Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 1

We rarely pause to ponder the powerful ability to communicate; to share information with

one another. Whether we are imparting valuable knowledge through teaching, getting to know

someone new, or simply gossiping, communication ties use together. It allows us to transcend

physiological boundaries, breaking barriers imposed by flesh and bone. Through it, we can

accomplish great things that are impossible for one person alone. Interacting with one another is

a natural and integral part of being human; it defines us. From the moment we are born, our cries

attract our parents' concern, and our tiny infant smiles bring them joy. Nearly as soon as we can

walk, we quickly expand our social circle beyond our immediate family, driven by the need to

see, hear, and be seen and heard. Eventually, we go to schools where the quantity and quality of

our friends becomes a status symbol. As adolescents, we place so much value on the thoughts of

our peers, that we begin to adopt (or rebel against) the roles they assign us. Communicating is

obviously important to human beings, and our bodies and minds are structured to excel at it. If

this is true, why do our social efforts so often fail?

The word “communication” stems from the Latin root communicare meaning "to share,

divide out; impart, inform; join, unite, participate in," or literally, "to make common." A more

modern definition of communication is “a process by which information is exchanged between

individuals through a common system of symbols, signs.” What I find interesting about these

definitions is that they emphasize a two-way exchange. Information dissemination, while studied

in the field of communication, models one party as sender, and one as a receiver with no direct

feedback from the latter. The type of exchange to which I am referring could perhaps be called

“social communication.” In this model, the differences between sender and receiver are

redundant. Social communication takes place between two or more parties; the limits of more in

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 2

this case are essentially nonexistent. Social communication always takes place across at least one

medium. While it could be argued that face-to-face interactions are unmediated, my broad

definition of media precludes this.

Media are avenues through which information can be transmitted, such as newspapers,

television, and the Internet. However, media do not need to be artificially constructed. In a face-

to-face conversation, the air acts as a medium through which sound waves vibrate. Similarly, the

voice of the speaker is a medium, as is the eardrum of the listening party. The eyes of the

communicating parties mediate visible signals such as hand gestures, posture, and facial

expressions. Even the brain is a medium, dictating physiological arousal and susceptibility to a

message.

Mark and Chris are tossing around a football. As Mark releases a pass, he notices that

Chris is now flirting with an attractive young woman and is no longer paying the slightest bit of

attention to his surroundings. As the ball leaves Mark's fingertips, he shouts “heads up!” The air

immediately in front of Mark's mouth vibrates. The vibrations form a pressure wave traveling at

768 mph in Chris's general direction, quickly passing the 40 mph football. The first crest reaches

Chris's ears causing his eardrums to vibrate in tune with the wave; neurons in his brain fire in

response. In less than half a second, Chris has noticed, processed, and acted on Mark's message

with more than enough time to turn and catch the ball. While the situation may seem relatively

straightforward, there are actually many media in this example. Mark saw Chris through the

medium of light and his words traveled across the air. Chris did not notice the football because

his attention was otherwise engaged. Media can be sliced ad infinitum, but there is no reason to

continue unless doing so better explains a situation.

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 3

Communication begins with a signal, defined as a discrete quantity of information.

Signals can be artificial, such as a text message, or natural, such as a tree falling in a forest. A

minimal model for communication occurs in two stages, with social communication requiring a

third. In stage one, a signal (S1) crosses one or more media (M1) and is received and remembered

by an individual (P1). This party does not necessarily need to be consciously aware of receiving

the signal, such as in the case of priming. However, once received, the signal must eventually

reappear in some form for communication to take place. In stage two, the original recipient

creates a new signal (S2), which is modified in some way by the information contained within S1.

P1 transmits S2 through at least one medium (M2) which is received by another party (P2) as S3.

While they may appear identical, no two signals are ever the same. They are irrevocably

modified by all of the media (Mn) through which they travel.

After these two stages, communication has occurred. However, it is still strictly one-way

and not yet social. In this manner, signals can be transferred between two parties, or even along a

chain of parties indefinitely without ever becoming social. Have you ever listened to a

conversation in which two people talked at one another instead of with one another? I'm sure

most of us have even took part in such a conversation. Young children especially excel at it. It is

the way in which they practice complex language skills before they are able to fully participate in

social communication. Feedback is introduced in stage three when a modified form of the

original signal (Sx) is received by P1, finally completing a single social loop. Sx may bear little, if

any resemblance to S1, but is a product of it. An interesting consequence of this is that social

communication can occur without any of the involved parties (Pn) even being aware of it.

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 4

This phenomenon is illustrated quite simply by the childhood game of “Telephone.”

Players form a line, and the game begins with the person at the front whispering a sentence in the

ear of the person behind. The second player then whispers the same message to the third. The

message is quietly passed along this way until it reaches the end of the line, at which point the

last player repeats the message aloud. The final sentence is usually quite different from the first.

In this example, communication only becomes social after the last player speaks aloud to the

group. Without the element of feedback, players are transferring information but not sharing it.

