BS: How clearly do we read each other?

Subject: BS: cyber chip-on-shoulder
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:02 PM

Mudcat is a subculture with its own personalities, discussing, learning, debating, and arguing. through cyber space we read and identify or react, and form opinions about what someone has said, and about the person. we make a lot of assumptions about each other. is this based on the view we get through the computer, or, like in real life, is it based on the built up assumptions we have about life and people.

this article article on email & forum communications discusses the touchy topic of transference in cyber communications.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:07 PM

"... on the view we get through the computer...". All we have to go by is the writing in the post(s).

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:33 PM

"Mudcat is a subculture"

No it's not....

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:40 PM

Very true Freda. For example, read (aloud) the sentence "I didn't call you stupid" while placing the emphasis on each word in succession. You will get at least 5 different meanings...and these nuances are lost in this medium.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:46 PM

"Mudcat is a subculture"

It has many facets and aspects of subculture. Not all, but close enough for folk.

'Subcultural rhetoric "imitates the attitudes, values, dispositions, and norms of dominant cultural rhetoric, yet it claims to enact them better than members of the dominant culture." It is one of the final culture categories, which are a subtexture of social and cultural texture. One type of this rhetoric is ethnic rhetoric.'

'a social group within a national culture that has distinctive patterns of behavior and beliefs'

'Broad Definition: A group within society that shares some of the beliefs, values, and norms or the larger culture but also has some that are distinctly its own.

Narrow definition:"A group with a relatively cohesive cultural system that differs from the dominant culture in such things as language, values, religion, and style of life."'

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:51 PM

There is always a problem when people who cannot see each other use both connotative and denotative language.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:09 PM

We have known for some time that the map is not the territory, but the problem is, which territory! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:11 PM

You got a problem with that?

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:36 PM

They your legs or you ridin' an emu?

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:43 PM

That's not a gun in my pocket, I'm just happy to see ya.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:43 PM

I've never been actully charged so I don't see how that's relavent.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:44 PM

Freda, my 2 cents--

How clearly do we read each other?

I'm not sure people try very hard most of the time. Most threads reflect this.

How clearly do we write/speak TO each other?

I'm not sure people try very hard most of the time. Most threads reflect this.

Doing it any differently requires relationship. Cyber or fleshly or a combination of both, real or imagined.

~Susan

PS for others-- Hey-- post your own damn opinion instead of disagreeing with mine, folks. I'm answering freda, not starting a lengthy schmooze.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:50 PM

Aw, I never get to schmooze no more.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:08 PM

Charmed, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:14 PM

some folks here work extra hard to *be* understood, some just hammer out words in a row with little thought about the 'tone' they convey.
It takes effort in Cyberspace to convey the inflections and nuances they we do easily with voice, facial expression and body language. It can never be as good as RT, but you can manage to avoid the worst mis-understandings...if you want to.

For Pete's sake folks...use :>) smilies, or *smiles* or do like Bobert and say 'jes funnin' when you aren't sure your remark will go over!

...and if you just want to be offensive, nasty, critical, petulant, snide, etc....I can point to few role models....*grin*

that's :>))

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:19 PM

You mean like fuck you :>) ?

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:25 PM

This isn't a subculture so much as it reflects one.

It's almost a community but with severe limitations. I think it's safe to say that it contains a community.

It seems to have progressed past what used to be referred to as "cycles". Now it is pretty much static. People read the posts of those whose posts they like to read. People post with about the amount of care relative to the liklihood that they believe their posts might be read or will matter.

So communication is always on a bit of a downward spiral -- People start out writing carefully, thoughtfully, until such time as it becomes evident that no matter how hard they may try to communicate clearly, a surprising number of people will misunderstand. Many here seem read with adversarial intent -- it's nearly impossible to communicate clearly with them because their default setting is set to "argue".

