marks@agcsun.UUCP (Mark Shepherd) (01/10/91)
I have comments on two recently posted articles: cazier@mbunix.mitre.org thinks that someone should start a discussion on the use of software in a workgroup environment, CASE, software management, common software, what is groupware, X-windows, etc. What are you waiting for? Nick Szabo thinks that the emotional content of sound and video is often shallow and unnecessary. In a purely technical discussion this can be true, however it is arguable that the most important group interactions (which is what groupware is all about) are the ones dealing with personal (i.e. emotional) rather than technical issues. I would even go further and say that long-term, real-world electronic collaboration is only possible with media that can adequately carry the emotional content. Mark Shepherd ...!boulder.colorado.edu!agcsun!marks
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (01/12/91)
In article <872@agcsun.UUCP> marks@agcsun.UUCP (Mark Shepherd) writes: >Nick Szabo thinks that the emotional content of sound and video is >often shallow and unnecessary. In a purely technical discussion this >can be true, however it is arguable that the most important group >interactions (which is what groupware is all about) are the ones dealing >with personal (i.e. emotional) rather than technical issues. So argue (ie provide some evidence). For this newsgroup, I think most of the audience is technically oriented, and interested in groupware to facilitate the discussion of technical topics. Also, I am not convinced that sound and video are better for emotional issues than print. They can communicate more emotional data, yes, but that is not necessarily a good thing. An example is Galileo, who recanted what he had seen with his own eyes, after he had to meet the pope face-to-face. Emotional interaction is ad hominem and gets in the way of finding the truth or achieving technical goals. In some fields (eg sales) emotional interaction is foremost (not necessarily a good thing either, esp. technical sales, but sadly true). In those cases sound and video could be used (although IMHO society would not really benefit). However I don't think there are very may salespeople reading this thread. >I would >even go further and say that long-term, real-world electronic collaboration >is only possible with media that can adequately carry the emotional >content. History disagrees. The print media has been carrying on long-term, real-world collaboration for hundreds of years. It is largely responsible for post-Renassaince scientific collaboration: Newton "I have stood on the shoulders of giants". UseNet has now speeded up the ability to colloborate via electronic text, and real-time groupware could do this even more. Technical graphics would also be a big win. But I see little need for sound and video. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Der Grouch) (01/15/91)
It's nice that there's finally an article in this group that I feel is worth
a reply (even though I'm going to largely disagree with Nick).
In article <20921@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
I think most of the audience is technically oriented, and interested in
groupware to facilitate the discussion of technical topics.
I think that's an unwarranted overgeneralization. People are interested in
groupware for all kinds of reasons; facilitation of technical topics is a
relatively small part of the field.
Also, I am not convinced that sound and video are better for emotional
issues than print. They can communicate more emotional data, yes, but
that is not necessarily a good thing. [Galileo example deleted.]
Emotional interaction is ad hominem and gets in the way of finding the
truth or achieving technical goals.
This is a typical rationalist overgeneralization. You will find that even
supposedly logical and rational persons benefit from emotional content to
communication. For example, how do you know which of your coworkers'
objections are the most serious? You read their body language, hear their
tone of voice, etc. This is as true for any technical example you care to
bring forward as it is for the sales interactions you disparage.
Even when the outcome is not entirely desirable in global terms, the
conveyance of emotional content can be extremely helpful. EG: in an
historical sense, Galileo recanting may not have been the "right" thing to
do, but it probably kept the pope from killing Galileo - definitely a
benefit to him! Without the emotional content, Galileo might have been
misled into thinking that the pope's objections were less serious, and thus
hastened his own demise.
[...] I see little need for sound and video.
Really? You have an impoverished view of communication. How do you know
I'm not mad at you for being such an imbecile? How do you know I haven't
separately sent you the last 200 years of research/philosophy on
communication so that you can see the error of your ways? Realistically,
you don't. What you're doing is interpolating a huge amount of data from
the words I've typed. If you had that data available directly you'd be able
to make better judgements and interpretations; even an extreme rationalist
such as yourself should be able to see the advantage of that!
