Many, many years ago, on one of the earliest ARPANET (the Internet's ancestor) mailing lists (probably HUMAN-NETS) I noted what was already becoming obvious -- that interaction restricted to text was likely to exacerbate many comments into misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and flame wars -- for the simple reason that all manner of human contexts -- speech emphasis, tone of voice, facial expressions, mannerisms, body language, and more, simply do not exist in a text-only universe. Sarcasm is almost impossible to express without labeling it explicitly, and using uppercase letters or bracketing asterisks for emphasis provide only the crudest of additional signals.
It is unfortunate that even after all these years, we find ourselves in pretty much exactly the same situation in email and social media, including, sadly, here on #Mastodon.
The more things change, the more they really do stay the same.
@lauren I noticed that some people, including me, have issues with recognizing sarcasm even in "real" reality, during "alive" communication IRL, with all these body language, voice tone, etc, available.
I am happy with all these text-only universes, and I DON"T want Fediverse becoming e. g. VR or video-first universe. it is easier for me to read @pluralistic as text, than e g. understand it if it would be a video or audio or VR "podcast".
@koteisaev@pluralistic Oh yeah, I actually prefer text-only media for comms. I'm, shall we say, really used to it after so long. However, it is important to keep the pitfalls in mind, and over the years I've seen people fall into those many, many times.
I totally agree, yet almost immediately a question arises: Books face the exact same restrictions, they, too, are made of only text. Still, sarcasm works, irony works, all sorts of expressions work.
Is it the length of the text?
But what about poems, then?
Is it the fact that, at least usually, writers who have had their fair amount of training are the ones writing books and poems? Is it a question of skill?
@wernerprise I had to think about this for a bit. I believe there are a number of salient differences, a couple of which you identified.
Clearly skill is involved. And length -- the longer the text, the more room to clearly explain your thoughts and the less "shorthand" used that can be easily misinterpreted.
This of course is very different from typical back-and-forth "chat" type comms, in fact, wholly the opposite.
Also, when writing, skilled writers tend to make very clear what they're trying to impart.
That is, it's unlikely to just see sarcasm expressed in dialogue as:
"You're an idiot!" he said.
But rather as:
"You're an idiot!" he said sarcastically, with a grin on his face.
@wernerprise
Sarcasm in books works because the characters, their mindset and the situation are made transparent, usually by a narrating author. Even in books it works less well if the story is told from an ego perspective. And it simply does not work in poems, without additional context.
So the limitations are pretty similar and while text length plays some role, the main difference is the perspective. @lauren
@wernerprise What @lauren describes is known as the restricted channel hypothesis in computer mediated communication. But it's not just restricted, there are other technical factors, like (a)synchronicity, persistence, anonymity and psychological factors like increased self-disclosure. Users can adapt and overcome the limitations.
@lauren Sure. But one tends to overestimate the effect of computer mediation and its limitations. If you message with your spouse then sarcasm mostly works well. But with perfect strangers it doesn't — computer mediated or not. @wernerprise
@kolya@wernerprise I think we're talking at cross points. I'm speaking specifically of human-to-human comms, not with any help from computer mediation.
@lauren Okay, that's unforeseen. You started this thread about the lack of emphasis, body language etc in the text-only universe of mailing lists and now Mastodon. All of this is computer mediated communication. I thought that's what we were talking about. Sorry, if I was mistaken. @wernerprise
@kolya@wernerprise I think we're using different definitions. I consider computer-mediated comms to be comms where there is active "enhancement" of entered text by systems during the communications. Otherwise, and what I've been talking about, is just humans typing at each other with their text being delivered directly (in a chat, an email, etc.) without any changes.
@lauren Ah, I see. I used computer mediated communication here as defined by media sciences. This does not mean active enhancement, but simply computer transferred communication. So humans typing at each other in text based communication is definitely included, as long as they use computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-mediated_communication @wernerprise
@kolya@wernerprise Yes. Frankly, I avoid using the formal term in that way since it has become so expansive over time in ways that I personally don't feel are helpful to understanding many of the associated issues in a contemporary context. I probably should have made that clear early on.
@lauren That's fine, as it doesn't really matter to the point I was making: We tend to overestimate the effects of the restrictions of text based communication. Texting a sarcastic remark to your spouse usually works well. But with perfect strangers it doesn't — whether that would be face to face or text based. @wernerprise
@lauren It follows that we are comparing very different social situations. Maybe because in text-based communication they don't feel so different. Whether you're talking to your spouse or a stranger, your personal situation doesn't necessarily change. @wernerprise
@kolya@wernerprise I agree with this, but my interpretation would be that it suggests great care should always be used in text-based comms, because there is a continuum between people who know us very well and people who don't know us at all, and accurately judging where someone sits on the continuum (as viewed from either side) isn't necessarily straightforward except at the extremes.
@lauren Yes, but that isn't a restriction of text based communication itself, but a misinterpretation of the social situation, although aided by the lack of clues. And it is avoidable. We can remind ourselves that we don't actually know the person we're writing to. @wernerprise
Add comment