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:39 PM

Hehehehe. Thanks MG... a rare moment of true humour on your part. You're getting the hang of it... keep it up my good man.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 05:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 May 05 - 05:40 PM

gnu, I've had plenty of humor in it all along.

Those who weren't laughing nodded along in approval.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 May 05 - 05:55 PM

The written word always seems to carry more of a punch than when you are face to face. In cyberspace it is more so. Many, including myself, will often vent in cyberspace when they do not feel free to do so elsewhere.

In the real world, I think most of us would get along just fine. Cyberspace allows us to express ourselves in ways that are not commonly accepted by society. It is a freedom that I've never really experienced before. I can ignore conversations which I think are irrelevant. I can shoot from the hip. I can say things that I know will be unacceptable without any real social repurcussions. I am anonymous and don't really give a rat's ass if people agree with me or not. If they do, thats great. Its positive feedback. If not, I will try to improve my communication to get my point across.

Its better than keeping all these thoughts to your yourself. In my case, I think people would be quite surprised at how mellow I really am. In cyberspace I am an opinionated bitch. That persona wouldn't be able to survive anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:11 PM

dianavan describes very well the downward spiral that this kind of forum has suffered. She thinks that "I can say things that I know will be unacceptable without any real social repurcussions", but sadly, the repercussions are that we find out that our ugly underbelly becomes more and more often our outward persona.

When we have an artificial means like this forum, wherein we think that we can express those thoughts that we know would not be socially acceptable, we find out that there are others who have the same or equally ugly thoughts. The shame that should keep us civil is lifted and we have the kind of posters that are so common here and less common on moderated forums where there are "repercussions" for uncivil behavior.

Soon, instead of shame that should keep us in check, we revel in our naughtiness. Until that naughtiness is trite and cliche'. Then we have to find a new naughty to move on to.

It's always illuminating to go into the archives and read the respect with which most of the posts 4-7 years ago were written.

I think it always wiser to post in a way that would make it so that I would not be ashamed to meet any of you. And usually when I have met the few of you that I've met, it's been a delightful experience.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:13 PM

What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position."

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: heric
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:31 PM

In the supermarket checkout:

Question:   "Is that a banana in your pocket?"
Response:   "Thank you. Thank you very much."

(Garry Shandling)

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:50 PM

Qouters are fine with proper attribution.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:51 PM

that's "quoters"

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:52 PM

He paid me ten bucks NOT to attribute it.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:53 PM

I ain't never flippin' read anybody wrong here. Never. I have a, like, mind like a flippin' beaver trap. Nothing escapes it, eh?

Most people who post here are losers, and some are major losers. One is even a chimp! But there are a few cool dudes and a couple of hot babes. Goin' by my town, Blind River...that is not half bad.

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:15 PM

With huge sums of money -- like $10 -- integrity becomes unecessarily restrictive.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:17 PM

Yes, oh John Hardly--everyone's conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:40 PM

everyone is conscience?

(it's not O. John Hardly. It's John M. Hardly)

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:42 PM

And you M Hardly making sense.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:01 PM

Man, does this exchange illustrate the point of the linked article or what?

I now assume that your original "Quotas" post (6:13 PM) was a serious response to somebody's previous post. As I didn't get the connection, nor whom it would have been addressing, I kinda assumed the post to be poking fun at any attempts at seriousness in this thread by interjecting a bit of absurdity (what did quotas have to do with the linked article or the previous posting?).

Assuming that you were going in a lighter direction, I posted my "play on words" with my Quoters ..... which I immediately sapped of ANY humor potential that might have been there by mis-spelling "quoters".

So, though I thought the humor to be non-existant in my play on words, I was delighted to see what I thought was a bit of play back from you that, to my mind, reinforced the idea that you were trying to be light-hearted. When you said that you had been paid NOT to attribute, I assumed more silliness on your part. On that basis, I posted the $10, huge sum of money post -- thinking that it would be taken a seriously as the concept of $10 being a great sum of money would be taken.

