written communication

written communication (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

sravaka -> written communication (4/12/2009 5:46:54 PM)
Ok.... I really wanted to post this in the thread about people responding inappropriately to posts that contain opinions, because it would have been fun and inappropriate, but I'll be good and start a new one. I see this sort of statistic cited fairly frequently in online-land: quote: Words only compose 7-10% of a message. Tone another 30+%. But the majority of communication is visual. So that means on a message board, where you can't post images/videos, you are losing around 90% of the whole communication. And that goes from both directions. I find, now that I think about it for more than my usual 10 seconds, that I don't entirely buy it. I won't deny that you get infinitely more information from hearing a real voice than reading typed words.... or that you get still more from seeing a person speak in the flesh... But.... are these figures averages based on most people's (in)ability to write, or what? Tone can certainly be conveyed in print (type). Raw ideas can be conveyed. Emotions can be conveyed. You don't have to be in the same room with an editorialist or a novelist or poet to extract something more than words. And while the rest of us may not always manage to create the same effects with the same precision.... I just don't think everyone is doomed to the tune of 90%. Now, if you're trying to evaluate whether someone is worthy of trust, or attractive to you, or some such thing, then I do buy some much higher percentage of possible error. But on a message board, where most of the point is ideas.... what good would a visuals do? If the OP on the other thread had posted a video of himself saying the same sort of thing, would he have been any less tedious? Would the dismissive responses have been more or less dismissive, and the helpful ones more or less helpful? I like the fact that so many people around here know how to use words effectively, and that they convey something (not all, but something) of themselves in the course of using them. I can't believe it's 90% air. Thoughts?

FullCircle -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 6:00:29 PM)
Well most people don't have English skills that compare to a poet or an author. Also the things you are extracting from a novel is built up over pages not sentences, message boards are more to the point. I feel a big part of visual communication lost in the written form is facial expressions, it's amazing how good we all are at reading facial expressions even the slightest line change in a face makes a big difference and that kind of detail of expression can't easily be put down in written form. People invented emoticon to convey such things in a quick way without the need to be a great author but they barely cover it. I generally try to condense what I'm saying down to the shortest number of words possible (learnt from submitting assignments with word limits). I find some people write pages and pages of stuff that doesn't really say anything.

TheHeretic -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 6:07:01 PM)
I think it is a complete b.s. sort of number, made up by people unwilling to admit they were wrong in the belief that if people just talked, we wouldn't have so many problems in the world. Here is the internet, people are talking, problems continue. God forbid they should admit they were wrong. Does everybody get that every tongue-in-cheek reply is intended that way? Nope. Should I then try to ensure that every word I express will be acceptable to the lowest common denomiator? Ain't gonna happen.

Venalismihi -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 6:17:31 PM)
J.K. Johnson: Verbal communication only makes up 10% of the messages we send to one another. In actuality, 90% of the messages we send back and forth,require NO WORDS AT ALL! This is called non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication is defined as sending messages back and forth to one another, without words. These messages are sent to others through... Eye Contact Facial Expressions Voice tone Voice volume Rate of speech Silences and Pauses Hand Gestures Body Positioning Body Distance The most successful people on the planet have the ability to tap into the 90% of communication that really reaches and leads people. Lots of research done on this. Not just number crunching. Qualitative research also.

TheHeretic -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 6:28:29 PM)
But this is a newer form of communication, and non-verbal. Applying statistics from one discipline to another doesn't pass the sniff test.

sravaka -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 6:29:14 PM)
<cough> and who is J.K. Johnson exactly? If an "ezine-expert" with things to hawk in a completely unrelated context says so, it must be true!

DarkSteven -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 6:37:56 PM)
Ridiculous. It seems intuitively obvious that in a written-only medium,. the words themselves become more important than in a FTF communication. Uses of emoticons happen. Different forms of communication have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, email has no FTF qualities, but is exceptional for documenting. I much prefer email when there is a chance that things might be misinterpreted. I make a phone call when I need immediacy. To state that one form of communication is inferior to another by looking only at its weaknesses and not its strengths is asinine.

popeye1250 -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 7:01:26 PM)
Sravaka, I don't know about that, the Irish are known for telling stories with words only.

