Robert_Slade%UBC.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (03/10/87)
- -
The more I thought about Phillip Bitar's message of February 3rd, the
more complex the issues became. My first reaction was that I had nothing to
contribute to the dicussion because my former consulting work with the
Government Electronic Messaging System had dealt with novice users and an
underutilized system. (By and large, the managers who had accounts would not
use the messaging regularly, and my main concern was with people who had
forgotten their passwords or forgotten how to send a file that they had
prepared.)
On second thought, I realized I had many examples of misunderstood
messages, although primarily from sources other than work. I prepare
materials for posting on many local messaging/bulletin board/file library
systems. The responses that I receive to my articles and messages sometimes
drive me to distraction. One recent example concerns this digest. I have
been posting Computers and Society, RISKS-FORUM and the New Minority, a
newsletter on unemployment, to local systems. In response to one of my
postings to a new board offering this information, which posting describes
the three publications separately in three separate paragraphs, the sysop
reacted violently against my attempt to post a bunch of "leftist, Neo-
Luddite material" to his board. The only explanation I could see for his
reaction was that he linked the words "computers", "risks" and
"unemployment" without really reading the message.
The speed of messaging that makes it such an effective tool also works
against it. One wishes to respond immediately, to deal with the material or
request without further thought or delay, and often with a quick quip which
the message has prompted. As was pointed out, subtle humour, without the
verbal cues to point it out, is often not appreciated. In addition, even the
inclusion of a "happy face" [ :-) ] to point out a joke may not be
appreciated since most people may not convey the value they place on the
humour and the originator (I am talking of a reply here) may see the joke as
being sarcastic, dismissive or at his expense.
In fact, replies often *are* dismissive. No one likes new problems;
everyone has more work than they can handle. Not that people intend to
dismiss valid problems, but in the hurry to get through a stack of messages
one tends to take the quickest interpretation of a message, that is, the
meaning that will require the least work from one. In conversation this is
not allowed because the supplicant will continue to press for a satisfactory
resolution. In "hardcopy" written communication the temptation to pass
quickly over something is not as strong because there is no possibility of
"immediate" resolution.
A further detrimental effect of the speed of messaging is the loss of a
certain amount of care in the preparation of the message. Spelling and
grammatical errors abound in electronic messages, sometimes to the extent of
totally obscuring an otherwise valid point. (Those who get INFO-FUTURES will
have recently seen a (very soft) "flame" on this topic.) However, even with
spelling and grammar correct, a message may be poorly composed and thus
misunderstood.
("Flame", by the way, is a slang term that has arisen in the computer
communications community for an abusive message.)
It seems that for every advantage of the new communications technology
there is an opposite (but hopefully not equal) disadvantage. Indeed it
appears the pros may *cause* the cons. The ease of use that prompts
"wounding" humour also provides for informality and honesty in
communication. The speed that allows a dismissive response at least provides
for some response. The same attitude that leads to errors and carelessness
also prompts one to provide information without typing endless drafts and
checking them with all possible authorities.
As one becomes more experienced with messaging, certain considerations
of "etiquette" become apparent. Not strictly concerned with politesse, these
protocols are means of ensuring that communication is as accurate and
effective as possible. In much the same way that literacy involves more than
spelling, grammar and the ability to read; that style is a component of
effective writing and speaking; so certain activities not obvious to the
naive user are helpful in using the medium.
The first consideration is that the sender must be careful of what he
says. The message is usually very short and so the exact wording becomes
even more important. Humour should not be avoided entirely, but one must be
careful to ensure that the reader will know what one finds amusing and why.
One has a tendency in a short message not to clearly identify all the
thought that has gone into the message; the background, conversations with
others, and assumptions that one brings to the problem. Therefore the
sender should always be careful to include as much as is relevant to the
understanding of his initial message.
The receiver, on the other hand, has an equal responsibility; greater
than is normal with written communications; to read carefully and to think
of all possible interpretations of the message, not simply the one that
occurs initially. It may be that an apparent insult is simply careless
wording on the part of the sender. A careful and gracious reading of the
message and interpretation of the intent may solve the problem quickly and
avoid a flurry of "flames" and argument caused by returning an insult where
one was never proposed.
On more advanced messaging systems a reply automatically carries (a) a
designation that it is a reply and (b) the original subject. A receiver
(and respondent) should, however, take care, particularly on systems which
do not automatically ask for a subject or which change the subject in each
message, to identify the topic of the original message to which he is
replying. I cannot count the number of times that I have received a reply
to a complex proposal which says merely "Good. Do that." As I send a great
many messages to a great many people on a great variety of topics, it may be
difficult, particularly after a period of a few days, to identify what it is
that the respondent wishes me to do.