--
--Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
"Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people."wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Der Grouch) (01/22/91)
This is drifting rather far from the topic of this group, so this will
probably be my last post in this thread. (Not that I don't find the topic
interesting...)
In article <20964@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
For a technical discussion, I find the most serious objections by
looking at the most serious evidence put forward to support those
objections.
Oh, piffle! You do no such thing. You look at the objections brought,
listen to the tone of voice used to present them, evaluate that against the
history you have of technical, social and personal interaction with the
person making the objection, then you form an opinion as to the
"seriousness" of the evidence. *Then* you weight the seriousness.
If by "serious" you mean which coworker does not *like* the proposal
emotionally, it may be of interest to certain parties to communicate that
emotion, but it is not in the interest of the group as a whole and will
lead to a political rather than technical solution. Furthermore, the
emotional communication diverts attention from the technical communication,
leading to even poorer results.
Depends on what you consider a "poor" result. You appear to believe that
there is the One Great Truth out there and your Job is to Discover it. This
kind of idiocy came into fashion with the Victorians; I rather thought we'd
gotten over it.
In the real world, the politico-social process is *extremely important* even
in the Discovery of Truths (like physics, which we may suppose to be an
approximation of the real world). In more fuzzy areas like building
computer products (which I naively assume you do), that process becomes even
more important.
[I'm certainly not going to argue here about what the Pope would or would
not have done.]
I am interested in discussing the facts and uses of groupware, not a silly
contest to see who can get the most red in the face.
You missed my point; perhaps if you'd seen my gestures you'd have gotten it.
Let me say it again: you are, at this moment, interpolating a huge amount of
information that has been stripped out of the bare text I must send you.
You have to hope that you get most of it right or you end up over- or
underreacting. Perhaps you interpolate an angry tone of voice and decide
this discussion is not worth your time, so you ignore my posting(s) and miss
out on an interesting topic.
The point of all that is to say that rather than leaving it to guesswork to
fill in this missing information, we would all benefit from having the
"real" raw data there to analyze or ignore as we chose.
[...] that many people *want* to communicate
emotions for various reasons, many others do not, and those that do not
(eg scientists) have had a more beneficial impact on organizations and
society than those who have. I conclude that those organizations that
waste their engineer's time on emotional communication will go out of
business at the hands of those organizations that give their engineers
tools to enhance their ability to work as a team on technical projects.
If that's what you think, remind me not to work for any company you own!
Not that I don't want the tools, of course I do. I just want to work for a
boss who realizes that things like reputation and image do more for a
company's success than strict technical regalia. (To anticipate the obvious
reply, yes I know even the best image houses can't live forever on
vaporware. But they die eventually because their images get tarnished. The
point remains the same.)
Oh, and you're right about my not being an expert in this field. But I do
know a fair bit about it. I suggest you pick up a book on the philosophy of
language; any good text will teach you the difference between syntax,
semantics, and pragmatics. Then look at the work of, oh let's pick someone
relevant to this newsgroup: Horst Rittel (whose work on IBIS got Conklin et
al started on gIBIS, rIBIS et seq).
Hate to tell you, but most of the research of which you speak is
*written down* not in sound or video.
Yes, and a bloody shame too! Chomsky, for example, is a mediocre writer at
times, but can be a terrific speaker. I understood some of his ideas *much*
better after I attended one of his lectures and saw his diagrams and
sketches. Or try to imagine how well you'd understand fractals if you'd
never seen a Mandelbrot or Julia set rendered. Self-similarity is much
better demonstrated by allowing a user to zoom in a section of such a
rendering than it is by any number of words.
