taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/27/86)
e handicapped or if you have a friend or relative who is
handicapped or if you are just interested in this field, then this
mailing list is for you.
Topics to be covered include but are by no means restricted to:
-New technology available (in all fields whether computer related or not)
-Medical issues
-Legal aspects
-Employment issues
-Education
-Handicapped in the society
If you wish to be added to the mailing list or would like any further
information, please send e-mail to:
{decvax, ittatc, philabs}!bunker!wtm
Thank you,
Bill McGarry
Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, CT
{decvax, ittatc, philabs}!bunker!wtm
(203) 386-2749
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 23:19 EDT
From: Holleran@DOCKMASTER.ARPA
Subject: Comments on Writing and Coding...
I would like to defend what many of you are calling bad coding or bad
writing. I feel inefficient is a better term since bad implies negative
results. I can get next door by walking directly or by going a great circle
route; the latter route is about 25000 miles longer. Bad - no, because I
arrived; inefficient - yes!
In coding, many people have never been taught how to code (or debug). If
a piece of code "accomplishes" a given goal, it is not bad; it can't be since
it provides the proper function. The scope of the coder is a series of
instructions which perform one function. If he has never been taught how to
create efficient code or improve on code, the code will remain unchanged. Now
if that coder happens to be a systems programmer (OS maintainer), that code
could be proliferated into many applications processes where it might be
called/used millions of times. And now the penalties add up.
So far I have only shown how inefficient code gets adopted. It still isn't
bad because it functions inefficiently. The only way this inefficient code
is going to be improved is to improve the educational tools given to the
inefficient coder. Coders should be aware (or be taught/critiqued, not
criticized) that better coding techniques exists. Kludges and inefficiencies
are good for the moment but not for the long view.
In writing, I think the analogy is quite similar. Poor writing is an
indication of poor communication skills. It may not be bad if the message
intended by the author is understood by the recipient. Not bad but
inefficient. There are many ways in which communication can be presented
or accomplished. Very seldom is only one way correct.
There needs to be some sort of educational process to demonstrate the better
and more effective ways. But when less efficient ways are considered
acceptable, then you must expect to get mediocre products, both in coding and
in writing.
I strongly agree with the quote about Art needing two people. But I would
add a teacher or mentor in this "loop" to guide or teach the novice to start
the creation.
Now comes the real problem: how can a small subset of responsible people
affect the system to improve the educational tools to "grow" better coders
and writers? How can we improve the teachers or reviewers to critique for
improvement? Can we encourage the system to accept the "penalties" of
more overhead for an improved product?
Jack
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 86 23:19 PST
From: Dave Taylor (taylor@hplabs)
Subject: Some thoughts on Jacks' posting, above...
[being able to respond in the same issue as the original is a perk of being a
moderator, I guess *smile*]
> Now comes the real problem: how can a small subset of responsible people
> affect the system to improve the educational tools to "grow" better coders
> and writers? How can we improve the teachers or reviewers to critique for
> improvement? Can we encourage the system to accept the "penalties" of
> more overhead for an improved product?
Tough questions! Before I answer them, lets meander for a bit..
The way I prefer to teach is by example...that is, if you tend to
take the great circle route to get next door and your co-worker Kelly takes
the shorter, more efficient route, beating you by *chuckle* a few months, you
will begin to emulate the more successful strategy. This is somewhat of
an evolutionary point, almost, in that the more successful strategies
tend to be emulated and thereby replicated.
Historically, I don't think we're anywhere different to at the introduction
and infancy of any new technology. Consider the dramatic lowering in the
quality of writing when Gutenberg, through the printing press, made duplication
of books and pamphlets thoroughly accessible. For another example, with
the introduction of word processors and home computers, everyone and their
brother thinks they can write a book now. There are, in fact, more books
being introduced on the market than ever before (just think about the burst
of technical books after the introduction of a major software product...
