🚀 go-pugleaf

> From: orville@uunet.uu.net!weyrich (Dr. Orville R. Weyrich)
> 
> 	2) Making non-explicit communications explicit benefits a group 
> 	   discussion, especially in an inter-cultural environment.

This is another commonly held assumption steeped in the rationalist
tradition.  Is there any evidence for this conjecture, other than our
intuitions (which fail us more often than we may want to believe)?

> 	I have recently been listening to an audio-tape program entitled
> 	"The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense". One of the points made
> 	in this tape series is that the written word does not normally
> 	carry any indication of stress, and that emotional [abusive]
> 	content is often related to abnormal stress. (Consider the
>       difference between "When do you want it done?" and "When do YOU
>       want it > done?"). 
> 
> 	IMHO, eliminating these subliminal channels is a GOOD THING, and
> 	more often facilitates group interaction than not.

I may be misunderstanding the message, but isn't this a contradiction?
You say in the first paragraph that natural communication (note, NOT
natural language) is more than words, then you claim that taking part of
the communication medium away leads to better communication.  How can
this be?

Smiley faces are a good example of informal written communication
mediums trying to bring these natural mediums back into the
conversations.  Without them, much of the communication would be taken
far too seriously, losing the intended humor or irony. 

By the way, I don't think intonation is in any way subliminal.  It may
be implicit, as opposed to explicit, but it is certainly consciously
processed.
-- 


-- Scott
   scotth@boulder.colorado.edu