misunderstandings in email, email in education
tay...@hplabsc.uucp
>Suppose USENET could actually mail voice or text with diagrams, and
>that all could choose which medium to use. Leaving aside transmission
>of scripts, code etc, which would you choose?
I agree that the sensible thing to do is to employ the medium best suited
to what one is trying to communicate. I am more partial to mediums which
allow the user to edit and revise conveniently. This means text and diagrams
but not voice, (how do you edit the emotional currents of verbal
communications ?).
I am excited about the new e-mail systems not because they are a nifty
new toy but because they allow fast and convenient written communications.
In the past, we as a society have relied too heavily on verbal communications;
we were taught to as children. I feel that in some cases verbal com-
munications can be more easily misinterpreted than written communications.
Think of how often it is that two people fail to resolve trivial differences
because of psychological factors which from a more objective point of view
have no bearing on the real problem. Egos, power-plays, office politics,
racial/sexual/ethnic/age differences, etc often steer people away from reason.
People often don't notice this happening until after the fact because verbal
communications allow for very fuzzy thinking.
From experience I know that people are not often as they seem. Many times
I have overestimated and underestimated people and later found my evaluations
wrong. Some people are "good actors" and some are "bad actors" but this
often has little to do with what is upstairs. But there is one acid test of
the coherence of a persons thinking, how well that person is able to express
his/her ideas on paper, (allowing sufficient time for those who need to
rewrite often). I consider the difference between verbal and written
communications to be the difference between just writing an algorithm and
actually debugging an implementation. In the latter process one is forced
to eliminate ambiguity and fuzzy thinking, thereby creating something which
is more useful and worthwhile, or at least identifying problems which have
yet to be resolved.
Hopefully a generation of children raised to appreciate the value and
power of the written word will bring use closer to solutions for the problems
which plague our society. I see the e-mail infrastructure as a good mechanism
for teaching children to think by allowing them to hack out their ideas in
words. I have been using the network basically for writing practice, I
rewrote and revised this article extensively before I sent it. The
important thing is that (probably like you) I write an article because I am
interested in expressing an idea. News for me is basically an intellectual
game. Children love games (everybody loves games).
I guess we would have to make children's columns like kid.talk.big-bird. :-)
Bill Kules
> .... I feel that in some cases verbal communications can be more easily
> misinterpreted than written communications. Think of how often it is that
> two people fail to resolve trivial differences because of psychological
> factors which from a more objective point of view have no bearing on the
> real problem. Egos, power-plays, office politics, racial/sexual/ethnic/age
> differences, etc often steer people away from reason. People often don't
> notice this happening until after the fact because verbal communications
> allow for very fuzzy thinking.
It is true that verbal communication has drawbacks. But all forms of
communication have drawbacks. E-mail "flames" readily come to mind. And
the ability to write well can't suffice as an "acid test." Different
relationships require different forms of communication, and a person
needs to relate well both by writing and by talking. (Also, non-verbal
and non-written forms of communication abound; someone who sounds
good on radio may not come across well on television, etc.)
Each person has a "best form" of communication. Some people are very good
writers, but stutter and stumble through a speech. Usenet (and e-mail)
offers people who are good writers a means of communication suited for
them. Other people find the telephone best for them; still others find
face-to-face communication best. And, of course, the way two (or more)
people interact affects what we can consider their "optimal" mode of
communication.
E-mail is no better and no worse than any other form. It has its place
along with the rest. What we need to do is identify when it is the most
appropriate way to communicate and use it for those situations. We run
the risk of alienating everyone who does not e-mail well (or talk well,
etc.) if we only validate one form of communication.
Bill Kules