A:4O:1-Thanks COMM 245, For Forcing me to Experiment on, Lie to, and Irritate My Friends Enough to Leave me a Friendless, Lonely, and Broken Man

I want to preface my blog by saying I really don’t approve of COMM 245’s complete disregard for people’s feelings and their right to the truth—despicable. With that being said, let’s let bygones be bygones and discuss how I messed with my friend this weekend.

If you read my last post, you already know that I am almost completely incapable of lying. Keeping this trait in mind, I chose to lie to my friend via a lean media—Instant Messaging—and tell the true account through a richer medium—FtF. This is in accordance to the Social Distance Theory (SDT). Since lying can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience, especially when concerning close friends, SDT states that individual’s are more likely to select a leaner or more socially distant media.

I decided, for the good of the deception experiment, both travel stories, regardless of their validity, should be similar in nature. This would serve as a quasi, makeshift control to the experiment. In classic Matty Birnbaum fashion, this would require that both stories be just as ridiculous as the other. I will spare you the perhaps controversial, perhaps inappropriate, and what some may even describe as morally apprehensible details. However, you can be comforted in knowing that at least one of these ridiculous stories did in fact occur, leaving irreparable psychological damages. Since my fictitious story didn’t necessarily portray me in the most attractive manner, I feel that it contradicts Goffman’s Self Presentation Goal theory. Despite using CMC, which provides a more editable, asynchronous communication channel, I still chose to describe an outrageous travel experience. However, this may just mean that I am obnoxious rather than challenge the theory at all.

My friend recognized that my travel story, via CMC, was complete bologna very easily. This supports the 2nd Deception Hypothesis which asserts that deception detection is more readily achievable during CMC opposed to FtF because of the decrease in truth bias and the increased importance placed on message content and text. Since I was communicating through CMC, my friend was able to avoid people’s general tendency to assume others are honest and going to tell the truth. Additionally, CMC prevented my friend from relying on faulty non verbal cues such as eye contact and perceived nervousness. Another aspect I noticed concerning my interaction was that I fell victim to the anonymity and decreased inhibition characteristic of CMC. I was more likely to embellish and make ridiculous claims throughout my story because I was only communicating to a screen rather than looking into another person’s eyes. My friend picked up on these little nuances and called my bluff before my ridiculous charade could go on any longer without making me look like I was clinically insane.

In the FtF scenario, my friend was unable to decide whether my traveling debacle—which in actuality was true—was genuine or not. This may also support the 2nd Deception Hypothesis, because my friend may have been responding to my non verbal cues. I naturally am a very high energy individual. I talk fast and get distracted by even the slightest evidence of motion visible in my peripherals. This sometimes hinders my ability to keep long lasting, reassuring eye contact with my listener. I guess as long as there are pretty girls, butterflies, or anything else that whizzes by a lunch table that can be considered mildly entertaining, my friends are going to have settle with calling my bluffs via CMC.