The Human Moment: Fidelity

This post is dedicated to Schon B - who inspired me with the article and human moments of her own when I most needed them.

Recently I re-read an article called the "The Human Moment at Work" by Edward M. Hallowell (HBR.) The gist of the article is that physical presence and attention constitutes the human moment, and we are losing human moments as we are increasingly using technology to mediate interactions in the workplace. This results in misunderstandings, loss of morale through increased alienation and isolation, and increased anxiety. Hallowell also notes that he realizes that misunderstandings can happen regardless, but they happen more often through technology. He cites brain chemistry research underlying the human moment -- remember those studies about how when babies aren't cuddled as infants they become messed up? Yup, that brain chemistry. We actually need other people in our lives to keep us healthy. Ok - I buy it.

This concept was first brought up to me in the context of Second Life (SL) and how SL would never be as good as Real Life (RL). At the time, I never imagined that any tech would replace the human interactions. I think we need the human moments -- especially in the workplace -- to ground us.

In thinking about the human moment one word came up for me -- fidelity. Even though I don't think technology will ever replace face-to-face or brain-to-brain interactions, I do think it can become less attenuated the higher the fidelity of the technology. (Oiy, be careful of those double negatives.)

What do I mean by fidelity? The quality of the sounds, the quality of the writing, the effectiveness of the design -- all of these things add to fidelity. Way back, in 1996, when I was first introduced to all this tech stuff, I remember interface design being defined as "mind meets computer." I realize now that is false. It's "mind meets mind." For what is the computer and its interfaces but the design of one human for another. The design/writing/quality allows another to enter your mind. How well those minds meet is the fidelity of the conversation. (Have we not been moved by a beautiful, clear sound? by a poem that is never fogotten? by a design that meets and surprises us?)

And then I came across this small 3 min radio piece on NPR: "Reading creates simulations in the mind." The gist: language is a powerful form of virtual reality; when we read we create simulations in the mind as if we were actually doing that thing that is described; we can control what happens in other people's brains with our words. What controls the fidelity of those "simulations in the mind"? How are they different or similar to what happens in the "human moment"?

Somewhere I had read, perhaps in the book The Body Has a Mind of Its Own, that when we observe or think about something, as opposed to actually doing it, the simulations are there in our mirror neurons, but not with as much strength as if we were doing it ourselves. "Mirror neurons map the actions, intentions and emotions of others directly into your own system of body maps, creating as close to a telepathic link as the known laws of nature allow. They allow you to understand and empathize with the minds of others, not through conceptual reasoning, but through direct simulation via your own body maps."

The human moment --> language as virtual reality --> mirror neurons: is it not possible to create better human-lite moments through technology? Is it not possible to imagine yourself in another's mind -- whether that is mediated through film, radio, or online interactions? It may not have all the chemistry of the human moment, but it will have a fidelity all of its own.

*Image courtesy of Janis Cromer as posted on Daily Kos