“I made a blatant lie that completely contradicted the entire story.”
I think it’s great that you tested whether or not your friend would notice a blatant contradiction in the story and it’s good that he/she did find out about it. Imagine if he/she didn’t notice. Then you may have been left thinking, “Was my friend even listening to me?” or “Wow, they must not really care that much about what I was doing.” On a different note, telling a story without a contradiction may have had a completely different reaction. Say you told a story about something that never happened to you which would also be considered a lie. Then would your friend have noticed? It’s possible that they wouldn’t have.
“The lie goes against the Media Richness Theory. Because this was an equivocal task, I should have used a “richer” media to explain the story.”
Whether or not your situations confirmed or refuted the Media Richness Theory may depend on what kind of story you were telling. If you said you went to the store and the cashier gave you a dirty look then it isn’t a very equivocal task/story but if you were contemplating the meaning of life and its portrayal in the TV show Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur), you would have needed to use a richer media than instant messaging.
It's possible that if you had indeed used a richer media to tell the story (FtF, specifically), your friend may not have noticed the lie if she didn't perceive any verbal or physical cues that you were being dishonest. However, it's equally possible she would have noticed and simply chosen not to call you on it. It's a lot easier to lie and point out the lies of others in lean media because it's a lot easier to control the whole situation.
I wonder what would have happened if you had made the lie less blatant. Would she adhere to unspoken social protocols and let a small lie slide past uncontended, or called you on that as well? Perhaps the degree of lie/what you lie about has more of an effect on these theories than they actually take into account.
You make some very interesting observations in your blog. You were able to provide examples that 'disproved' some of the theories that we have discussed in this course so far. You also make a valid statement that you feel as though you only used some of the aspects of the O'Sullivan model. I like how you had the foresight to test your friend and see if they would go back in the chat to question your lie, and even better, they did.
I think you tied in the theories from class pretty well in your discussion in this blog. The results of the experiment, if you had switched the media you used for the truth and lie, would be interesting too.
3 comments:
“I made a blatant lie that completely contradicted the entire story.”
I think it’s great that you tested whether or not your friend would notice a blatant contradiction in the story and it’s good that he/she did find out about it. Imagine if he/she didn’t notice. Then you may have been left thinking, “Was my friend even listening to me?” or “Wow, they must not really care that much about what I was doing.” On a different note, telling a story without a contradiction may have had a completely different reaction. Say you told a story about something that never happened to you which would also be considered a lie. Then would your friend have noticed? It’s possible that they wouldn’t have.
“The lie goes against the Media Richness Theory. Because this was an equivocal task, I should have used a “richer” media to explain the story.”
Whether or not your situations confirmed or refuted the Media Richness Theory may depend on what kind of story you were telling. If you said you went to the store and the cashier gave you a dirty look then it isn’t a very equivocal task/story but if you were contemplating the meaning of life and its portrayal in the TV show Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur), you would have needed to use a richer media than instant messaging.
It's possible that if you had indeed used a richer media to tell the story (FtF, specifically), your friend may not have noticed the lie if she didn't perceive any verbal or physical cues that you were being dishonest. However, it's equally possible she would have noticed and simply chosen not to call you on it. It's a lot easier to lie and point out the lies of others in lean media because it's a lot easier to control the whole situation.
I wonder what would have happened if you had made the lie less blatant. Would she adhere to unspoken social protocols and let a small lie slide past uncontended, or called you on that as well? Perhaps the degree of lie/what you lie about has more of an effect on these theories than they actually take into account.
Zak,
You make some very interesting observations in your blog. You were able to provide examples that 'disproved' some of the theories that we have discussed in this course so far. You also make a valid statement that you feel as though you only used some of the aspects of the O'Sullivan model. I like how you had the foresight to test your friend and see if they would go back in the chat to question your lie, and even better, they did.
I think you tied in the theories from class pretty well in your discussion in this blog. The results of the experiment, if you had switched the media you used for the truth and lie, would be interesting too.
Post a Comment