(go count the number of Unix books in your local bookstore...)) but the
QUALITY of them is not necessarily any better. Probably, the average quality
of a book has gone down considerably, simply due to this glut.
If we consider the problem of bad coding and writing in this light, then I
think what will happen is that the better books/programs (etc) will over a
period of time be proven to be better and will therefore become the norm to
try to match. This is consistent with similar 'evolutions', the modern
automobile being a good example - When the car was first introduced, there
were hundreds of companies making cars, none of which were at all alike in
even the basic controls (some had 'steering wheels", some had "bridles", etc)
but as time passed, the automobile became standardized to the point where
one can get into a completely foreign car and know what almost all the
controls are (except the stereo).
-- Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 10:08:35 PDT
From: sun!words!dirk@hplabs.ARPA (Dirk van Nouhuys)
Subject: On Word Processors and Writing
I've been writing technical documents,
popular articles and books on technology, fiction, and even a little poetry
on an assortment of computer systems and watching others do so since 1970
and have a few simple observations.
The first is the recent proliferation of word processors among writers.
As recently as five years ago most writers hardly knew what I meant by using
a computer to write. In the 70's a couple of magazines refused to read
my MSS because they were written on computers. Today among many writer
friends I know only one who still uses type writers. He divides his time
among three cities, and owns 4 identical Hermes typewrites, one in each
city and one in his car. It also happens he won the most recent Pultizter
prize for fiction, you can draw what conclusions you may from that.
Which brings me a most important observation: that the medium writers use
to compose is an intimate and emotional commitment. Most of us who write
know the emotional importance of the physical fuss, be it chewing on pencils,
setting up format, shuffling diskettes or whatever. It is part of our
feeling of what it means to write or even to be a writer. A number of
scholarly articles have been written on the effect on Henry James' style
when he switched from longhand to dictation. Eugene O'Neil wrote with pencils.
O'Neil died of Parkinson's disease, which cramped his fingers long
before his death. He found that he could not change media, for example to
dictation, and alleged that he lived years with plays unwritten in his head
because he could not get them out.
These days, I know writers who could not imagine writing with a mouse-
based system, and other who imagine they could not write without it. These
are not fully rational commitments.
In general professional writes like word processors because they allow them
to write *more*. That is, they can revise faster. I leave you to judge if it
is better for the world to have more books.
My observation is that for the average writer who is doing semi-repetitive
work like computer documentation, popular fiction, or popular magazine
articles, word processing tends to increase production at the expense of
quality. It is too easy to copy with cursory revisions, or to revise hastily.
For example, you may decide to change the color of your hero's eyes from
brown to jade green. With a word processor you might do that with a single
global replacement. But if you "put the whole thing through the typewriter
one more time" in the phrase of my friend with the Hermes's, your chances
are better of catching the subtle changes that cascade from an initial change
if you are serious about good writing, in this example perhaps
dropping or adding the word "jaded" in another sentence describing the hero.
You can imagine subtler and more complicated examples of this sort of thing.
The publisher's work bench type aids are helpful as are the paper-like look
of and ease of use of machines like Mac, but they do not really address
this kind of issue.
Of course if you are sufficiently disciplined or involved in the task to
work out changes meticulously, then it is far easier to do it in a word
processing system than to run the whole thing through a typewriter and it is
my observation that word processing is thus an advantage to a writer who
is deeply involved in polishing his or her work.
------------------------------
From: U45571@UICVM.BITNET (James A. Danowski - (312) 996-3187)
Date: 28 May 1986 05:35:44 CDT
Subject: Automated Word-Network Analysis
[from the CRTNET Newsletter, issue 42 - if anyone has the actual paper, please
drop me a line --Dave]
AUTOMATED WORD-NETWORK ANALYSIS:
An Illustration with Electronic Mail Over a Monthly Time Series
James A. Danowski
University of Illinois at Chicago
Paper presented at annual meetings of the International Communication
Association, Chicago, 1986.