I can illustrate the fundamental social communication process with a slightly more

realistic example. An earthquake occurs near San Francisco, and tremors (M1) spread across the

state. John (P1) is jarred awake by the vibrations shaking his body (S1). He immediately calls his

mother, Doris (P2) on the phone (M2 and M3), and asks: “Mom, are you okay?” (S2). Doris senses

the distress in her son's voice (S3), and assures him: “I'm okay, just a little shaken up,” (S4). John

is relieved to hear this (S5). This simple example contains the minimum number of elements

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 5

necessary for completion of a social loop.

What does this model teach us? First, social communication is a process characterized by

the signals, people, and media involved, and measured by the number of social loop iterations.

Additionally, even simple messages are extremely fluid. At the very minimum, a signal

completing a single social loop is four variations removed from the first. With each iteration of a

loop, the original message is modified by the communicating parties and the media. The model

presented above is extremely basic and occurs very rarely in real-world scenarios. In social

communication, there will almost always be more media and parties involved, and the loop will

cycle multiple times. Given the numerous opportunities for signal modification, it's a wonder that

any of the information from S1 even makes it into Sn. Fortunately, our brains are hard-wired to

handle social interaction. We naturally try to understand one another, have highly sensitive

natural media, and have developed sophisticated artificial ones.

Not all media are created equally. They are capable of transmitting different types and

quantities of information, at different speeds, across varying distances. The effectiveness of a

given medium is situational, dependent on the needs of the communicator. For instance, a

newspaper is capable of carrying text and images, but not audio, video, or tactile stimulation.

Newspapers are most effective at conveying modest quantities of important, but not urgent

information. Newspapers are ineffective for sharing large amounts of data. While we don't

ordinarily consider newspapers a social media, “letters to the editor” enable social loops to occur.

However, they are ill-suited for this, taking a minimum of 24 hours to complete a full loop.

Media are characterized by five factors:

1. The types (i.e. text, images, audio, video, etc.) of information that can be shared.

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 6

2. The quantity (in words, bytes, minutes, etc.) of data that can be transmitted.

3. Its speed, or amount of time required to complete social loops between parties.

4. Its reach, or the number and type of people that can participate.

5. Its connotative associations: (i.e. importance, reliability, required effort).

Facebook.com is often cited as a prototypical example of “social media.” While

Facebook has transformed a great deal since its inception, the ability to “poke” other users

remains a popular feature. Ben is bored and decides to log on to Facebook to see what his friends

are doing today. As he scrolls through his news feed, he notices a tiny red heart next to which

reads: “Mary is now single.” Ben and Mary haven't spoken in a while because she has been

spending so much time with her (now ex-) boyfriend. Ben decides that now is a good time to get

back in touch with her, and clicks “Poke Mary.” Mary, who is watching a romantic comedy with

her best friend Cindy, receives a text message several seconds later: “You have been poked on

Facebook by Ben. Reply 'p' to poke Ben back..” She knows that Ben used to have a crush on her,

and while she thinks he is cute, she is not interested in getting involved with anyone else so soon.

She consults Cindy, who urges her to ignore Ben. Despite Cindy's advice, Mary pokes Ben back.

Upon seeing this, Ben's eyes light up and he smiles. He decides that he is going to ask Mary out

on a date a few days from now.

The media in this example include the emotional states of Ben, Mary, and Cindy, but the

poke is perhaps the most peculiar medium. If we were to set aside all other media in the example,

and look at poking independently, what would its characteristics be? Context aside, only one type

and quantity of denotative information can be transmitted: “You have been poked on Facebook

by...” While Cindy can try to participate in the social loop, poking is fundamentally dyadic in

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 7

nature. As a media, poking truly stands out in terms of speed. If both parties are connected to the

Internet, or have synchronized Facebook with their mobile devices, a poke can be reciprocated in

seconds from anywhere in the world, quickly completing a social loop. The speed of poking is

enhanced by the connotation that it requires very little effort: a single mouse click on

Facebook.com, or two keystrokes (p + enter) via SMS. How can such a simple medium carry

such different messages for Ben and Mary?

What if Facebook were to rename poking? What if it were “slapping,” “kissing,” or even

“spanking?” With the exception of a single word, the medium would still transfer the same type

and quantity of information. It would still be largely dyadic and extremely fast. But would it be

used in the same way? Would we all “tickle” the same people that we poke? Would we “high

five” them just as often? Probably not. Ben and Mary can see something as simple as a “poke” so

differently because of the different connotations they associate with the medium.

Connotation is the reason that, despite our best efforts, we struggle to communicate

effectively. When something as simple as a “poke” can be used and understood thousands of

different ways, it is no wonder that we misunderstand one another so often. How difficult must it

then be to interpret something as nuanced body language? Interestingly, we seem to have an

easier time with the latter. To me, it indicates that our brains are naturally wired for social

communication. Imagine trying to teach a computer how to differentiate flirting from

friendliness. I do not relish the challenge. It is hard enough to teach my friends.

Sean Weigold Designed with Social in Mind 8

References

communication. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication

McLuhan, M., & Lapham, L. H. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. The

MIT Press.