--
--Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
"Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people."szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (01/22/91)
In article <WEX.91Jan21140658@dali.pws.bull.com> wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Der Grouch) writes: >In article <20964@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > For a technical discussion, I find the most serious objections by > looking at the most serious evidence put forward to support those > objections. > >Oh, piffle! You do no such thing. You look at the objections brought, >listen to the tone of voice used to present them, evaluate that against the >history you have of technical, social and personal interaction with the >person making the objection, then you form an opinion as to the >"seriousness" of the evidence. *Then* you weight the seriousness. Oh piffle! I recognize tone of voice, history of personal and social interaction, and other emotions for what they are: typically irrelevent to the technical matter at hand. I can and have exchanged large amounts of technical information (in e-mail, news, source-code control, and bug tracking groupware) without ever having met the person or had any sort of emotional interaction. Similarly, I can read scientific journals, judging them on technical merit without knowing or caring one whit about the emotions of the person when the were writing the paper. If in fact I know the person, I usually go into "filter emotions" mode so that I can exchange the information needed without noise. I save my emotions for non-technical social occasions where they are appropriate. > ...it may be of interest to certain parties to communicate that > emotion, but it is not in the interest of the group as a whole and will > lead to a political rather than technical solution. Furthermore, the > emotional communication diverts attention from the technical communication, > leading to even poorer results. > >Depends on what you consider a "poor" result. You appear to believe that >there is the One Great Truth out there and your Job is to Discover it. This >kind of idiocy came into fashion with the Victorians; I rather thought we'd >gotten over it. "Idiocy"? Thank you for providing more evidence that shows how emotions get in the way of technical communications. Now for some facts: when I debug code there are correct and incorrect solutions. This is also true (albeit statistically instead of logically) for other forms of engineering and hard science. >In the real world, the politico-social process is *extremely important* even >in the Discovery of Truths (like physics, which we may suppose to be an >approximation of the real world). In more fuzzy areas like building >computer products (which I naively assume you do), that process becomes even >more important. Assuming that this is true (you again provide no evidence), "extremely important" != "productive". I have consistently found in my career that my and my fellow's emotions and technical communications do not benificially mix. > I am interested in discussing the facts and uses of groupware, not a silly > contest to see who can get the most red in the face. > >You missed my point; perhaps if you'd seen my gestures you'd have gotten it. I want to see evidence, not hand-waving. :-) >Let me say it again: you are, at this moment, interpolating a huge amount of >information that has been stripped out of the bare text I must send you. >You have to hope that you get most of it right or you end up over- or >underreacting. I am not "reacting" to your post, I am thinking about it. >Perhaps you interpolate an angry tone of voice and decide >this discussion is not worth your time, so you ignore my posting(s) and miss >out on an interesting topic. I don't know for sure what your "tone of voice" is, nor do I care. I am looking for facts that support your position -- examples of emotional groupware being used to enhance the productivity of a technical project. >The point of all that is to say that rather than leaving it to guesswork to >fill in this missing information, we would all benefit from having the >"real" raw data there to analyze or ignore as we chose. Your gestures and tone of voice would just distract me: that is not the information I need. Whether you are being serious, angry, silly, sad, or whatever doesn't tell me anything about whether you are right. >.... > Hate to tell you, but most of the research of which you speak is > *written down* not in sound or video. > >Yes, and a bloody shame too! Chomsky, for example, is a mediocre writer at >times, but can be a terrific speaker. I understood some of his ideas *much* >better after I attended one of his lectures and saw his diagrams and >sketches. Or try to imagine how well you'd understand fractals if you'd >never seen a Mandelbrot or Julia set rendered. Self-similarity is much >better demonstrated by allowing a user to zoom in a section of such a >rendering than it is by any number of words. Thank you for some examples. However, these are examples of technical graphics, not sound or video. I agree that technical graphics are important for many applications. This has little to do with communicating emotions. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
kenn@intrbas.uucp (Kenneth G. Goutal) (01/23/91)