The author is grateful to John R. Andrews, Computer Center, University of
Illinois at Chicago, and Paul Edison-Swift, North Central Computer Institute
for their contributions to this research.
ABSTRACT
This research tested hypotheses about linkages between the interpersonal
networks and the message content networks occurring in an organization over a
one-year period. Automated network analysis procedures were developed to
content analyze raw natural language electronic mail texts. Word were treated
as network nodes and their cooccurrence in texts as definers of links among
words.
The data were obtained from a state-wide extension organization whose
electronic mail traffic and message content was captured for one year.
Support was found for the hypotheses that: as node integration in the
interpersonal network increased, node integration in the word network
increased; and, crisis destablizes content networks. Crisis nearly
quadrupled the amplitude of oscillation over the subsequent six months in size
of the largest word group.
It was also observed that:
o at the node-centric level interpersonal integration was
2.5 times more elastic than content network integration;
o a crisis decreased the number of word groups by 50% the
following month, but the second month afterward the number
of groups reached a yearly high. Subsequently, however,
number of groups dropped to crisis-level lows for several
months;
o as content node integration decreased, the number of groups
declined, as one of the groups became very large;
o size of the largest word group was positively correlated with
the number of group members, indicating that volume of shared
content increases;
o there was an apparent one-month lagged relationship between
the number of messages (and users) and the number of content
groups, with changes in number of messages occurring prior
to content group changes. This suggests that the infusion
of diverse information in a month, results in differentiation
of word groups in the subsequent month.
The methods appear useful for mapping the social concepts or culture of a
community.
------------------------------
From: FP98%DMARUM8.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Date: 860602 13:11 +0200
Subject: Help
[slightly edited]
Hello,
I am studying psychology in Mannheim (W.Germany). Because I'm very
interested in the impact of new technologies I want to ask you for
information. Is there a mailing list I can be added to? Would you be
so kind to send me the digest? I've special interests in teleconferences,
computer conferences and video-conferences.
Thanks and good bye
Ulrich
[I'm adding this to the digest so that anyone who is working on this
area can contact Ulrich directly. Also, any work being done in
any of these areas is of potential interest to the group... -- Dave]
-----------------------------------
From: taylor@hplabs (Dave Taylor)
Date: June 2, 1986 at 4:30 pm, PST
Subject: Psychological Impact of Electronic Communications Systems
Since moving to the so-called Silicon Valley, and meeting a number of people
that I've only corresponded with via electronic mail, I've noticed a couple
of interesting phenomena;
First off, a couple of the people I've met have some sort of physical
impairement. (one is blind, one is only semifunctional on their legs, etc)
I think it's a great testament for the potential of electronic communications
that these people are able to compete as equals in conferences and general
converstations, whereas in a face-to-face situation it's certain that at
least SOME of the people present would either avoid meeting them or would
distort what they had to say (the common "they're PHYSICALLY handicapped so
they must also be less smart than us" syndrome - ask anyone who has any sort
of disability).
I really think that it's one of the most wonderful things about this form
of communication! For the first time in many years of communicating, we
can finally deal with people as 'expressors of ideas' rather than as a
physical being (don't jump yet!). Consider - on the phone, for example,
you have to be able to think fast on your feet and certainly if you're
going to be in a debate of any sort you need to be able to back up your
arguments (on conferencing systems, the distribution leads to some very
interesting repercussions if you don't, but I jump ahead of myself). If
you're talking in person, oftentimes the conversation is changed by the
appearance, talking style, enunciation (what? what? what?) and the sex
and race of the others in the group. This is a well-known occurance.
Even going back hundreds of years to clan meetings, or just one-on-one
talking (or grunting, depends how far back we go), there have always
been barriers of some sort or other - the difference in social classes,
the sexes (women can't have intelligent thoughts, right?) the races (you're
a SLAVE - you can't tell me how to run the plantation!), the religions,
and on and on.
