The real, the virtual and the digital
A few days ago I was listening to an episode of a podcast that typically focuses on creativity. The guest on that episode is a well-known "evangelist" in Silicon Valley who was explaining, in a "very American" way, how we should present ourselves and compose our space when we are communicating via videoconference. He was very detailed in his recommendations. He even indicated how many centimetres the camera should be above the desk, so that our nose doesn't look deformed and our face disfigured; that the camera should not be the one that comes incorporated in computers but a professional one with an HDMI output and whose signal should be converted by our computer; that the microphone wins if it is external, so that our voice sounds clearer; that we should "smile" with our eyes, to become more friendly; among other recommendations. What most caught my attention, beyond all the details and the "full-of-itself" style, was something that he said shortly after the chorus of recommendations: "a person who is a good communicator in the real world is not necessarily good at communicating in the virtual world".
I know that since March many of us have had to get used to communicating via video conference. Zoom, Meet, Teams, Skype, Slack, BlueJeans, Whereby, FaceTime became the names of our meeting and living rooms. The time we spend looking at screens has greatly increased because situations that we knew worked in presence had to be mediated by the devices that now connect us to everything and everyone. This text will not be one of the countless that refer to the difficulties and demands of this way of talking to each other. Neither will I follow in the footsteps of that guest with a handful of recommendations, more or less obvious and more or less intelligent, to increase our competence and efficiency to communicate through cameras, microphones and screens. My perplexity and concern were sparked by the language that some of us are using to refer to these new avenues and the potential misunderstandings that this use entails.
I repeat the phrase that got me thinking: "a person who is a good communicator in the real world is not necessarily good at communicating in the virtual world". "What do you mean, in the real world?", was my first reaction. Whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or are sceptical, the real world is now this. The reality is that we have been pushed home by a dangerous and invisible agent and forced to keep in touch through digital means. None of this is virtual or unreal. Those on the other side are real people, not avatars. I understand that the adjective "virtual" may be at the origin of this apparent misunderstanding because it qualifies with more than one sense. According to the Priberam Dictionary of the Portuguese Language, "virtual" can mean
That exists potentially and not in action.
Susceptible of being carried out or exercised.
Equivalent to another.
Which is made or simulated through electronic means.
That guest could be referring to the meaning explained in the fourth subparagraph. Coincidence or not, this is the point that could give rise to the greatest misunderstandings, because something being done by electronic means is different from something being simulated by electronic means. What is surprising is the opposition you make explicit in the first part of your sentence. By placing the virtual world in opposition to the real world, it is as if the virtual-digital were not part of reality but a kind of simulacrum.
It is true that what we say does not always coincide with what we mean. Pragmatics, a branch of linguistics, offers us a concept that can help us understand this phenomenon: conversational implicatures. Briefly and briefly, this concept advocates that what someone means is not always said explicitly and that what is said explicitly may not contain all the meaning that the speaker intends to convey. The philosopher Paul Grice, who created the concept, started from the theory of the principle of collaboration, where speaker and listener collaborate in attributing meaning to communication, inferring the real meaning of a message. Collaboratively, in the dance of conversation, the listener fills in the gaps, as if guessing the meaning that the speaker is trying to give to his message, both through what he says and what he leaves unsaid.
In the case I indicated at the beginning, it is not difficult to imagine that the evangelist is trying to distinguish face-to-face communication from communication through digital media, and that the latter has specificities that can affect effectiveness. However, as is well known, words have weight and, implicatures aside, they can reveal or contain inaccuracies, misunderstandings and wishful thinking. According to this same concept, what is not said can be inferred and has as much or more importance than what can be heard. Given the demands of the current reality of our world, it will not be difficult to fantasise a second hypothesis where there may be a desire to be living a virtual reality.
I agree that a good communicator in face-to-face format to maintain the quality of his communication in digital format has to adapt and consider aspects that are not so relevant when in presence. However, I would warn against ignoring the reality of our digital interactions. As difficult as it is, and it is for many of us, this is our "real reality", for now.
Written for Link to Leaders on 14 October 2020; published 20 October 2020.
