Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ames!ames.arc.nasa.gov!lamaster
From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: interesting groupware reference
Message-ID: <40703@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 17 Jan 90 01:12:49 GMT
References: <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM> <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <6223@levels.sait.edu.au>
Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center
Lines: 47

In article <6223@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:
>

>The short answer: Yes.  In my edition it is on page 11: "This synthesis is
>central to our interpretation of computer technology in the second part of
>the book.  It leads us to the conclusion that we create our world through
>language, an observation that has important consequences for design."

I interpret this statement to mean the following:

"Language has an effect on perception."  I see nothing in it which states
that there is no objective reality, merely that language affects our
perception of that reality.  No one denies that, for example, not being
color blind affects one's perception of "color".  On the other hand,
I question how much the "Whorf effect" really matters.  It is interesting
to note that linguists are divided.  The argument against the Whorf effect
seems to be that a good translation can be made from any known language to
any other, and back again, although the text may be expanded, and
the form is destroyed (in e.g. poetry, where form is important).

>Maybe my interpretation of brick comes more from the statement
>'drop a brick', than from my knowledge of building materials.  At

I don't like this as an example of what you mean, because
'drop a brick' is merely a (compound) word which one of us knows and the other
doesn't.  Perhaps there is another example which works better.

>wierd) and go merrily on my ('wrong') way. ['Drop a brick' means make
>an indiscreet remark]

>I feel that awareness of some of these issues of interpretation will be
>fundamental to the design of effective distributed groupware.  Maybe they

I don't see it as fundamental
to groupware, per se, any more than it is a problem for the telephone.  Sure,
misunderstandings arise, but the telephone is still a useful tool, I think ...
I'm not sure how geographic distribution makes a difference.  You can easily
find people with quite different cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the 
same office. 

But, I agree that tools that would further understanding, as well as
communication, would be greatly appreciated.

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117