This is terrible! <-_+> Background: I probably come down more on the rationalist end of the scale. I *want* to agree with Nick, because I agree with many of the premises that he states or implies. On the other hand, I don't want to, because he annoys the h--- out of me, because of the assaultive emotional content with which his messages (in this thread) are fraught, despite his assertions that emotional baggage is bad for arriving at good solutions. I much prefer reading, say, Alan's messages because they are much more neutral in tone, despite his assertions that emotional content is important and that this medium strips out huge amounts of emotional content. On the other hand, it's Alan's msg (to which this is a direct followup) that prompts me point out that *neither* of you (or anyone else in this thread) is providing *raw* facts (in Alan's words) for the rest of us to use. Nick, you're arguing as emotionally and fluffily as anyone else around here. Alan, you've done no better. Perhaps you could be excused because your platform is that emotional content is better. However, you cut your own feet out from under yourself by invoking the need for "raw facts" that are lost because we keep only written records rather than sound, video, etc. (at least up until lately). Keep smiling, both of you, no harm done nor intended... I'm not going to present any good raw data here either. By raw data, what I would hope to see would be actual studies, numbers, graphs, etc showing emotional/rational content of communications and the results that ensued. I feel the need to interject that there's a red herring in here... I'm confused about how it came about, or who introduced the notion, but there seems to have arisen in this thread the idea that *anything* that isn't text is emotional, and subject to the argument at hand. I disagree. I think graphs, charts, even full-resolution pictures could constitute "raw data" for the purposes at hand, and could and should be communicated via e-mail, e-news, or any other groupware. It would (or at least could) still be contributing only to the technical content of the communications. On the other hand, emotional content can be conveyed in words, written or otherwise, as I indicated in the first couple of paragraphs of this message; or in ASCII-only non-text, as the crude "emoticons" that have been in widespread use in this medium (but not in this newsgroup!!!!!?) for many years; or in detailed, hi-resolution, frequently-updated emoticons; or in the tone of voice and facial expressions in full- motion video with sound. So, part of what I would wish for would be increased bandwidth so as to accomodate graphics and perhaps even sound and video, but that somehow discussions could be carried on in a rational way, regardless of the medium. I *have not* read any studies of this stuff, nor have I conducted any, so perhaps by my own dictum I should stay out of this discussion. Having given that caveat, I will sally forth with the following: I think that one of the features of a piece of groupware that contributes to rational results is a built-in *memory* of what's been communicated so far, so as to at least help avoid degenerating to "You said X!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!" "I did not!" and so forth. Where the system has a memory, the participants can, at least, go back and *check* what was "said". I think that the lack of this features is a weakness I see in e-news as implemented on UUCP et al, and a strength of more centralized systems such as CoSy and Participate (tm's as appropriate). A second thing I think is true is that it would be bad (by which I mean "unfruitful") to have a system which did not *allow* for free-form contribution as we have it here, but I think that it is equally bad to have a system which does not *facilitate* more structured forms of communication that make it easier to avoid emotional traps. But now I've rambled more than I wanted. Take heart, Nick, Alan, and the rest... I continue to believe that this is a worthwhile thread, and quite relevant to the discussion of groupware. I think it would be more worthwhile if (a) the contributors made their contributions with higher fact/fancy, rational/emotional ratios; or (b) the software supported fruitful discussion better; or (c) both of the above. -- Kenn Goutal ...!linus!intrbas!kenn ...!uunet!intrbas!kenn
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (01/25/91)
In <161@intrbas.UUCP> kenn@intrbas.uucp (Kenneth G. Goutal) writes: ..discussion of desire for experimental data on emotional content, etc, etc elided.. >On the other hand, emotional content can be conveyed in words, written >or otherwise, as I indicated in the first couple of paragraphs of this >message; or in ASCII-only non-text, as the crude "emoticons" that have >been in widespread use in this medium (but not in this newsgroup!!!!!?) >for many years; or in detailed, hi-resolution, frequently-updated >emoticons; or in the tone of voice and facial expressions in full- >motion video with sound. Of course emotional content can be carried by normal text! Read any good novels lately? The problem is that cramming emotional content into text is very time-consuming--good writing is *hard*. My image of it is of packing and repacking a suitcase until everything you want to take fits. There seems to be an assumption that conveying emotion can be made easier by making the bandwidth larger. That helps to some extent but I would like to remind everyone that a few people are much better conversationalists than the rest of us, even when we all have "full" bandwidth. And we sometimes have inappropriate or embarassing emotions that we don't want to convey (e.g., this is sure boring, but I better continue to listen). Maybe rather than the picture on/off switch for our future videophone-equivalents we'll need a bandwidth slide switch (text on one end, full senses on the other end), depending on how revealing we want to be :-) David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]
