarks (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011). If empathy scores continue to decline (Konrath, O’Brien, & Hsing, 2010), instances of toxic lurking behaviors
may increase. Total anonymity creates
a plethora of possibilities for us all—for better and for worse.
4. THE POWER OF EDITING
Whether communicating through snail mail, email, text messaging, blog posts, microblogs, social media sites, or chat rooms, we enjoy the control we have over our written words (Ellison, Heino,
& Gibbs, 2006; Larsen, 2007). In these and other text-based messaging systems, we can carefully choose our words and edit our written thoughts. Or, we can throw caution to the wind and allow
our unedited streams of consciousness
to permeate all our communications. Whatever our style, as writers we get to refine and reshape our thoughts until we decide to click “enter” (Marcus-Myers, Machilek, & Schutz, 2006).
Whether we choose to soften harsh words or heat up exchanges with strong language, the power to edit offers us multiple opportunities to say what we want, the way we want (Larsen, 2007). Contrast this virtualized editing power with the free flow of spoken words
in face-to-face (physically present) conversations. In face-to-face settings, how many times do we say things we wish we hadn’t? Or, how many times do we wish we had said something a bit differently? Is it any wonder our clients often prefer typing to talking?
5. THE DIMMING OF OUTSIDE DISTRACTIONS
We commonly spend much more time in digitized messaging systems than
we realize or intend. This happens for several reasons. First, when we focus
on our brightly lit screens, we enter
a virtual universe of photos, videos, pulsating links, moving advertisements, bright colors, and sounds. Our physical environments can seldom compete with this virtual onslaught of sensational sensory input (Small & Vorgan, 2008) unless we happen to be visiting the Grand Canyon or canyoneering on
the Colorado River. Second, our brains enjoy mastering our devices (Jessberger, Aimone, & Gage, 2008). Third, since there are countless forums in which to interact, the brain never senses “closure” to the task at hand. Fourth, this “unfinished” feeling prompts our brains to continue
In face-to-face settings,
how many times do we
say things we wish we
hadn’t? Or, how many times do we wish we had said something a bit differently? Is it any wonder our clients often prefer typing to talking?
(Greenfield, 1999). There are more sites
to check, messages to send, newsfeeds
to read, videos to watch, photos to post, etc. Fifth, time constraints are rare. Technology never sleeps. Virtual worlds are always open for business. And someone is always awake and ready to “talk.” Mesmerized by an unending array of flashing lights, swirling ads, catchy visuals, unbelievable bargains, and people who want to chat, we stay attuned to our devices far longer than our conscious minds realize (Carr, 2011).
6. THE PLEASURE OF PROJECTION When we enter a chat room, we enter a verbal culture. Non-verbal expressions are reduced to small icons occasionally inserted into a sentence. We humans rely heavily on non-verbal cues to
help us communicate. Eighty to 85% of our communication is derived from non-verbal cues. Thus, in text-based communication systems, our brains are challenged to come up with ways to decipher the meaning in another’s written message.
How is this possible? Again, our brains rise to the challenge. Baym (2010) explains that when tasked with
MARCH / APRIL 2017 29