Unfortuantely, for some reason, what I thought was a light-hearted interchange was, to you something completely different.

I will make a mental note and curb my "playfulness". I never even thought of the possibility that those posts of mine could have been read as anything but attempts at humor, however flat they may have fallen in that attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:06 PM

After the first five dollars, John, selling out is easy.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:10 PM

And it is even easier after the first 5 beer.

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:11 PM

Same thing at a buck a piece.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:17 PM

from the article:

The lack of face-to-face cues in e-mail often results in ambiguity. Without hearing a person's voice -- or seeing body language and facial expressions -- you may not be exactly sure what the person means. This ambiguity enhances the tendency to project your own expectations, wishes, and anxieties unto the somewhat shadowy figure sitting at the other end of the internet -- what is called a "transference reaction."

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:29 PM

from another article:

But the continuing emphasis on viewing transference as a distorted or inappropriate reaction, a displacement of something from the past, has required the introduction of a number of other concepts to account for the patient's ability to react to the realities of the treatment situation-- to accept, for example, that the analyst's silence is a technical part of the procedure rather than a deprivation aimed specifically at the patient and designed to hurt or punish him, or to recognize after a while that the analyst does value him even if he does not give overt reassurances. Such concepts as the "therapeutic alliance," the "working alliance," and the "real relationship" are designed to address these aspects of what occurs during the course of an analysis (Greenson, 1965, 1971; Greenson & Wexler, 1969; Zetzel, 1956).

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:36 PM

John,

I was quoting the present President of the USA. Even when he speaks in person, no one can understand him. I see it's no easier in writing.

Good post BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:40 PM

BDiB: "I have a, like, mind like a flippin' beaver trap. Nothing escapes it, eh?"

Recently, Shane, I met your soulmate - too bad it was a man - he didn't know that I play- (because I had strained my hand, I had lent my guitar to someone else in the group) and he was sitting beside me when he said confidentially to me, "I have a razor-sharp ear for notes." I said, Huh? He repeated it and added, "I have a sixth sense for chords."

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:04 PM

Wow. Obviously a flippin' genius, eh? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:37 PM

Look what yer flippin' genius did to the car?

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:49 PM

Interesting question. I think the answer is, "not very clearly."

I used to think that words without any of the face-to-face cues and so-called "body language" would demand that writers become adept at conveying exactly what it is they wanted to say - that is, if they had any desire at all to be understood by the majority of readers. Universally, that hasn't been the case, as anyone with a modicum of cognitive power can readily discern. Sometimes a writer doesn't give enough consideration to the characteristics of his/her audience. Less emphasis should be given to supplying emoticons for context. I would be in favor of more emphasis on tightening up syntax and structuring sentences to convey context so that *smirk* and :-) are not necessary.   

Practice doesn't make perfect in every case. But I wonder if online communication has bumped up the overall reading comprehension of internet participants, just a little?   

Message posting, email, etc in its present form leaves lots of holes for the reader to fill in for him/herself. In that sense it's sort of like the early days of radio, another medium that required more active participation from the audience than its successor, television. Radio left the visual part to the listener's imagination, so that each listener fleshed out a mental image and attached it to the voice coming out of the speaker. Without the benefit of a photograph or digital image, it is much the same for the readers of people who are composing online messages.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 May 05 - 10:11 PM

John hardly -

"I hardly know you but when you say, "Many here seem read with adversarial intent -- it's nearly impossible to communicate clearly with them because their default setting is set to "argue". "

and...

"dianavan describes very well the downward spiral that this kind of forum has suffered. She thinks that "I can say things that I know will be unacceptable without any real social repurcussions", but sadly, the repercussions are that we find out that our ugly underbelly becomes more and more often our outward persona."

Thanks for the compliment. Same to you. I don't have an ugly underbelly. I try not to attack people and most of my posts are inquiry. Sometimes I argue. Especially if its about politics or religion. Who doesn't? Whats the point of exchanging ideas if they are always 'couched' in socially appropriate (polite) dialogue. I avoid people who always 'beat around the bush." Who has the time?

