Several different discussions on the nature of digital identity have emerged recently that have brought me to question my previous views – in particular how representative our digital identities really are of the true reality. This post was an exploration for me during which I worked through these ideas. I ultimately decided to start with what I knew, and work through the logic before re-evaluating everything. In plain English that means this post takes ages to get to the point.
The inspirations for this post
Jenny Mackness raised the topic of truthful blogging, suggesting:
“…the fact is that not telling the truth, often means simply not speaking at all – holding your own counsel. And in blogging this means not writing anything.”
Elsewhere on the web Bronwyn Stuckey echoed the same sentiments in a comment left on a post by George Siemens, saying:
“…When I blog or tweet or comment on FB, while it is part of a stream of activity, I am still choosing to project aspects of my day or thinking and leave behind others. Impressions are gained from that are no more the whole me – just what I elect to expose…”
Both of the above comments lead me to thinking…
New Media, Networks, Connections
For a while now I’ve been going on about how new media provides an opportunity for people to develop their own personal spaces and networks in a manner that best accommodates their needs and ways of working and being. I’ve talked about the notion of digital identity; the idea that the footprints we leave during our travels across the new media landscape reveal who we are as individuals and that this enables us to develop connections and networks with others through the growth of shared experiences and common understandings. These networks in turn empower us to more effectively filter and interpret the enormous and diverse flow of information that exists in the world – both online and offline – and ultimately facilitate the processes involved in sense making where we come to understand concepts that previously eluded us.
Friends and Strangers
The ideas of open dialogue and sharing of information become really significant here, because the more holistic a picture we reveal of ourselves, the more effectively we can engage with others, and others with us. Consider for example the difference between trying to hold a conversation with a complete stranger versus a well-trusted friend.
With a stranger there is no common language, no shared experiences, relatively minimal familiarity with ideas and concepts, and minimal (if any) sense of trust and connection. Conversations tend to be relatively superficial, frequently revolving around very general “safe” topics (e.g. “small talk”) which enable discussion to occur, while revealing little information about ourselves. As interaction continues, the presence of common themes, shared experiences, understandings or belief systems may begin to yield a sense of trust, which can lead to more in-depth discussion and sharing of more personal information and exploration of more substantial topics. This reinforces and facilitates the growing connection and enables the ties to strengthen.
Therefore it would seem that connections can only develop in the presence of information. In the absence of information, growth of ties is restricted.
Private conversations on a crowded train
The issue with online interaction is that conversations with trusted peers frequently occur in the same space as anonymous individuals. Much like having a private conversation in a crowded train, we can become influenced by our surroundings, and vicinity to strangers. This can serve to inspire more selective sharing, where we not only withhold certain information but may also seek to control the manner in which both the information and ourselves are perceived by others.
Personal reflection
I had previously considered myself to be quite open in what I say and do on the Internet, as well as the information I share with others. However in considering all this I’ve been brought to realise this isn’t completely true. In fact there is a great deal of information I don’t share.
Some of this is withheld for reasons of safety and security (such as address, phone number, bank or credit card details); other bits of information I’ve realised I’ve withheld out of fear of what people will think. The latter is a fairly disappointing realisation really.
Sharing my thoughts about ideas, concepts and theories I’m quite comfortable doing – talking about myself and my life experiences is another matter completely.
[To be continued...]
I’d like to write more on this but have to get moving. I’ll try to come back to it later. In the meantime if you have thoughts or comments on it I’d love to hear them.
Thanks for your thoughts on this topic. I think I’ve suffered from the opposite problem to what you describe in that I sometimes have used blogging to express things that I wouldn’t shout to the world in real life. This is because for me the internet is not as “real”. There’s a balance to be struck here and the crowded train effect is a good analogy. I think we need to be more deliberate about what we say in public and to use a graduation of closed-ness as well by using sites which can post to a group of trusted friends and then private one-on-one communication. (bearing in mind that people can cut and paste what you say just as in real life people can gossip)
There have been many times when I thought that setting up an anonymous blog using a pen name would free me to discuss things that I’m too afraid to put my name to (nothing illegal, just a bit too personal to share here) but I know too well how easy it is to connect the dots and determine someone’s real identity, so I’ve always balked.
Plus strangely enough I think I’d still be concerned about what people think even though they wouldn’t see my real name – it’s the feeling of vulnerability and exposure in the sharing of personal thoughts that seems to be the sticking point, not using my true identity.
This train of thought has made me view private discussion groups and private networking sites in a new light. Historically I haven’t really seen the point of restricting access behind a login, but then I realised that I’m doing much the same thing by not discussing certain topics at all and hiding behind abstract theory instead of real world experiences.
With a password-protected site you maintain the ability to discuss things with people you trust. Locking it up in your brain doesn’t afford the same opportunities.
Mike,
I share your concerns, especially with internet security. I have been bombarded by SPAMS, internet dating services on SKYPE and unsolicited emails. I am not upset though, but I am really concern if this continues. Think about this for our students, how would they be impacted. So, truthful blogs are good, openness is a virtue. But equally important, is to maintain personal privacy and protect our own security. This may be dilemma.
Besides, do you think emergence would play a part in blogging – in terms of truth disclosed by blogger? I have left some comments on Jenny’s blog as well.
Great to learn your views on this. Fantastic post.
John
“Besides, do you think emergence would play a part in blogging – in terms of truth disclosed by blogger?”
The short answer is: I have no idea
I haven’t heard the term “emergence” used in that context before. I just did a quick search for emergence theory and see that Stephen Downes and Tony Bates have been discussing this recently in an ongoing series of blog posts (1, 2, 3, and 4), but I need to read up on it first before I answer.
I’ll get back to you on that
Hi Mike – Thanks for your interest in my very short post! Just to say that I didn’t mean to suggest that omission of data is equivalent to not telling the truth. That sort of implies that what has been written is not the truth, which I don’t think is the case.
I think that what is written can be the truth whilst at the same time as acknowledging that the omissions may be the truth/s that cannot be exposed. So what is written may not be the full truth.
In my case I would often like to write ‘the full truth’, but usually don’t for fear of getting it wrong and offending someone. Also often ‘the full truth’ is just as offensive or hurtful to the person doing the writing as it would be to the reader. Too disturbing for comfort!
I’m rambling now, so I’ll stop. I enjoy reading your blog, because you always seem to manage to ‘say it as it is’ and don’t ‘spin yarns’ for the sake of the audience.
Jenny
Whoops, sorry about that Jenny! I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you’d said.
I know what you mean about not wanting to offend people. That’s a concern of mine as well. In that sense I think writing objectively is really important – not to mention writing consciously and thoughtfully. Discussion can be a really healthy thing when people consider the feelings of others.
I’ve had some great conversations with people about topics that we fundamentally disagreed agreed about, and yet were really interesting and enjoyable because it was driven by mutual respect and consideration of each others opinions.
Given critical thinking skills are one of the core elements of education I think that people should expect that their views will be challenged sometimes – in some regards that’s how we grow and learn. The important thing is how the conversation happens.
Pingback: Holistic Blogging | TechTicker