Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!intrbas!kenn From: kenn@intrbas.uucp (Kenneth G. Goutal) Newsgroups: comp.groupware Subject: Re: 2 comments Keywords: emotional content; raw data Message-ID: <161@intrbas.UUCP> Date: 22 Jan 91 17:31:00 GMT References: <20964@crg5.UUCP> Sender: news@intrbasintrbas.UUCP Organization: Interbase Software Corporation Lines: 86 Nntp-Posting-Host: krebs This is terrible! <-_+> Background: I probably come down more on the rationalist end of the scale. I *want* to agree with Nick, because I agree with many of the premises that he states or implies. On the other hand, I don't want to, because he annoys the h--- out of me, because of the assaultive emotional content with which his messages (in this thread) are fraught, despite his assertions that emotional baggage is bad for arriving at good solutions. I much prefer reading, say, Alan's messages because they are much more neutral in tone, despite his assertions that emotional content is important and that this medium strips out huge amounts of emotional content. On the other hand, it's Alan's msg (to which this is a direct followup) that prompts me point out that *neither* of you (or anyone else in this thread) is providing *raw* facts (in Alan's words) for the rest of us to use. Nick, you're arguing as emotionally and fluffily as anyone else around here. Alan, you've done no better. Perhaps you could be excused because your platform is that emotional content is better. However, you cut your own feet out from under yourself by invoking the need for "raw facts" that are lost because we keep only written records rather than sound, video, etc. (at least up until lately). Keep smiling, both of you, no harm done nor intended... I'm not going to present any good raw data here either. By raw data, what I would hope to see would be actual studies, numbers, graphs, etc showing emotional/rational content of communications and the results that ensued. I feel the need to interject that there's a red herring in here... I'm confused about how it came about, or who introduced the notion, but there seems to have arisen in this thread the idea that *anything* that isn't text is emotional, and subject to the argument at hand. I disagree. I think graphs, charts, even full-resolution pictures could constitute "raw data" for the purposes at hand, and could and should be communicated via e-mail, e-news, or any other groupware. It would (or at least could) still be contributing only to the technical content of the communications. On the other hand, emotional content can be conveyed in words, written or otherwise, as I indicated in the first couple of paragraphs of this message; or in ASCII-only non-text, as the crude "emoticons" that have been in widespread use in this medium (but not in this newsgroup!!!!!?) for many years; or in detailed, hi-resolution, frequently-updated emoticons; or in the tone of voice and facial expressions in full- motion video with sound. So, part of what I would wish for would be increased bandwidth so as to accomodate graphics and perhaps even sound and video, but that somehow discussions could be carried on in a rational way, regardless of the medium. I *have not* read any studies of this stuff, nor have I conducted any, so perhaps by my own dictum I should stay out of this discussion. Having given that caveat, I will sally forth with the following: I think that one of the features of a piece of groupware that contributes to rational results is a built-in *memory* of what's been communicated so far, so as to at least help avoid degenerating to "You said X!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!" "I did not!" and so forth. Where the system has a memory, the participants can, at least, go back and *check* what was "said". I think that the lack of this features is a weakness I see in e-news as implemented on UUCP et al, and a strength of more centralized systems such as CoSy and Participate (tm's as appropriate). A second thing I think is true is that it would be bad (by which I mean "unfruitful") to have a system which did not *allow* for free-form contribution as we have it here, but I think that it is equally bad to have a system which does not *facilitate* more structured forms of communication that make it easier to avoid emotional traps. But now I've rambled more than I wanted. Take heart, Nick, Alan, and the rest... I continue to believe that this is a worthwhile thread, and quite relevant to the discussion of groupware. I think it would be more worthwhile if (a) the contributors made their contributions with higher fact/fancy, rational/emotional ratios; or (b) the software supported fruitful discussion better; or (c) both of the above. -- Kenn Goutal ...!linus!intrbas!kenn ...!uunet!intrbas!kenn