Can you manufacture human connection? This is just one question discussed in Amber Bryant’s Class 12 Science Fiction English elective among a swath of equally complex ideas. A recent class discussion revolved around themes from their newly finished reading: Usula Le Guin’s “Left Hand of Darkness.” Of particular interest for the students were the cultural implications of telepathy, lies and how both shape society.
In Le Guin’s book, humans have discovered how intense training can unlock the power of telepathy — something they call “mindspeech” — but this skill has parameters. In that world, only an elite group can utilize this skill (after extensive training) and, once they master it, they discover that only the truth can be conveyed mind to mind. The class discussion began with this question: How might truth-telling-telepathy reshape our world?
The conversation began around the implications of telling the whole truth all the time. What are the cultural and emotional consequences of losing the ability to lie? At first, the class thought it might improve relationships. However, they quickly pivoted when a classmate referenced a social science experiment run a few years prior. For it, a man declared he would tell no lies for an extended period of time, sharing this detail with only his wife, children and one close friend. He soon discovered that this choice deeply impacted his human relationships, even with his wife who knew he was obligated to communicate with complete honesty. Even the simplest of questions such as, “Do you like my dress?” (which, in this case, he did not) became a source of tension.
This shifted the conversation to an exploration of why lies of convenience are so important in human culture. The seniors wondered if this was especially true for Americans, citing the country's Puritan roots and the early separation of church and state. Another student suggested that leaning on small deceptions could have arisen from a place of survival — both physically and emotionally. Students discussed that a person may feel the need to conceal their location or identity for myriad reasons and, similarly, may feel too vulnerable to share their truths as that could open them up to emotional manipulation by others
Ms. Bryant, who was keenly listening to her students’ fascinating discussion, reentered the conversation to help steer her students in a new direction and to tie some of their ideas into the books they have, and will, read in this course. Bridging her students' remarks about safety, she connected their discussion to “thought crime” and its implications in both the fictional environments of their books and our real world.
“Thought crime” is a concept whereby a person can be penalized or punished (often severely) for thinking about committing a crime or thinking about indulging in criminal or unscrupulous behavior. A famous example is the Salem witch trials, during which the public’s perception of women’s thoughts and behavior, regardless of truth, led to their condemnation. In fictional worlds, you might recall George Orwell’s “1984” and Philip K. Dick’s “Minority Report.” The students deliberated the societal implications of a culture interested in regulating citizen’s thoughts and how that would quickly become problematic rather than productive. This train of thought prompted yet another turn of the conversation, with the students next delving into “intellectual property.” How strange it is, one student posed, that you may not always be in possession of your own ideas under intellectual property laws.
Ms. Bryant directed her students back to their text, asking them to consider “mindspeech” as they had “thought-crimes,” but, instead,to evaluate it as a positive addition to society. Her students were quick to provide a number of ideas, like the betterment of the judicial system and increasing people’s capability to empathize. Ms. Bryant offered a follow-up question, asking, “What would ‘mindspeech’ do to love and war?”
The students were quiet for a moment, deliberating internally, before launching into their most debated topic yet. Opposing, but respectful, opinions formed quickly across the classroom with some students advocating that “mindspeech” would end conflict and others responding that it would amplify it. While these initial reactions were fairly black and white, when speaking with students after a week of reflection, a few had developed a new perspective.
One Class 12 student shared, “We think mindspeech is so mysterious because we don’t know the technology behind it, but I personally think it’s similar to texting.” She elaborated by comparing it to how new modes of communication, like texting, once seemed incomprehensible, but are now commonplace. Another classmate offered, “We already do [mindspeech] in a way,” referring to reading body language. She elaborated, saying the integration of “mindspeech would be a gradual shift. I think, at first, it would bring a lot of violence, but then later [it would become] just another kind of communication that you find a way to navigate.”
While the discussion about the effects of “mindspeech” on violence prompted strong opinions, another split formed on the topic of love. Most students agreed that “mindspeech” would negatively affect love. This surprised Ms. Bryant, who, despite feeling differently, encouraged them to share their thoughts. The students explained that they could not see love surviving a constant barrage of total honesty and that it would make romance completely undesirable.
To tie everything together, Ms. Bryant took her students through a final exercise. The activity, which recreates a study led by the married psychologist and author duo, Arthur and Elaine Aron, is called “The Interpersonal Closeness Study” or “The Aron Study.” This study proposes that through 36 specific, overtly personal and vulnerable questions and four-minutes of direct and unbroken eye-contact, one could form a deep emotional connection with another person — and, as touted as click bait by a number of online articles, potentially manufacture love.
Conducting a shortened version of this experiment, Ms. Bryant paired her students to ask each other 10 of the questions (skipping any they preferred not to answer) and test out the eye-contact theory. As they proceeded, she asked them to think about how the experiment might resemble the effects of “mindspeech.” Some felt the experiment would be more effective with pairs of strangers and not friends, saying, “The point is to learn more about each other through the questions and then have this moment of connection by eye contact. With my friend, I felt like I already knew so much, but I could see it working for two people who aren’t very close.”
Another student drew a correlation to characters in the book. “In the book, there aren’t a lot of places where you can feel as connected to someone publicly or privately, so when you are, you might confuse that with love or romance — which is similar to this experiment.” The Aron Study can create a sense of closeness and connection because of the vulnerability experienced by answering the 36 questions followed by extended, direct eye contact.
But can you really manufacture love and connection? Judging by this experiment, the students felt it was unlikely. While true telepathy may still live only in imaginary worlds, Class 12 Science Fiction students are expert analysts on the benefits and consequences of what it could mean for the one we live in.
