Sunday, March 21, 2004

Cybertruth

I was just thinking about issues of truth and falsehood when lo and behold, the paper today turned up a story that tracked my thoughts.

The following assertion was made by Clive Thompson of NYT fame in the Times (I’m paraphrasing): even though one would think that internet communications would breed a large number of falsehoods (after all, who could ever track down a fabricated life?), it seems that people are more likely to lie face-to-face than they are in email or blogs (read about it here).

The cited study would throw any self-respecting survey analyst into a tizzy, but I think the conclusions are credible nonetheless. I can tell on my own survey of an n = one: the other day I told someone that I was really happy to have run into them and that I was hoping to get together very soon. I meant none of it. I would have never said that in an email. At most, I would have sent them best regards or wishes or some such nonsense and then moved on.

It’s not only a question of POLITENESS. In part, it is the act of writing things down – once written, the statement takes on extra potency and irreversibility. And, it also has to do with your own (my own) sense of what this particular forum is meant to accomplish. Why blog or write emails based on lies? If you don’t want to be truthful, you needn’t write much of anything. You can omit, mislead, you can diffuse – you have a wide variety of tools at your disposal. Whereas in conversation, you have no time to ponder, to select the best strategy to get away from an irksome topic. You just lie to high heaven to get yourself out of the hot spot.

I like the fact that Clive Thompson admitted to a blogging fanaticism of sorts (he writes: “I spend about an hour every day [I’m sure he’s not honest here—multiplier of at least two needed] visiting blogs, those lippy [great word!] websites where everyone wants to be a pundit and a memoirist. Then I spend an hour writing my own blog and adding to the cacophony.” Me too [who cares if this is an overstatement or an understatement; it is, for the most part, true].

Bumper sticker that was so simple that it completely confused me

This morning I saw this on a car:

Regime change begins at home

The car was a bit tattered and beaten up and it was being driven by fairly young drivers. I was sure they were the rebellious sort (ascribing traits based on my inherent biases and internalized preconceptions). Therefore, it was natural for me to worry about what devious plots might be going through their heads as they no doubt schemed to overthrow the dreaded parental authority at home. Perhaps they had already devised a way to create anarchy and chaos, to destroy existent methods of communication, and to replace dictatorial rule with proletarian control.

I was so wrapped up in my spin that it never struck me that the sign was of a political nature until I started writing this post.

Empty chairs at empty tables

It’s one of those times where a lyric from a song (matching the mood of the moment) hits some portion of your brain and stays there (hence the title to the post). Another trip to the airport today, this time emptying the house of visitors and returning me to a work-dominated existence.

To add a chuckle to an otherwise bleak day, I again poke around my favorite presses to see if they are printing anything even mildly amusing. For some reason, the following letter in the Washington Post makes me smile. It is a response to the prod “Tell us about the most money you ever wasted.” Now, you could say that small sums are going to lead to small waste and big sums to big waste, but in this case, the respondent makes you understand that sometimes even smallish sums will make you feel like you’ve suffered a tremendous rip-off, just because of the discredited hope and failed expectation. The person writes:

My sister once told me transcendental meditation would change my life, so I went ahead and did it: paid $125 for a mantra. It may not sound like a lot of money, but (a) this was 1976 and my annual salary as a budding botanist was $8,000, and (b) no money ever bought less.
Exceptionally funny for about eight reasons. Or maybe I am just that desperate for a laugh.