On the other hand, I don't mean to present computing as the answer to all
that ails communications!! One of the greatest problems with electronic
communications is that our schooling systems tend not to teach us to
communicate in writing particularly well. (I was a writing tutor when I
was in college - UCSD - and the students lack of ability to express their
thoughts in writing was shocking) There are other problems too - having
antisocial tendencies in one area is usually enough to cause someone to
have their opinions discounted entirely in other, perhaps more appropriate,
areas, for example.
Another problem, certainly one that generates a lot of volume in various
news groups, is the lack of visual/vocal cues. This is why humour goes
over so badly (sarcasm is terribly misconstrued, typically). Finally,
since it's such an inherently anonymous media (it's pretty easy to fake
a logname/hostname pair) some people enjoy making deliberately inflammatory
comments. This is somewhat akin to hecklers in audiences, perhaps, but
in this medium, it's hard to have the guard throw the person out...
Secondly, and more to the point I'd like to talk about, there is an interesting
tendency to rely on electronic systems for conversation. Quite common are
people walking by my area saying "I just sent you mail on <xyz>...what did
you think?", or, even more intruiging, "did you get my mail?" "no" "oh. I'll
resend it." "I'll look for it".
It's almost as if having this written communications medium superceeds a
verbal talk...
Last week my group here at work was supposed to have a brainstorming meeting
on various issues. Instead, we sent around email messages. The meeting was
cancelled, and now we're sitting in our individual offices considering what
each other had to say on the issues...
I can imagine a future where we leave each other recorded video messages
and get flustered when we meet people in person, saying things like "I
just left you a message..." and walking away quickly.
Finally, I've been going out Thursday nights for dinner with other "net"
people in the area, and have noticed a couple of really bizarre things.
First, most of the people who go expect their 'net' personae (that is,
the comments, and ideas they present on the conferencing systems) to be
considered INDEPENDENT of their actual personality. Exchanges like "So
didja see my posting in net.singles?" "Yeah. Pretty dumb" "Yeah, but I
figured X will be amused" or "You're really getting on my case in net-
dot-politics lately" "Yeah, it's kinda fun" (and the actual exchange, if
one goes to actually read it, is actually pretty hostile...).
There's a strange thing going on here...It's like meeting a pen-pal
(remember those?) after a long time, and finding them TOTALLY different
from what you were lead to believe, and having them say "So? It's all
only semi-serious anyway. Why? Did you think I was SERIOUS when I said
I was 5"2", with eyes of Blue?". Somehow, though, there is no social
stigma attached with the personality schism on computers, but there certainly
is with other forms of "social misleading"...(another example - you call up
someone in error, but end up talking to them for a while (I've had this
happen a couple of times) and you both lie about your physical appearance.
It's not really socially acceptable, and certainly if you ever meet the
person you're talking to it would be very embarassing to explain).
The other interesting thing is that oftentimes the conversation that goes
on at dinner is almost identical to potential conversation that could
occur via computer - typified by quoting the other person (even though
they just seconds ago said it...) and long soliliquies rather than a
short dialogue.
Anyone else noticed any of these or have any insights??
Looking forward to dinner this Thursday!
-- Dave
-----------------------------------
To have your thoughts included in this digest, or to join the mailing
list, please send electronic mail to Dave Taylor at any of the following
addresses:
taylor@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!taylor
This digest is published approximately bi-monthly and does not necessarily
express the views of HP nor anyone else other than the individual authors
of the messages.
***********************************
End of Computers and Society Digest
***********************************taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/01/86)
--------
Computers and Society Digest, Number 24
Monday, June 2nd 1986
Today's Topics:
New mailing list for/about handicapped
Comments on Writing and Coding (3 msgs)
Research Help on Conferencing
Psychological Impact of Electronic Communications Systems
[update: The mailing problem is fixed (I hope) and we're now waiting the
creation of the newsgroup "mod.comp-soc" on the local machine...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wtm@bunker.UUCP (Bill McGarry at Bunker Ramo, Trumbull CT)
Date: Fri, 30 May 86 11:19:14 EDT
Subject: New mailing list for/about handicapped
The proposed purpose of mail.handicapped will be to share information
of any form relating to physically/mentally handicapped people.
