Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!cae780!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: Messaging and misunderstandings
Message-ID: <1419@hplabsc.HP.COM>
Date: Wed, 11-Mar-87 19:02:22 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1419
Posted: Wed Mar 11 19:02:22 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Mar-87 06:30:22 EST
References: <1405@hplabsc.HP.COM>
Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Ralmar Business Systems, San Jose, California
Lines: 52
Approved: taylor@hplabs

This message raised some thoughts that I would like to pass along.

Re misunderstood messages, and "not reading": 

I have also noticed a tendancy of many people to quickly skim written
communication and "jump" to the wrong conclusion.  There seems to be some
correlation here with people not reading instruction, and, as a result,
performing a task incorrectly (or even performing the wrong task
altogether).  Also, this seems to be more prevalent with people whose job
requires that they continuously review large volumes of information.  Could
this be an additional side effect of their being close to the brink of
"information overload"?

Re "replies often *are* dismissive. No one likes new problems;":

I agree with the thought that people tend to take the shortest path to the
resolution of a matter which impacts their personal workload, and that
electronic media tends to make this approach easier.  Facts, of the simple
and bare varieties, can be easily communicated by electronic means.
Communicating "ideas" effectively, however, requires greater effort.  I
think that this is true regardless of the media of communication (verbal,
"hard copy", or electronic).  Either substantial thought must be put into 
the communication, how it will be interpreted, etc. or there must be a
means of feedback from the recipient, as there is with verbal
communication.   

Re lack of care in the preparation of the message, spelling and grammatical 
   errors :

The software being used for electronic communication also plays a part here, I
think.  The software may either not allow the communicator to use spelling
checkers and/or other tools, or may make the use of such utilities
inconvenient.  "Speed of reply" does, however, appear to be the primary
culprit.  

On the issue of responses, or lack thereof, to posted articles: I am 
"new" to Usenet, and personally feel that I am still at the "learning 
stage".  As a result, there is a certain amount of trepidation in responding 
to posted articles.  I suspect that many other people may also have similar 
emotions, and, as a result, tend not to respond to articles which have 
provoked thought or strong emotions.  Watching others "burn" on the Net 
(with visions of being tied to their terminals instead of stakes as 
others apply their "flames") is strongly negative in its motivating powers.  

This, of course, raises the issue of "why flames": In some respects, 
electronic communications tend to be impersonal.  As such, I think it is 
easier for people to exhibit a level of discourteousness which they would 
not dream of on a face-to-face basis.  Add this fact to their own "failure 
to read", and the other matters discussed above, and we see a neatly closed 
loop.  

	Ralph Barker