L.I.A.R
In his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Portman introduces the concept of the Information-Action Ratio. Portman’s ratio aimed to measure “the relationship between a piece of information and what action, if any, a consumer of that information might reasonably be expected to take once learning it.” In theory, a culture that had a low intake of information would have a high information-action ratio because they were more likely to act upon the small amount of information they received. Conversely, a culture that had access to enormous amounts of information would have a low-information action ratio. This is a result of being paralyzed by the enormous amounts of information and either not knowing where to begin or not knowing how to sort which pieces of information required action and which did not.
It goes without saying that humans today consume more information than at any other time in history. Between television, the Internet, and social networking, information is readily available at the click of a button. We can easily access news spanning the globe and get real-time updates on hundreds of friends in a matter of seconds. It would be impossible to act on all of the information one gathers in just a few minutes of surfing the internet. Thus, we live in an age of an extremely Low Information-Action Ratio (LIAR).
What does having a Low Information-Action Ratio mean for the church? For worship? If our technologically inclined culture trains us to merely consume information without acting on it, will we find ourselves complacent with not acting on the knowledge we receive of Jesus and His Gospel? If worship is a response to the revelation of who God is, will living with a Low Information-Action Ratio result apathetic worship?
First and foremost, it is important that the church resist the tendency to reduce the preaching of the Word to simply communicating information. Secondly, we must examine whether or not using overly familiar presentation methods (such as screens, media clips, etc.) actually makes it easier for people to ignore the content that they are being presented with.
I welcome and embrace many of the technologies I have alluded to in this post, but I think these are questions that are worth wrestling with. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
For further reading: Amusing Ourselves to Death, A Royal “Waste” of Time
No Tags
Was there any mention of an absorbency coefficient? I read about audio technologies daily, but often don’t put them to use or act upon the info or knowledge until a specific time comes. I know a good bit about why a line-source array is more favorable than a point-source trap box solution under certain conditions, yet I’ve never had any hands on time with a line array. That’s where maybe, in addition to the L.I.A.R., we can also factor in absorbency. Is the process of absorbing the info and cataloguing it considered “action”, or by definition of the author is “action”, only the act generated specifically from the onset of information induction?
Further, I believe we have better filters that allow us to know to decipher info from shinfo. So, I’d argue that as the flood of information has increased so has the signal to noise(S/N) ratio. In other words, there’s less information to actually act upon. I believe we’ve adapted and can very quickly determine what is valuable info and what is not and coincidentally not worthy of action.
So, in my opinion the premise that we live in an L.I.A.R. age is believable, but I’d also add that we live in an age with a much higher threshold for valuable information worthy of being acted upon.
Regarding the church and worship, your questions are indeed provocative. Tying into the thoughts above, I think if a church is able to keep their s/n ratio up, they’ll have a greater shot at having it’s congregants engage/act on the information. Achieving status quo is something should be avoided if the conveyer wants his message conveyed in a manner in which the conveyee grasps it. I’d say most churches in America just go through the motions on Sunday and just add to the noise.
Josh – Good question as to what the author defines “action” as. I would say that he doesn’t spell it out completely but based on the statements in context I would say that the action would not have to be limited only to “immediate action”.
As far as filters…The author would disagree with you. His thesis is that the deluge of information overwhelms our filters and causes us to be paralyzed in terms of acting. Beyond that – the second book that I referenced focuses a lot more on the way in which information is presented. In other words, no matter what the level of importance if information is presented in an overly familiar way it’s importance is diminished by it’s presentation. They used studies on screens as an example. Because people look at screens all the time (phones, TV’s, computers…) information that is presented on screens is often diminished or ignored because of it’s familiarity.
I don’t go quite as far with my assumptions as the author does but I certainly think that it’s worth examining. I think there is definitely something to be said about being somewhat intentionally counter-cultural in presentation since the message itself is counter cultural.
You are absolutely dead on in your deductions. In some respects in order to keep things new with a creative modern flair, I fear the presentation can accidentally become more important than the content. Can creativity become too entertaining or at the least make simplicity seem boring?
One key is to consistently examine the fruit coming forth from the areas where media is used or even relied upon. We must always evaluate if individuals are hearing and applying, which ultimately should lead to deeper understanding, importance and yes, the overused word, passion.
Maybe occasionally to create balance and grow ourselves into not becoming so dependent on media, we should occasionally remove it from a service and teach our people to enter in and learn without it? Would there be anarchy?
Wonder what that would look like? I wonder how I would do? Would we be so brave or would the fear of what we would see, stop us?
I too love so much of what is available to us as tools these days, but lately I have wondered about it’s impact on myself and others.
Something to ponder…
Wendy – I completely agree. I think it’s important to strip things back from time to time in order to focus on the real “point” of what we do.
We also have to constantly evaluate how we use creativity. We have to remember that creativity is not something we do but it’s the way we do something. It has to remain the means to an end and not an end itself. If we successfully deliver creativity we are entertainers – and poor ones at that. What we present often becomes a casualty of how we present it.