If you are handicapped or if you have a friend or relative who is
handicapped or if you are just interested in this field, then this
mailing list is for you.
Topics to be covered include but are by no means restricted to:
-New technology available (in all fields whether computer related or not)
-Medical issues
-Legal aspects
-Employment issues
-Education
-Handicapped in the society
If you wish to be added to the mailing list or would like any further
information, please send e-mail to:
{decvax, ittatc, philabs}!bunker!wtm
Thank you,
Bill McGarry
Bunker Ramo, Trumbull, CT
{decvax, ittatc, philabs}!bunker!wtm
(203) 386-2749
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 23:19 EDT
From: Holleran@DOCKMASTER.ARPA
Subject: Comments on Writing and Coding...
I would like to defend what many of you are calling bad coding or bad
writing. I feel inefficient is a better term since bad implies negative
results. I can get next door by walking directly or by going a great circle
route; the latter route is about 25000 miles longer. Bad - no, because I
arrived; inefficient - yes!
In coding, many people have never been taught how to code (or debug). If
a piece of code "accomplishes" a given goal, it is not bad; it can't be since
it provides the proper function. The scope of the coder is a series of
instructions which perform one function. If he has never been taught how to
create efficient code or improve on code, the code will remain unchanged. Now
if that coder happens to be a systems programmer (OS maintainer), that code
could be proliferated into many applications processes where it might be
called/used millions of times. And now the penalties add up.
So far I have only shown how inefficient code gets adopted. It still isn't
bad because it functions inefficiently. The only way this inefficient code
is going to be improved is to improve the educational tools given to the
inefficient coder. Coders should be aware (or be taught/critiqued, not
criticized) that better coding techniques exists. Kludges and inefficiencies
are good for the moment but not for the long view.
In writing, I think the analogy is quite similar. Poor writing is an
indication of poor communication skills. It may not be bad if the message
intended by the author is understood by the recipient. Not bad but
inefficient. There are many ways in which communication can be presented
or accomplished. Very seldom is only one way correct.
There needs to be some sort of educational process to demonstrate the better
and more effective ways. But when less efficient ways are considered
acceptable, then you must expect to get mediocre products, both in coding and
in writing.
I strongly agree with the quote about Art needing two people. But I would
add a teacher or mentor in this "loop" to guide or teach the novice to start
the creation.
Now comes the real problem: how can a small subset of responsible people
affect the system to improve the educational tools to "grow" better coders
and writers? How can we improve the teachers or reviewers to critique for
improvement? Can we encourage the system to accept the "penalties" of
more overhead for an improved product?
Jack
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 86 23:19 PST
From: Dave Taylor (taylor@hplabs)
Subject: Some thoughts on Jacks' posting, above...
[being able to respond in the same issue as the original is a perk of being a
moderator, I guess *smile*]
> Now comes the real problem: how can a small subset of responsible people
> affect the system to improve the educational tools to "grow" better coders
> and writers? How can we improve the teachers or reviewers to critique for
> improvement? Can we encourage the system to accept the "penalties" of
> more overhead for an improved product?
Tough questions! Before I answer them, lets meander for a bit..
The way I prefer to teach is by example...that is, if you tend to
take the great circle route to get next door and your co-worker Kelly takes
the shorter, more efficient route, beating you by *chuckle* a few months, you
will begin to emulate the more successful strategy. This is somewhat of
an evolutionary point, almost, in that the more successful strategies
tend to be emulated and thereby replicated.