Like I said before, its my best means of discussing subjects that are taboo in most social settings. I agree with freda when she says that," This ambiguity enhances the tendency to project your own expectations, wishes, and anxieties unto the somewhat shadowy figure sitting at the other end of the internet -- what is called a "transference reaction."

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 02 May 05 - 09:31 AM

I read the first post above, then clicked on the link.

Any person who writes lengthy text and uses sans serif print has a communication problem right from the get-go. I left that page after a few seconds of trying to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 05 - 10:19 AM

I have taken a careful look at my underbelly this morning. While it is not perfect, I would not characterize it as ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 02 May 05 - 10:34 AM

it's an interesting question - considering how badly (poorly?) people can "read" each other even on long acquaintance and face to face.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 05 - 10:47 AM

The errors in our communications are, of course, legion.

But I submit for reflection the miracle that understanding between two beings occurs in mellifluous affluence every femto-second, in rivers and cascades, all across the world, with people taking away new understandings, learning new thoughts, mastering new skills, knowing new music.

This is an amazing and wonderful thing, but like metabolism it is something we all just take for granted most of the time.

Just in this forum, there is a FAR greater ratio of communications understood than otherwise.

Add on top of that that we have the capacity for self-correction, learning to understand someone we previously did not understand and update our ability to "copy" his/her communications more accurately and you have a wonder indeed!

A

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 May 05 - 11:55 AM

In an effort to be more clear I even began to illustrate particular viewpoints.

It turns out even a picture is worth a 1,000 misunderstandings.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 05 - 12:11 PM

On the Mudcat, a fart is cause for at least 75 posts. To prove that, I shall start a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:09 PM

On?

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 May 05 - 04:10 PM

I'm with dianavan on this one ~ why should I have to try to be polite when expressing an opinion with which some will agree and others will disagree? Sometimes I enjoy stating an opinion in the most extreme manner possible, just to see what the reaction might be.

Anyway, I don't think "misunderstanding" each other is much of an issue when it comes to controversial topics. It is an issue whenever someone tries to be clever or funny or, heaven forbid, ironic or even sarcastic. That's as likely to happen (more likely, indeed) in a music thread or a relatively uncontroversial discussion like this one.

Case in point: I still can't figure out the bit about the quotas/quoters and the ten bucks. But that's OK ~ don't bother trying to explain; I don't really need to know...

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 May 05 - 12:40 PM

There is an increasing pattern of folks not reading people at all after the first few posts. They form a picture in their heads of that person and then use that as a reference whenever they read one of their postings, thus giving themselves the impression that Martin is always obscene, brucie is always a dork, Shambles is always a self-centered shitstirrer and Little Hawk is always a Shatner-centric jackass.

Consequently, they feel they don't even need to read the post to respond to it in the recognised manner. There have even been posts to the effect that if the poster and the responder ever met in public, one would inflict violence upon the other without further ado.

I have trouble reading people at the best of times. I was a naturally trusting person, but I've had too many experiences of people I considered friends saying one thing to my face and another behind my back, trying to turn others against me and breaking promises. I hope I take each post on its own merit, rather than answering to the picture I have in my head of the poster, but being a mere human, it's very, very difficult.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:15 PM

LTS,

I've always had a good picture of you in my mind's eye. I enjoy your posts!

"why should I have to try to be polite when expressing an opinion with which some will agree and others will disagree?"

Why would we not want to be polite? Politeness doesn't hinder the ability to express an opinion, does it? Is it really either or? There are posters here who I would categorize as both very opinionated and very polite. Should that be the exception?