stewarte@sco.COM (Dr. Luther's Assistant) (01/25/91)
Even net.pundits were baffled when szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) wrote: >Furthermore, the >emotional communication diverts attention from the technical communication, >leading to even poorer results. I don't think that's _necessarily_ true. Given a purely technical subject, I would rather hear a talk given by a skilled orator than one delivered in a monotone -- even if the words were exactly the same. In some cases, the emotional communication can help to focus attention rather than divert it. >Yes, it may be in the best political interests of certain parties to >communicate emotions -- especially those like the Pope who make a career >out of it. But it is not in the best interests of a group with technical >objectives. My question in response is: how many groups are there with _purely_ technical objectives? I am inclined to say "very few". Certainly some sort of "political interests" have affected the objectives of every group I've been affiliated with. >I conclude that those organizations that >waste their engineer's time on emotional communication will go out of >business at the hands of those organizations that give their engineers >tools to enhance their ability to work as a team on technical projects. I can't agree with this. In the type of software development I do, people's reactions to the program are very important -- whether those reactions are technical (it doesn't help me to do this task) or emotional (yecch! it's ugly!). I'd much rather get that sort of emotional feedback during the design phase, rather than from customers... -- Stewart -- "The old stereotypes must be lost that peace and knowledge and love are soft." -- Blastmaster KRS-ONE /* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stewarte@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */
kenn@intrbas.uucp (Kenneth G. Goutal) (01/26/91)
Hi, Dave! Glad you quit lurking and jumped in! In article <1991Jan24.193942.8468@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: > >Of course emotional content can be carried by normal text! Read >any good novels lately? The problem is that cramming emotional >content into text is very time-consuming--good writing is *hard*. Agreed. That's why the use of more bandwidth to convey audio and video is such a popular idea. "Everybody knows" that just being oneself is much easier than writing. >There seems to be an assumption that conveying emotion can be >made easier by making the bandwidth larger. See above. >That helps to some >extent but I would like to remind everyone that a few people are >much better conversationalists than the rest of us, even when we >all have "full" bandwidth. Ah! Now *there's* the rub!!!!! I was going to bring this up in a separate message immediately after my previous one, but forgot, so I'm glad you brought this up. For some of us, the use of that extra bandwidth will be a handicap, not a benefit! There are any number of reasons -- vocal qualities (harsh voice, nasal voice, difficult accent, amusing accent, speech impediment), physical appearance (age, sex, race or color, facial disfigurement), anomalies in body language (nervous tic, perpetual frown, blank stare when concentrating) -- all can contribute to conveying the *wrong* emotional content. >And we sometimes have inappropriate or embarassing emotions that >we don't want to convey (e.g., this is sure boring, but I better >continue to listen). Indeed. >Maybe rather than the picture on/off switch >for our future videophone-equivalents we'll need a bandwidth slide >switch (text on one end, full senses on the other end), depending >on how revealing we want to be :-) Of course, in text we can hide all these things in the low bandwidth. Or, if we are skilled writers, we can pretend to emotions that we don't really have. I foresee a time when full audio/video is the norm, and a. turning down the bandwidth as Dave suggested will be considered an admission of hiding something; b. faked representations will become common; and c. the richer you are, the more convincing your faked representations can be. At the moment, the crudeness of our software (text only) and the limitations of our hardware (low bandwidth) tend to be equalizers, giving those of us with any combination of the limitations I mentioned above the chance to present our views on an equal footing with those without those limitations. Those of us who wish to be convincing by dint of logic, or at least the appeal of our *ideas* find this especially beneficial. This is sort of half-way in the direction of (as I percieve it) Nick's goal of having the strength of the facts speak for themselves. Of course, the current situation *does* place a premium on being able to *write*. Those of us who write well fare better in this medium than those who don't. This is sometimes just as unfortunate as the situation where those who are mellifluous, or beautiful, or powerful fare better than those who aren't. Another time, we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages to various people of the *delay* in this medium, and how different people will have the advantage as connectivity and bandwidth move us more in the direction of real-time interactions vs the current 'batched' interactions. -- Kenn Goutal ...!linus!intrbas!kenn ...!uunet!intrbas!kenn
