Make your real life legible
Lesson 1 of 6 in this module · about 6 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
An online presence can make a few true things about your life visible; choosing which true things to show is curating, and inventing is not.
The course principle is: “Curate reality; don’t counterfeit it.” Which things to show, and the statements in the self-audit below, are a course principle, not a research finding.
What can a presence show? What you do, what you enjoy, what you care about, what you are working on. Specific beats general. “Adventurous, love to laugh” cannot be seen. “Saturday: fixed a neighbor’s bike, then cooked for six” can. A reader can ask about the bike. They cannot ask about “adventurous”.
Some research suggests a page can carry real information. In one study of 100 Facebook profiles, 35 stranger observers estimated the owners’ extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness accurately, but not neuroticism 1. Accuracy was judged against the owners’ own reports 1. The pages were early-2010s Facebook, not dating apps 1. So a page can show some real information. That does not mean a viewer can read a whole person from it 1.
A second study points the same way. In one study, people whom partners liked after a face-to-face encounter were also liked by viewers of their 2009 Facebook pages, and in both settings expressive people tended to be liked more 2. The study is correlational and about general liking, not romantic interest 2. It does not show that a page causes liking in person.
If you want a place to start, try the online-presence self-audit. Fourteen questions about what your online presence shows. There’s no score and nothing to upload. Your answers stay on this device, and you can clear them at any time.
Why it matters
Adjectives nobody can check, or borrowed symbols, leave a reader nothing true to respond to. The first meeting then has to start from scratch, or from a correction. A line that names something you really did gives the other person something real to ask about.
What it looks like
Example
Your friend Ama, 33, reads your draft bio: “Adventurous, love to laugh, work hard play hard.” She asks what you did last Saturday. You rewrite it: “Saturday: fixed a neighbor’s bike, then cooked a stew for six. Still learning bread that rises.”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same draft. You add a photo from a friend’s sailing boat, captioned as if it is your weekend habit, and the words “always on the water.” You have sailed once.
It suggests a life that is not yours. That is counterfeiting, not curating: a reader who replies is replying to someone who does not exist.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Show two or three true, specific things you actually do; invent nothing and imply nothing that isn’t yours.
Choose what to show, and leave the rest out; leaving things out is allowed. A photo can imply something as clearly as a caption can, so check both. Specific, small and true is enough.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Saturday, written two ways. Look for which draft gives a reader something to ask about.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think once about something you did this month that you enjoyed, and whether anything you’ve posted shows it.
What this doesn’t tell you
Both studies are single studies of Facebook pages, and they measured general impressions, not romantic interest. Nothing here shows that any online presence leads to matches, replies or attraction. A presence shows a few chosen things, never a whole person.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one study, strangers who viewed 100 Facebook profiles estimated the owners' extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness accurately, but not neuroticism.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Hall, Pennington and Lueders (2013) used a lens-model design: owners self-reported personality, 53 profile cues were coded, and 35 stranger observers estimated each owner's personality; observers were accurate for three of five traits, and certain profile cues were diagnostic. It shows that a profile can carry some real information about a person, not that a viewer can read a person from it. Marketing framing: a profile 'communicates who you are' so curate it for the right impression (common framing, unattributed). Bears on A4: §43 authentic digital presence and §45 interests item; supports making real interests legible, and limits any claim that viewers can infer much beyond a few traits.
What it does not show
- One study of 100 users with 35 observers; setting and country not given in the abstract; no large replication found.
- Accuracy was judged against self-reported personality, which is itself imperfect.
- Neuroticism was not accurately estimated, and the abstract gives no effect sizes.
- Facebook profiles of the early 2010s; not dating apps or Instagram.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Hall, J. A., Pennington, N., Lueders, A. (2013). Impression management and formation on Facebook: A lens model approach, New Media & Society.
Evidence: PlausibleIn one study, people whom interaction partners liked after a face-to-face encounter were also liked by viewers of their Facebook pages, and in both settings expressive people tended to be liked more.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Demonstrates: Weisbuch, Ivcevic and Ambady (2009) report consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behaviour, with webpage expressivity and self-disclosure predicting face-to-face expressivity and disclosure. It is correlational and about general liking, not romantic attraction. Marketing framing: online presence converts into offline attraction (common framing, unattributed); the study shows similar liking patterns, not conversion. Bears on A4: §44 congruence; supports teaching that online and in-person impressions tend to line up, so a mismatch is something others may notice.
What it does not show
- Single study; sample size and setting not in the abstract; no large replication found.
- Correlational: shows consistency of impressions, not that profiles cause in-person liking.
- Concerns being liked in general, not romantic interest.
- Facebook pages of 2009, a different platform environment from today's.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the “real world”: Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
More practice
The rest of the set, Make your real life legible: four drafts: 4 items, about 4 minutes. Choose or order the ways of saying a line that fit what you mean. Open the exercise set.