50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message...

fabric

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2

The Secret Cause of Flame Wars

By Stephen Leahy | Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Feb, 13, 2006 EST

"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.

According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they've correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.

"That's how flame wars get started," says psychologist Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York University. "People in our study were convinced they've accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when in fact their odds are no better than chance," says Epley.

The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in their answers.

Those who sent the messages predicted that nearly 80 percent of the time their partners would correctly interpret the tone. In fact the recipients got it right just over 50 percent of the time.

"People often think the tone or emotion in their messages is obvious because they 'hear' the tone they intend in their head as they write," Epley explains.

At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this, the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages nine out of 10 times.

The reason for this is egocentrism, or the difficulty some people have detaching themselves from their own perspective, says Epley. In other words, people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.

"E-mail is very easy to misinterpret, which not only triggers flame wars but lots of litigation," says Nancy Flynn, executive director of the e-Policy Institute and author of guidebooks E-Mail Rules and Instant Messaging Rules. Many companies battle workplace lawsuits triggered by employee e-mail, according to Flynn.

People write absolutely, incredibly stupid things in company e-mails," said Flynn.
 
Fifth Way said:
Would the same be true for an online forum???
I would say forums fall exactly in the groupway of "emails". It's exactly the same, except with forums,, the message is made public and instantly to everyone. As a matter of fact, with the public READING the message, I'd say that there are many, many , many ,many different emotions expressed by that many different READERS...

What would change most of the different interpretations of a written what-ever, over the Internet?..... A simple solution.

Allow people to do their discussion through "voice" discloser. Basically, what it means that even through emails, forums, blogs, or what-ever you can think of, let a person express their words through "their VOICE", and make the means available for those to "HEAR" the message...... "HEAR IT".. Not read it.

For those that can't hear, let them read... For those that can do both,..... I'd rather hear your story coming out of a human mouth than to "READ" it. Reading it means that I have to be "stationary" unless I printed it out, but that isn't the best method either... WHY?..

Everyone doesn't know how to read.
Everyone DOES know how to listen.... even deaf people know how to listen. They just can't hear.

So yes, it's very easy for one to interpret an email as:
hostile.... while the other person sees it as

humble.... while the other person sees it as

offending.... while the other person sees it as

truthful.... while the other person sees it as

lies.... while the other person sees it as contraversy.....

and on, and on, and on..........

The best way for any of us to get our messages across with the least amount of flaming... through the interpretations of the many different viewers/readers is to do voice email, voice forum, or voice whatever.


It won't be very hard to interpret what was actually said/MEANT through voice channels. Again... there's nothing wrong with the text method already,, to an extent, but the voice is much more acceptable than the text. I know you'll agree with that.


Walkman
 
I think it applies to forums as well. One thing that helps convey the person's tone is these :) ;) :( :|

Many times they are not present in business emails like the ones referenced in the article.
 
50-50 sounds like a statistical average describing randomness. If you flip a coin enough times, statistically, you end up with heads half the time and tails the other half. This would imply that the criteria the subjects in the study used to interpret the tone of a message were no better than random choices. Of course, not all people or even groups of people are the same, so for another group the number of correct "hits" regarding message tone may be better or worse.

Considering that 50% at least of an average group are OP's and the other 50% have STS elements in their psyches, the prevalence of subjective bias is not surprising. Most people probably imagine what their tone would be if they wrote the received message, while extended experience or lack thereof with psychopaths may also influence judgment. Even mood can influence judgment.

I agree that what applies for e-mails also applies for forums, but we should also consider that not all forums are the same, and that some such as this one tend to attract people from both ends of the spectrum ranging from sincere desire for truth to abject psychopathy, rather than people of a more "average" disposition.
 
Justin said:
I think it applies to forums as well. One thing that helps convey the person's tone is these :) ;) :( :|

Many times they are not present in business emails like the ones referenced in the article.
That is a good guesture of an expression.. but,,,, not everone knows how to express their feelings that way. And not everyone has the capabilities to express their selves that way, and one cause could be that the site they're on doesn't allow it. Smilies are great, but humans are still trying to interprep them, and what each means. They really are.

EsoQuest,

Like me, I don't know every term and every terminology. So it would be good to introduce your words 1st, in words that you explain what they are,,, then abbreviate them afterwards.... Honestly... If I'm dumb,,, well,,, I'm dumb. but.

What are:

1. OP's?
2. STS?

I ask because I don't know what those words mean. Not right off hand. If they were used fully, and then abbreviated I may have known. But I personally don't know.

