E-mails don't replace face 2 face

[tallman]

in some situations.

"Results of the experiment:

 

 

The phone/face-to-face pair managed to resolve their differences, but

The e-mail-only pair more often ended up with insults, anger and breakdowns in communication. "

 

We never see that here, fortunately...

 

Link

 

What's your take?

 

Russell, you can't be the first to reply.

[Francois_Dumas]

Oh I don't know.. I've seen a few anal reactions here too, reacting to some perfectly innocent and well meant humorous remarks..... which I think would not have invoked any bad reactions had people been physically in the same place. The written-only communication is dangerous at times indeed

[EffBee]

Written communication is monochromatic. It is devoid of the color of voice, tone, inflection, volume, delivery and timing that are part of vocal exchange. Add personal exchange to that and you can add facial expressions, body language, eye contact, and a variety of other physical cues we all use each day to help make ourselves more fully understood.

 

Emphasizing the limitations of text-only communications are abbreviations whose purpose is unclear (is someone LOL because something was funny, or because they're trying to prevent misunderstanding about something said in jest?). These can, at times, be useful. However, their proliferation has neutered most of them to some degree, as people overuse them to compensate for not only the limitations of text communication, but the declining ability of people to express themselves accurately and correctly in the written form.

 

Emoticons are another attempt to substitute for the missing personal interaction, and can be useful to some degree. However they, too, fall short of full-spectrum communication, by being the equivalent of a communication paint roller when an artist's brush is called for.

[Mike]

Oh I don't know.. I've seen a few anal reactions here too, reacting to some perfectly innocent and well meant humorous remarks..... which I think would not have invoked any bad reactions had people been physically in the same place. The written-only communication is dangerous at times indeed

 

Yes, it's remarkable how often I see that. A remark that's meant to be humorous or ironic is taken as something dead serious, causing the knives to come out of the drawer. As much as some--well, Greg--hate the emoticons, they can sometimes be helpful in that regard.

[Agent_Orange]

Nah. You must not read much.

[yabadabapal]

Im not surprised by the misunderstandings. I think we often hear what we want to hear so that we can respond and say what we want to say even though its not relative to what was actually said in the first place. I created an email response and gave out some information between me and another person. The information was not sensitive but at one time it was. And after knowing it was ok to publish I sent the email out. It was interesting how the recipient then emailed it to other recipients. Then the gossip starts etc. I knew that most of the verifiable info was protected and secured but they took it upon themselves to discredit it because they would not have been able to have any access. They had just enough information to respond but not enough to think about it. So, yes one has to be careful but people are people and they want to hear what they want to hear.

[sardineone]

Written communication is monochromatic.

ABSOLUTELY! So if I have irked any of you on the board in the past I really wasn't trying to. Or was I?

 

Actually the best thing about face to face communication is I can drink a beer with who I'm speaking with!

[Rinkydink]

Years ago, I was in special circuit repair with a well known national communication company. The so called irate customers were the least confrontational face to face. It seems they were talking to a female clerk and had big go-nads until a human showed up...

[JayW]

The other side of the coin is that written communication gives one the opportunity and time to ponder the issue, change wording, clarify meaning and then make a final judgement of how the final product turned out before clicking on the send button. These things are more difficult or impossible to do in a live conversation.

 

There have been a number of times I have written a scathing letter or e-mail, held off on sending it, and later decided not to send it at all. OTOH, I have said things in anger or haste that I very quickly regretted, but the damage was already done.

 

Jay

[pbbeck]

I prefer face-to-face communication and loathe email and the fact that because of email, people at work communicate just because they can rather than because they have something important to say.

 

Unfortunately, at my workplace there are several people with whom I won't speak face to face. For them it email only because they have proven to be dishonest and shifty. Email provides a "paper trail."

[Lets_Play_Two]

Just today I decided to limit text messages to basically unimportant communication and return to making phone calls.

[Bob Palin]

I greatly prefer written to spoken communication, I like the opportunity to think about what I'm going to say and then re-consider it, and I like having the record of both what they said and what I said.

[Whip]

I greatly prefer written to spoken communication, I like the opportunity to think about what I'm going to say and then re-consider it, and I like having the record of both what they said and what I said.

 

I'll call ya later...

 

[Bob Palin]

I greatly prefer written to spoken communication, I like the opportunity to think about what I'm going to say and then re-consider it, and I like having the record of both what they said and what I said.

 

I'll call ya later...

Now you know, the rest of the story.

[tallman]

I greatly prefer written to spoken communication, I like the opportunity to think about what I'm going to say and then re-consider it, and I like having the record of both what they said and what I said.

 

I'll call ya later...

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

[Dave McReynolds]

It's not impossible, but communicating the essence of a particular scene in a two-dimensional photograph or painting, or successfully communicating our emotions in words, requires the skills of an Ansel Adams or Hemmingway, which few possess.

[Bob Palin]

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Depends what he's calling for

[Whip]

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

 

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Now you know, the rest of the story.

Depends what he's calling for

 

You addy so I can send ya $$$$$

[Bob Palin]

You addy so I can send ya $$$$$

You should call more often...

[tallman]

And now, you know the rest of the story...

 

 

 

I wonder about languages that have different meanings for slight changes in inflection or intonation.

How do you accomplish that in an e-mail?

Is context enough?

[Couchrocket]

I don't think it is an either / or situation.

 

There are times when carefully thought out, written communication is the best mode. As others have well said, there is time to reflect and choose carefully the words for intended connotation, etc. And the receiver of the communication has the ability to "re hear" what is being communicated as often as desired while processing the information. This is good for deliberate, thoughtful communication. It can also be the "only" way to communicate some types of humor, where the play of, or on, words just doesn't work when spoken.

 

Face to face has the added feature of "body language." We've all heard about how much of the total communication is non-verbal, etc. So, when intimate communication is desired, where one's self and emotions are "on the line," face to face oral communication is the best mode.

 

Each mode has advantages and disadvantages. And there are times when the "seeming advantage" of one mode might be the precise reason for choosing the opposite.

 

I also believe that our natural preference for mode tells us something fundamental about ourselves.

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

I wonder about languages that have different meanings for slight changes in inflection or intonation.

How do you accomplish that in an e-mail?

Is context enough?

No, if you need subtle tones to make sure of your meaning face to face is the only way, even the phone doesn't work that well. Actually it's easy to be mad on the phone but not to be sensitive.