Historically, I don't think we're anywhere different to at the introduction
and infancy of any new technology. Consider the dramatic lowering in the
quality of writing when Gutenberg, through the printing press, made duplication
of books and pamphlets thoroughly accessible. For another example, with
the introduction of word processors and home computers, everyone and their
brother thinks they can write a book now. There are, in fact, more books
being introduced on the market than ever before (just think about the burst
of technical books after the introduction of a major software product...
(go count the number of Unix books in your local bookstore...)) but the
QUALITY of them is not necessarily any better. Probably, the average quality
of a book has gone down considerably, simply due to this glut.
If we consider the problem of bad coding and writing in this light, then I
think what will happen is that the better books/programs (etc) will over a
period of time be proven to be better and will therefore become the norm to
try to match. This is consistent with similar 'evolutions', the modern
automobile being a good example - When the car was first introduced, there
were hundreds of companies making cars, none of which were at all alike in
even the basic controls (some had 'steering wheels", some had "bridles", etc)
but as time passed, the automobile became standardized to the point where
one can get into a completely foreign car and know what almost all the
controls are (except the stereo).
-- Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 10:08:35 PDT
From: sun!words!dirk@hplabs.ARPA (Dirk van Nouhuys)
Subject: On Word Processors and Writing
I've been writing technical documents,
popular articles and books on technology, fiction, and even a little poetry
on an assortment of computer systems and watching others do so since 1970
and have a few simple observations.
The first is the recent proliferation of word processors among writers.
As recently as five years ago most writers hardly knew what I meant by using
a computer to write. In the 70's a couple of magazines refused to read
my MSS because they were written on computers. Today among many writer
friends I know only one who still uses type writers. He divides his time
among three cities, and owns 4 identical Hermes typewrites, one in each
city and one in his car. It also happens he won the most recent Pultizter
prize for fiction, you can draw what conclusions you may from that.
Which brings me a most important observation: that the medium writers use
to compose is an intimate and emotional commitment. Most of us who write
know the emotional importance of the physical fuss, be it chewing on pencils,
setting up format, shuffling diskettes or whatever. It is part of our
feeling of what it means to write or even to be a writer. A number of
scholarly articles have been written on the effect on Henry James' style
when he switched from longhand to dictation. Eugene O'Neil wrote with pencils.
O'Neil died of Parkinson's disease, which cramped his fingers long
before his death. He found that he could not change media, for example to
dictation, and alleged that he lived years with plays unwritten in his head
because he could not get them out.
These days, I know writers who could not imagine writing with a mouse-
based system, and other who imagine they could not write without it. These
are not fully rational commitments.
In general professional writes like word processors because they allow them
to write *more*. That is, they can revise faster. I leave you to judge if it
is better for the world to have more books.
My observation is that for the average writer who is doing semi-repetitive
work like computer documentation, popular fiction, or popular magazine
articles, word processing tends to increase production at the expense of
quality. It is too easy to copy with cursory revisions, or to revise hastily.
For example, you may decide to change the color of your hero's eyes from
brown to jade green. With a word processor you might do that with a single
global replacement. But if you "put the whole thing through the typewriter
one more time" in the phrase of my friend with the Hermes's, your chances
are better of catching the subtle changes that cascade from an initial change
if you are serious about good writing, in this example perhaps
dropping or adding the word "jaded" in another sentence describing the hero.
You can imagine subtler and more complicated examples of this sort of thing.
The publisher's work bench type aids are helpful as are the paper-like look
of and ease of use of machines like Mac, but they do not really address
this kind of issue.
Of course if you are sufficiently disciplined or involved in the task to
work out changes meticulously, then it is far easier to do it in a word
processing system than to run the whole thing through a typewriter and it is
my observation that word processing is thus an advantage to a writer who
is deeply involved in polishing his or her work.