I, myself assume that a person may not know what I'm talking about, so I make sure I use the word, phrase, or whatever, in a way where people can relate to it.... then I'll change it later if needed.


I guess that's what threw me off with this post... and that's not knowing what the abbreviations means. It's no ones fault but my own, but still...... I want to know. Did I miss reading something somewhere?


Walkman
 
I'm sorry.

When I first joined this forum, I also had no clue regarding the terminology, so I took the time to read some of the material associated with it. If you look over other threads you will find the same abbreviations, which are applied universally here, and more than not without explanation.

For your information, OP's are Organic Portals and STS is Service to Self. It is all too complex to get into, but here is a link to the glossary of terms used in Signs of the Times:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fglossary.cassiopaea.com%2fglossary.php

Others can direct you to links describing these concepts in greater detail. When you look at the glossary, you can read some of the other threads in the forum for some of the ideas exchanged here regarding these terms. I guess, before entering the discussions here, it pays to be informed with the basics since most everyone here takes it for granted that you are :)
 
Walkman said:
What are:

1. OP's?
2. STS?
The definition of Organic Portals can be found here: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=19&lsel=O

and Service To Self is defined here: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=883

Also check out the thread on Organic Portals in the Home and Garden subtopic: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=457

Any other questions don't be too shy to ask =D
 
Walkman said:
That is a good guesture of an expression.. but,,,, not everone knows how to express their feelings that way. And not everyone has the capabilities to express their selves that way, and one cause could be that the site they're on doesn't allow it. Smilies are great, but humans are still trying to interprep them, and what each means. They really are.
Very good point. Smilies or emoticons can easily be misinterpreted and also misused by the writer. Facetiousness, sarcasm, innuendo and euphemisms are often misinterpreted. From my experience with corporate email, I can attest to the fact that the true meaning of emailed statements was often misinterpreted. Though many misinterpretations were due to incomplete explanations, poor descriptive language and ambiguity...
 
It is true that the absence of paralinguistic features such as tone and facial expression leads to regular problems in communication. I think that a large part of this, however, could be avoided by effort by the participants to make themselves as clear as possible. This is a tricky one, because people obviously have differing levels of linguistic ability and this by definition affects their ability to be clear in communication - more so when all they have is words. Even so, I think this relates nicely to the idea of networking and colinearity. To move in the same direction, I think it helps us all to go to great lengths to make the very intent and concepts in our communication as obvious as possible. This may take a little longer, but see how much time is wasted in these flame wars - especially if the disagreement was based on a misunderstanding in the first place. Obviously, this works both ways and applies also to the way in which we read posts/emails. Like I said, I appreciate that this comes more naturally to some people than others.
 
Having been involved in and witnessed many email and forum miscommunications due to all the reasons given above in this thread, I now ask for clarification of meaning if something seems like it could be interpreted several ways...
 
Regarding forums one good thing, is that when there are good intentions, they eventually come out in the discussion and through the development of the thread. Often there can be misunderstandings, but if someone really cares about getting to the truth and having a constructive discussion, they can take a deep breath and keep the discussion going with the intent of resolution. It's often a rough ride, but when you understand that being human is a rough ride anyway you can take a lot with a grain of salt.

Eventually, through discussion the wheat is separated from the chaff. I may not be sure what someone means from only one of their messages, but as the thread develops it becomes pretty clear. I guess the qualities of patience and understanding, and a good sense of humour are pretty useful here.
 
As an American living in Italy, I'd just like to comment that another facet of miscommunication in the modern world is due to people communicating in English as a second language. I teach English here, and one of the things that amazes me is how convinced my students can be that they've understood something correctly when they've got entirely the wrong idea. It doesn't help that when comparing certain languages like Italian and English, there are what we call 'false friends'. For example the english word 'pretend' is very similar to 'pretendere' in Italian, but pretendere means to expect - as in expecting a certain behaviour or compensation. Another problem lies in more subtle differences that are communicated by using specific tenses which differ between languages. On top of that, humour is so deeply tied to culture that it's really difficult to communicate correctly in a foreign language. The fact is, what's considered funny in one culture, may be considered nonsensical, or offensive in another one.

The interesting thing about this is that it makes it all the more difficult to figure out if conflicts that arise between native speakers and foreign speakers are born from true misunderstanding, or if misunderstanding is being used as an excuse and cover while intentionally provoking the negative emotional center in to reacting self destructively.
 
Back
Top Bottom