(As Phillip Bitar has pointed out, *not* replying to a message can be
an insult in itself. More complex is the issue of replying to a bulletin. I
write articles on computers and theology for a local bbs, and have been
quite discouraged by the lack of response. The occasional "Your head works
good!" is of tremendous importance in continuing work which, after all,
really avails the author nothing. However, even quick positive responses are
not quite enough. Speaking *completely* personally I wish that the articles
that I spend hours of work and weeks of thought on prompted more than
obviously "off-the-cuff" remarks. I am informed by one of my readers that he
greatly appreciates my writing but feels that a) he can't disagree, b) he
can't compete and c) a simple "amen" adds nothing to the discussion. While I
appreciate both his esteem and his reasons, I still long for "intelligent"
responses.)
The ease of communication and yet the distance between the conversing
individuals, which places messaging between conversation and correspondence,
means that assumptions that messaging is either conversation or
correspondence can lead to problems. Messaging will play an increasingly
important role in business, professional life, and society in general. It
is important that the questions that he has raised be addressed. It is also
likely that as messaging becomes more common, and the users grow more
experienced, that "styles" will be developed to deal with these
difficulties.taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (03/12/87)
This message raised some thoughts that I would like to pass along. Re misunderstood messages, and "not reading": I have also noticed a tendancy of many people to quickly skim written communication and "jump" to the wrong conclusion. There seems to be some correlation here with people not reading instruction, and, as a result, performing a task incorrectly (or even performing the wrong task altogether). Also, this seems to be more prevalent with people whose job requires that they continuously review large volumes of information. Could this be an additional side effect of their being close to the brink of "information overload"? Re "replies often *are* dismissive. No one likes new problems;": I agree with the thought that people tend to take the shortest path to the resolution of a matter which impacts their personal workload, and that electronic media tends to make this approach easier. Facts, of the simple and bare varieties, can be easily communicated by electronic means. Communicating "ideas" effectively, however, requires greater effort. I think that this is true regardless of the media of communication (verbal, "hard copy", or electronic). Either substantial thought must be put into the communication, how it will be interpreted, etc. or there must be a means of feedback from the recipient, as there is with verbal communication. Re lack of care in the preparation of the message, spelling and grammatical errors : The software being used for electronic communication also plays a part here, I think. The software may either not allow the communicator to use spelling checkers and/or other tools, or may make the use of such utilities inconvenient. "Speed of reply" does, however, appear to be the primary culprit. On the issue of responses, or lack thereof, to posted articles: I am "new" to Usenet, and personally feel that I am still at the "learning stage". As a result, there is a certain amount of trepidation in responding to posted articles. I suspect that many other people may also have similar emotions, and, as a result, tend not to respond to articles which have provoked thought or strong emotions. Watching others "burn" on the Net (with visions of being tied to their terminals instead of stakes as others apply their "flames") is strongly negative in its motivating powers. This, of course, raises the issue of "why flames": In some respects, electronic communications tend to be impersonal. As such, I think it is easier for people to exhibit a level of discourteousness which they would not dream of on a face-to-face basis. Add this fact to their own "failure to read", and the other matters discussed above, and we see a neatly closed loop. Ralph Barker
tony@uw-vlsi.UUCP (Tony Marriott) (03/16/87)
Robert Slade writes: > The more I thought about Phillip Bitar's message of February 3rd, the >more complex the issues became. My first reaction was that I had nothing to >message, to identify the topic of the original message to which he is >replying. I cannot count the number of times that I have received a reply Ha ha ha. What was that? Sorry, but what was Phillip's message about? That was six weeks ago here. and >...but feels that a) he can't disagree, b) he can't compete and c) a simple > "amen" adds nothing to the discussion. While I appreciate both his esteem > and his reasons, I still long for "intelligent" responses.) It seems to me that you are stating the obvious. Let's talk about something that is not so obvious, simply because it is kept hidden, and nobody wants to talk about it. Communication is, besides an act of explanation, also a means for propaganda. You don't have to look to far to see the effects of disinformation, commonly referred to as lies. On an historical basis, lies have enthroned bandits, destroyed the mighty, and maintained the status quo for good or ill since time immemorial. I wrote in an earlier message that communication should be looked upon from one criteria, and one criteria only, and that is "what is to be accomplished?" This is perhaps THE touchstone for communication, if what you say does not lend itself towards moving the hearts or minds of someone to DO something then you might be an artist. (which is something else entirely) Just try to appoint a concept which does not fit. Tony Marriott