------------------------------
From: U45571@UICVM.BITNET (James A. Danowski - (312) 996-3187)
Date: 28 May 1986 05:35:44 CDT
Subject: Automated Word-Network Analysis
[from the CRTNET Newsletter, issue 42 - if anyone has the actual paper, please
drop me a line --Dave]
AUTOMATED WORD-NETWORK ANALYSIS:
An Illustration with Electronic Mail Over a Monthly Time Series
James A. Danowski
University of Illinois at Chicago
Paper presented at annual meetings of the International Communication
Association, Chicago, 1986.
The author is grateful to John R. Andrews, Computer Center, University of
Illinois at Chicago, and Paul Edison-Swift, North Central Computer Institute
for their contributions to this research.
ABSTRACT
This research tested hypotheses about linkages between the interpersonal
networks and the message content networks occurring in an organization over a
one-year period. Automated network analysis procedures were developed to
content analyze raw natural language electronic mail texts. Word were treated
as network nodes and their cooccurrence in texts as definers of links among
words.
The data were obtained from a state-wide extension organization whose
electronic mail traffic and message content was captured for one year.
Support was found for the hypotheses that: as node integration in the
interpersonal network increased, node integration in the word network
increased; and, crisis destablizes content networks. Crisis nearly
quadrupled the amplitude of oscillation over the subsequent six months in size
of the largest word group.
It was also observed that:
o at the node-centric level interpersonal integration was
2.5 times more elastic than content network integration;
o a crisis decreased the number of word groups by 50% the
following month, but the second month afterward the number
of groups reached a yearly high. Subsequently, however,
number of groups dropped to crisis-level lows for several
months;
o as content node integration decreased, the number of groups
declined, as one of the groups became very large;
o size of the largest word group was positively correlated with
the number of group members, indicating that volume of shared
content increases;
o there was an apparent one-month lagged relationship between
the number of messages (and users) and the number of content
groups, with changes in number of messages occurring prior
to content group changes. This suggests that the infusion
of diverse information in a month, results in differentiation
of word groups in the subsequent month.
The methods appear useful for mapping the social concepts or culture of a
community.
------------------------------
From: FP98%DMARUM8.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Date: 860602 13:11 +0200
Subject: Help
[slightly edited]
Hello,
I am studying psychology in Mannheim (W.Germany). Because I'm very
interested in the impact of new technologies I want to ask you for
information. Is there a mailing list I can be added to? Would you be
so kind to send me the digest? I've special interests in teleconferences,
computer conferences and video-conferences.
Thanks and good bye
Ulrich
[I'm adding this to the digest so that anyone who is working on this
area can contact Ulrich directly. Also, any work being done in
any of these areas is of potential interest to the group... -- Dave]
-----------------------------------
From: taylor@hplabs (Dave Taylor)
Date: June 2, 1986 at 4:30 pm, PST
Subject: Psychological Impact of Electronic Communications Systems
Since moving to the so-called Silicon Valley, and meeting a number of people
that I've only corresponded with via electronic mail, I've noticed a couple
of interesting phenomena;
First off, a couple of the people I've met have some sort of physical
impairement. (one is blind, one is only semifunctional on their legs, etc)
I think it's a great testament for the potential of electronic communications
that these people are able to compete as equals in conferences and general
converstations, whereas in a face-to-face situation it's certain that at
least SOME of the people present would either avoid meeting them or would
distort what they had to say (the common "they're PHYSICALLY handicapped so
they must also be less smart than us" syndrome - ask anyone who has any sort
of disability).
I really think that it's one of the most wonderful things about this form
of communication! For the first time in many years of communicating, we
can finally deal with people as 'expressors of ideas' rather than as a
physical being (don't jump yet!). Consider - on the phone, for example,
you have to be able to think fast on your feet and certainly if you're
going to be in a debate of any sort you need to be able to back up your
arguments (on conferencing systems, the distribution leads to some very
interesting repercussions if you don't, but I jump ahead of myself). If
you're talking in person, oftentimes the conversation is changed by the
appearance, talking style, enunciation (what? what? what?) and the sex
and race of the others in the group. This is a well-known occurance.
