Page 32 - March April 2017 FTM

We can dematerialize until we gather ourselves enough to plan new strategies. As with a cosmic remote control,
we put our conversations on “pause” until we decide we are ready to return.
extrapolating meaning from “lean” (p. 54) communications (those lacking non-verbal cues), deep psychological processes in our brains come to our rescue and fill in the gaps. Without 80-85% of the usual cues, our brains fill in the missing parts (Blascovich
& Bailenson, 2011; Yee & Bailenson, 2009). Called projection, this process enables us to continue to communicate with others by manufacturing chunks of information that seem plausible
to us to insert. As we imagine (and then supply) interpretations that fit the communications we believe are transpiring, we actually help create the person with whom we are talking. So, because we tailor-make our computer-mediated relationships to suit our own unconscious projections, we can truthfully say that we find keyboard-facilitated interactions to
be more satisfying that face-to-face communications. And, because of our own projections, we tend to feel closer to, more aligned with, and more accepted by our online friends. No wonder Blascovich & Bailenson (2011), Turkle (2011) and other researchers commonly hear tech-savvy individuals say, “This is where I feel most myself” (Turkle, 2011, p. 159).
7. THE APPEAL OF AN EASY EXIT
Ever experienced a bad break-up?
Ever been stuck for hours on a boring date? Ever wanted to evaporate after saying something stupid? Face-to-
face communications can be exciting, intimate experiences. Or, they may become ugly, difficult, annoying, and/
or painful. When conversations blow
up or stall out, wouldn’t it be great if we possessed the power to evaporate at will?
But we do! When keyboard-facilitated interactions become strained, argumentative, or boring, we can (poof!) end the encounter with the touch of a button. We can exit the site, close the laptop, turn off the phone, or delete the contact anytime we choose. We can cull
the avatars that aren’t readily accepted and then re-enter the virtual forum with new names and shapes (Ellison et al., 2006; Turkle, 2011). We can exit the chat room to return later or never again. In essence, we can dematerialize until we gather ourselves enough to plan new strategies (Small & Vorgan, 2008). As with a cosmic remote control, we put our conversations on “pause” until we decide we are ready to return.
THE ONLINE DISINHIBITION EFFECT: THOUGHTS FOR THERAPISTS
“We shape our buildings, then they shape us.” —Winston Churchill (1943), House of Commons Address
“Technical change alters not only habits of life, but patterns of thought and valuation.” —Quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg (1958, p. 63).
“The self does not exist separate from the environment in which that self is expressed.” —John Suler (2004, p. 325).
“If you hope for technology to be designed to serve people, you must have at least a rough idea of what a person
is and is not.” —Jaron Lanier, father of virtual reality technology, (2011, p. 154).
What is a real person? What
are real relationships? What is a real conversation? What is a real environment? What is real life?
Because computerized devices determine (describe? define?) the virtual environments our clients choose to inhabit, can we dismiss them as not “real”? Are there ways to utilize The Disinhibition Effect to maximize a client’s resourcefulness in both online and offline relationships?
There are, indeed, ways to honor our clients’ important online relational systems while adding new and different perspectives to the mix—ideas designed to utilize a client’s online skills in face- to-face therapy sessions.
30 FAMILY THERAPY MAGAZINE