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (01/31/91)
In <163@intrbas.UUCP> kenn@intrbas.uucp (Kenneth G. Goutal) writes: >Of course, in text we can hide all these [revealing] things >in the low bandwidth. >Or, if we are skilled writers, we can pretend to emotions that we >don't really have. >I foresee a time when full audio/video is the norm, and > a. turning down the bandwidth as Dave suggested will be considered > an admission of hiding something; > b. faked representations will become common; and > c. the richer you are, the more convincing your faked representations > can be. There is an interesting exploration of some of the implications of a politics of openness (non-secrecy) in the SF book "Earth" by David Brin. "Representations" or simulated personalities to handle incoming voice interactions are popular in SF (some of Heechee series by F. Pohl come to mind). These simulated interations are reminiscent of current day interactions between word processing mailing list programs used to flood legislators with mail and legislators with mail handling systems for sending back automated responses. I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this automatic mail handling now, while it's relatively easy (i.e., text-only). >At the moment, the crudeness of our software (text only) >and the limitations of our hardware (low bandwidth) >tend to be equalizers, giving those of us with any combination of >the limitations I mentioned above the chance to present our views >on an equal footing with those without those limitations. Actually, I think part of it is just the same sort of advantage the "nerds" in any technology have until use becomes widespread. That is, early users who learn how to use a technology despite any kind of coarseness have a headstart. >Of course, the current situation *does* place a premium on being able >to *write*. Those of us who write well fare better in this medium >than those who don't. This is sometimes just as unfortunate as the >situation where those who are mellifluous, or beautiful, or powerful >fare better than those who aren't. A topical note: there seems to be a resurgence of letter-writing because of the Gulf War, especially after the influence of the letters in the PBS series "The Civil War". David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]
weyrich (Dr. Orville R. Weyrich) (03/23/91)
In article <20921@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <872@agcsun.UUCP> marks@agcsun.UUCP (Mark Shepherd) writes: > >>Nick Szabo thinks that the emotional content of sound and video is >>often shallow and unnecessary. In a purely technical discussion this >>can be true, however it is arguable that the most important group >>interactions (which is what groupware is all about) are the ones dealing >>with personal (i.e. emotional) rather than technical issues. > >So argue (ie provide some evidence). For this newsgroup, I think most >of the audience is technically oriented, and interested in groupware >to facilitate the discussion of technical topics. Also, I am not >convinced that sound and video are better for emotional issues than >print. They can communicate more emotional data, yes, but that is not >necessarily a good thing. An example is Galileo, who recanted what he > I have recently been listening to an audio-tape program entitled "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense". One of the points made in this tape series is that the written word does not normally carry any indication of stress, and that emotional [abusive] content is often related to abnormal stress. (Consider the difference between "When do you want it done?" and "When do YOU want it done?"). IMHO, eliminating these subliminal channels is a GOOD THING, and more often facilitates group interaction than not. ------------------------------ ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional uucp: uunet!weyrich!orville Weyrich Computer Consulting voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) ------------------------------ ******************************
weyrich (Dr. Orville R. Weyrich) (03/23/91)