Even going back hundreds of years to clan meetings, or just one-on-one
talking (or grunting, depends how far back we go), there have always
been barriers of some sort or other - the difference in social classes,
the sexes (women can't have intelligent thoughts, right?) the races (you're
a SLAVE - you can't tell me how to run the plantation!), the religions,
and on and on.
On the other hand, I don't mean to present computing as the answer to all
that ails communications!! One of the greatest problems with electronic
communications is that our schooling systems tend not to teach us to
communicate in writing particularly well. (I was a writing tutor when I
was in college - UCSD - and the students lack of ability to express their
thoughts in writing was shocking) There are other problems too - having
antisocial tendencies in one area is usually enough to cause someone to
have their opinions discounted entirely in other, perhaps more appropriate,
areas, for example.
Another problem, certainly one that generates a lot of volume in various
news groups, is the lack of visual/vocal cues. This is why humour goes
over so badly (sarcasm is terribly misconstrued, typically). Finally,
since it's such an inherently anonymous media (it's pretty easy to fake
a logname/hostname pair) some people enjoy making deliberately inflammatory
comments. This is somewhat akin to hecklers in audiences, perhaps, but
in this medium, it's hard to have the guard throw the person out...
Secondly, and more to the point I'd like to talk about, there is an interesting
tendency to rely on electronic systems for conversation. Quite common are
people walking by my area saying "I just sent you mail on <xyz>...what did
you think?", or, even more intruiging, "did you get my mail?" "no" "oh. I'll
resend it." "I'll look for it".
It's almost as if having this written communications medium superceeds a
verbal talk...
Last week my group here at work was supposed to have a brainstorming meeting
on various issues. Instead, we sent around email messages. The meeting was
cancelled, and now we're sitting in our individual offices considering what
each other had to say on the issues...
I can imagine a future where we leave each other recorded video messages
and get flustered when we meet people in person, saying things like "I
just left you a message..." and walking away quickly.
Finally, I've been going out Thursday nights for dinner with other "net"
people in the area, and have noticed a couple of really bizarre things.
First, most of the people who go expect their 'net' personae (that is,
the comments, and ideas they present on the conferencing systems) to be
considered INDEPENDENT of their actual personality. Exchanges like "So
didja see my posting in net.singles?" "Yeah. Pretty dumb" "Yeah, but I
figured X will be amused" or "You're really getting on my case in net-
dot-politics lately" "Yeah, it's kinda fun" (and the actual exchange, if
one goes to actually read it, is actually pretty hostile...).
There's a strange thing going on here...It's like meeting a pen-pal
(remember those?) after a long time, and finding them TOTALLY different
from what you were lead to believe, and having them say "So? It's all
only semi-serious anyway. Why? Did you think I was SERIOUS when I said
I was 5"2", with eyes of Blue?". Somehow, though, there is no social
stigma attached with the personality schism on computers, but there certainly
is with other forms of "social misleading"...(another example - you call up
someone in error, but end up talking to them for a while (I've had this
happen a couple of times) and you both lie about your physical appearance.
It's not really socially acceptable, and certainly if you ever meet the
person you're talking to it would be very embarassing to explain).
The other interesting thing is that oftentimes the conversation that goes
on at dinner is almost identical to potential conversation that could
occur via computer - typified by quoting the other person (even though
they just seconds ago said it...) and long soliliquies rather than a
short dialogue.
Anyone else noticed any of these or have any insights??
Looking forward to dinner this Thursday!
-- Dave
-----------------------------------
To have your thoughts included in this digest, or to join the mailing
list, please send electronic mail to Dave Taylor at any of the following
addresses:
taylor@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!taylor
This digest is published approximately bi-monthly and does not necessarily
express the views of HP nor anyone else other than the individual authors
of the messages.
***********************************
End of Computers and Society Digest
***********************************