Debate in the Digital Age

image from here

The (unexpected) election of Donald Trump has come with an explosion of (quite expected) post-election emotion.  Whether outraged or overjoyed, many have used social media to express themselves or start debates . . . and it seldom ends well.  I had a traumatic experience in this vein a few months ago; let me share what I learned.

The Situation
Four months ago, I returned from a special event to find in my inbox an email that irritated me.  It was from a long-time friend who took issue with something I had done.  He had been finding fault with lots of things (and people) over the prior months, and this email was the last straw; I had had enough.  In a way that (I thought) was loving, I told him that we needed to talk, but expressed my frustration with his behavior.  He agreed to meet, and I should have met immediately . . . but I didn't.  Instead, I spent a long time crafting a response over email, and sent that after much thought.  Thus began a war.

We exchanged emails over the weeks to come, and it wasn't pretty.  We both poured a lot of time (days) into each response, so there were no rash words.  [In fact, that's what I like about email: it provides a chance to reflect and amend initial reactions rather than respond in the heat of the moment.]  Nevertheless, it was clear we weren't understanding each other, and the problem kept compounding.  The stress of the situation was taking its toll on me: I began to lose both sleep and weight.  Why didn't he understand my position?  I wasn't being mean . . . why didn't he see that?  Finally, I could bear it no longer: I acknowledged my error in conducting a discussion over email.  We met in person shortly thereafter, and though the meeting didn't exactly end in agreement or reconciliation, it was tremendously helpful.  One of my big lessons from this experience?  The words weren't wrong- the delivery mechanism was.

The Trouble of Text
In today's age, we increasingly communicate using nonverbal means- social media, email, or texting (see here for an example on teen usage).  That presents a problem, as it deprives us of the full communication experience.  An oft-discussed study conducted decades ago (see here) concluded that there are three aspects to communication:

• Words (what you say)
• Tone (how you say it)
• Body Language

The author of that study claimed our words conveyed only 7% of the meaning, our tone 38%, and the body language 55%.  Though some disagree with the ratios (see counterpoint here) or argue that this applies only to very specific conditions (see here), the point is that communication involves much more than what you say.  I learned that firsthand in debating my friend over email.

Since emails don't convey tone or body language, he was not receiving the message I intended.  And I was not receiving his- in fact, I was horrified by some of his words.  Since I imputed a hostile tone to text I viewed as harsh, it compounded my anxiety and made things much worse.  When we met in person, we were both cordial . . . and though we disagreed, we were able to have a successful discussion.  Face-to-face worked when email did not.

Recommendation
It's important in this divisive time to dialogue.  A lot.  The past week has shocked much of America, and people need to discuss and digest.  But for me, a lesson I've now had seared into my mind is to avoid such discussions online, be it in forums, facebook, or email.  It's like handicapping both parties, and the outcome isn't likely to be helpful.  For the reasons I mentioned, plus the relative anonymity of the Internet and the behavior it emboldens, it's just not a good idea.  So organize a meeting, call a town hall, or schedule something . . . but do it in-person, and 'let your speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.' (Colossians 4:6)