In article <20964@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <WEX.91Jan14150916@dali.pws.bull.com> wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Der Grouch) writes: >> [I write] >> ...Emotional interaction is ad hominem and gets in the way of finding the >> truth or achieving technical goals. >> >>This is a typical rationalist overgeneralization. You will find that even >>supposedly logical and rational persons benefit from emotional content to >>communication. For example, how do you know which of your coworkers' >>objections are the most serious? You read their body language, hear their >>tone of voice, etc. This is as true for any technical example you care to >>bring forward as it is for the sales interactions you disparage. > >For a technical discussion, I find the most serious objections by >looking at the most serious evidence put forward to support those objections. >If by "serious" you mean which coworker does not *like* the proposal >emotionally, it may be of interest to certain parties to communicate that >emotion, but it is not in the interest of the group as a whole and will >lead to a political rather than technical solution. Furthermore, the >emotional communication diverts attention from the technical communication, >leading to even poorer results. This discussion brings several points to [my] mind: 1) Technologically superior solutions can be scuttled by politics, so the politics must be taken into account in a successful solution. 2) Making non-explicit communications explicit benefits a group discussion, especially in an inter-cultural environment. 3) Forcing communications into a writtten mode has the beneficial effect of encouraging people to be explicit (c.f. smiley faces). 4) Some persons have difficulty with the verbal mode of communication, and have difficulty functioning in such an environment. How can a group accomodate/benefit from such persons? ------------------------------ ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional uucp: uunet!weyrich!orville Weyrich Computer Consulting voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) ------------------------------ ******************************
scotth@sigi.Colorado.EDU (Scott Henninger) (03/28/91)
> From: orville@uunet.uu.net!weyrich (Dr. Orville R. Weyrich) > > 2) Making non-explicit communications explicit benefits a group > discussion, especially in an inter-cultural environment. This is another commonly held assumption steeped in the rationalist tradition. Is there any evidence for this conjecture, other than our intuitions (which fail us more often than we may want to believe)? > I have recently been listening to an audio-tape program entitled > "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense". One of the points made > in this tape series is that the written word does not normally > carry any indication of stress, and that emotional [abusive] > content is often related to abnormal stress. (Consider the > difference between "When do you want it done?" and "When do YOU > want it > done?"). > > IMHO, eliminating these subliminal channels is a GOOD THING, and > more often facilitates group interaction than not. I may be misunderstanding the message, but isn't this a contradiction? You say in the first paragraph that natural communication (note, NOT natural language) is more than words, then you claim that taking part of the communication medium away leads to better communication. How can this be? Smiley faces are a good example of informal written communication mediums trying to bring these natural mediums back into the conversations. Without them, much of the communication would be taken far too seriously, losing the intended humor or irony. By the way, I don't think intonation is in any way subliminal. It may be implicit, as opposed to explicit, but it is certainly consciously processed. -- -- Scott scotth@boulder.colorado.edu
rlw@IDA.ORG (Richard Wexelblat) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.190329.21485@colorado.edu> scotth@sigi.Colorado.EDU (Scott Henninger) writes: > >By the way, I don't think intonation is in any way subliminal. It may >be implicit, as opposed to explicit, but it is certainly consciously >processed. It's called prosody and is an intrinsic part of human communication. -- --Dick Wexelblat (rlw@ida.org) 703 845 6601 Can you accept an out of state sanity check?
bkillam@ccels3 (bill killam) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar23.101009.22128@uunet.uu.net!weyrich> orville@weyrich.UUCP (Dr. Orville R. Weyrich) writes: > > I have recently been listening to an audio-tape program entitled > > (stuff deleted) > > IMHO, eliminating these subliminal channels is a GOOD THING, and > more often facilitates group interaction than not. > Most of the research read regarding group problems via computer witten channels indicates that the reduction of the subliminal channels does not faciliate group interaction, and, in fact, makes group problem solving a more timely task. The research I know of relates to written communication across a computer terminal, and there are several mitigating factors why computer use may be the culprate in this case. Does anyone know of research into group problem solving via written communication that does not invlove the computer? BTW, IMO there is evidence on both sides of the argument regarding group interacton without the subliminal channels. Group may take longer to reach a complusion (perhaps indicating that the lack of additonal information is detrimental to the group process), but their conclusion are more likely to differ from the initial position of the group (perhaps indicating that the group is able to explore the issue better). To imply that the lack of the subliminal channels equates to a lack of emotional content, as it has been linked before, I beleive is incorrect. The disinhibition (flaming) that is present during these session indicates that the emotional content is more bluntly expressed if not increased. Bill Killam /---------------------------------------------------------------\ | Bill Killam | bkillam | | MITRE Corporation | Phone: 703-883-7943 | | 7525 Colshire Drive | FAX: 703-883-7934 |