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 May 05 - 03:04 PM

Well John, I hope your picture of me is blushing mightily!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 May 05 - 03:21 PM

Well, John, I don't think I am especially impolite, at least not very often. I could probably phrased that comment more effectively, somehow. Let me try this: I don't much care if someone is offended by my honest opinion, and I especially don't care if anyone is put off by their misunderstanding of what I might be trying to say. It's difficult enough to find the words to express one's point clearly without worrying about being both clear and inoffensive.

Better?

To address another point, something that Liz just mentioned an hour or so ago:

There is an increasing pattern of folks not reading people at all after the first few posts. They form a picture in their heads of that person and then use that as a reference whenever they read one of their postings...

That's just crazy! There are plenty of threads I don't open at all (or that I don't open every time I see 'em), but once I start reading through a discussion, I read every post. (Well, on occasion I'll skim past a lengthy message if the first couple of sentences fail to engage my interest.) I have of course formed negative general impressions of some individuals, but never anything so hard and fast as to cause me to skip a person's every word!

Even though some Mudcat personalities have emerged to become full-fledged "people" in my imagination, I still relate to a forum like this as a meetingplace of ideas and opinions, not primarily one of personalities. Certainly, I have learned things and/or gained insights thanks to the contributions of certain characters who I don't always like.

Isn't it obvious that a person might be mean or insensitive ~ or at least come off that way in his/her hastily-written messages ~ and still have expertise to offer in the realm of, say, instrument repair or folkloric scholarship? Or that a person with whom one disagrees about politics and/or religion might share one's passion for a musical genre or period or performer?

Whenever we judge a fellow cyber-stranger's character and personality on the basis of his/her skill at written self-expression, we're fairly likely to be wrong. And even when we might be (accidentally) correct in our assesment of another's character, that still does not mean that at least a few of the person's ideas, or reports of facts, might not be worthy of consideration.

Read everyone's contribution to any discussion you enter! At least then you'll know what you're disagreeing with...

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 May 05 - 03:40 PM

And that's very commendable of you Popp, but not everyone does as you do. Some folks seem to just jump on a person regardless of what they have actually posted.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 05 - 03:40 PM

What? Some people think I'm a Shatner-centric jackass? Oh, Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That is just too funny... Parody becomes reality in the world of cyberspace...

But, really, there is a simple solution to all this.

Simply approach everyone with a generous reserve of goodwill, no matter who they are, even if you don't have a clue what the heck they stand for, and even if they oppose everything you think you stand for...and take some time to give them the benefit of the doubt. You might learn something new. And if they are really trying to upset you...why give them that sort of power by getting upset? What good does it do you?

Obviously, what they are up to makes sense to them, otherwise they wouldn't do it, would they? They are you, in another skin, through another set of perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 05 - 04:43 PM

Yup, poppagator, I can agree with that just fine. Well said, in fact.

I agree with "I especially don't care if anyone is put off by their misunderstanding of what I might be trying to say", though I would just say...

1. I do care when I'm misunderstood to the extent that I will try to re-examine what I wrote and try to assess if the understanding might have been the fault of my unclear writing. On the other hand...

2. There are those who (as I stated earlier) seem to be set on misunderstanding me -- even (and often) in spite of the fact that others are not misunderstanding what I've said. Those people I don't so much care that they misunderstand me, but I certainly change my tack when it comes to trying to communicate with them. I still favor politeness, but not even trying to communicate with some folks here seems to be the best, most polite tack to take.

I'm sure that many here have concluded the same toward me.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 May 05 - 11:41 PM

Attitude behind a post is, I think, usually fairly easy to discern. I agree with the posters who have asked that if we want to respond to a specific post we actually read what the other person has said first. It seems a reasonable request.

Bushites seem to be the worst offenders at shooting from the lip without reading what came before. But, unfortunately, it seems they are not alone in this.

It makes communication, let alone debate, not easy.

Subject: RE: BS: How clearly do we read each other?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 May 05 - 03:58 AM

Ron - of course they are, they have the worlds' best role model for opening mouth without engaging brain!

LTS