Venalismihi -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 7:05:20 PM)
A Communications Psychologist. I was pointing out the flawed medium that is the written when so much of what "could, would, should", be sensed is lost.

sravaka -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 7:24:33 PM)
Yeah. I got that that was the intent. Somehow it falls short of convincing me that the problem is with the medium rather than the users of it. Dark Steven summed it up admirably, I think-- it's different, not inherently better or worse. I suspect, in fact, that there are people who can convey more in print than they do in person....

heartcream -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 10:37:15 PM)
I think you can get a lot out of written communication. Sometimes it is even better because there is no being cut-off, interrupted. Not seeing an immediate response can help one to go on too. If I began saying something and saw a look on the other's face I might stop what I was saying feeling weird or uncomfortable. It is possible to miscommunicate face to face or not. I enjoy written words and I like to try and understand people from their words, get to know them if I can.

YoursMistress -> RE: written communication (4/12/2009 11:19:28 PM)
I suspect that the 90% comes from comprehension or memory testing dome after the fact. There is an inherent benefit of written words that remain posted and may be reviewed again alter and often. The fair comparison might be for a once-viewed written post versus the same words spoken aloud and in person. In my experience, the tone extracted from an email or message board post may have nothing to do with the state of mind or intent of the poster and everything to do with the state of mind of the listener/reader. On numerous occasions I have had to perform damage control at work due to an ill-phrased email that was perceived as a threat or insult. I wouldn't take the notion of information % as a dig against the message board, but rather of the power of non-verbal information that can be communicated besides just the words written or spoken. yours

UncleNasty -> RE: written communication (4/13/2009 9:28:28 AM)
If the written word were truly sufficient then we'd merely warm ourselves by reading about fire. Uncle Nasty

kdsub -> RE: written communication (4/13/2009 9:49:59 AM)
I believe if you want a truly honest reply then a message board like ours is the place to be. When face to face people do not always say what they mean for a variety of reasons. Here we are somewhat anonymous and will express their true feelings that they would not do in a face to face confrontation. Sure there will be some misunderstanding...especially with humor and satire... but the gist will come through loud and clear. Butch

Anarrus -> RE: written communication (4/13/2009 9:51:06 AM)
I tend to agree with Uncle Nasty. But a lot depends on the message in the words. I can type the words "I love you" to someone. The typed words certainly carry an impact, but not much of one compared to when the recipient of those words sees it in my eyes, hears it in my voice and my body language says it to them through a touch or a gesture like stroking their hair or cheek. Which carrys more weight in communication then..the typed words or the other stuff?

kidwithknife -> RE: written communication (4/13/2009 1:50:39 PM)
I'd agree with others that you can't directly compare two completely different mediums in that way. Internet forums are arguably a new form of communication entirely. They combine the clarity of the written word with the interactivity of verbal communication.

chamberqueen -> RE: written communication (4/13/2009 3:28:49 PM)
To the OP, yes, I agree that written communication is lacking in a lot of respects to the face to face. Does that make it invalid? Not at all. What can be hardest to convey are the emotions that go with the words. Consider the example of the words used by another user: "I love you". In writing that could be said tongue in cheek, with heart in throat, sarcastically, etc. Using writing only can lead to misunderstandings. That does not mean that the written word doesn't have its place. Writing in itself isn't new - the only new part is having it almost instantly accessible. Now, add in someone with a lot of grammar and spelling errors and the communication can start to break down even more. As clearly as I try to state my own points I have had people completely misunderstand me. Using an electronic form of writing can be very entertaining, informative, and a great passtime. It comes in handy when we can't see someone face to face but want to stay in touch. I have friends I haven't seen in 10 years that I keep in touch with via emails and it keeps our friendships alive, along with people I do business with from around the world. It is a wonderful tool but it will never give us the ability to pick up on all of the nuances we would get in person - though if the other person is using a webcam it can come close.

camille65 -> RE: written communication (4/13/2009 4:43:17 PM)
For me the written form of communication is preferred over face to face. I take people at 'face value' (okay that was punny), absorbing words far above things like body language and facial expression. There are times when I feel like I am blind, actually unable to discern the nuances of communication between people. The written word, for me, cuts through all of that and leaves what is really being said. I am however more skilled than the average when it comes to utilizing this format so perhaps that is the difference for me. I wrote before I could speak and I write much more than I could possibly verbalize.

MrRodgers -> RE: written communication (4/14/2009 12:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Venalismihi J.K. Johnson: Verbal communication only makes up 10% of the messages we send to one another. In actuality, 90% of the messages we send back and forth,require NO WORDS AT ALL! This is called non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication is defined as sending messages back and forth to one another, without words. These messages are sent to others through... Eye Contact Facial Expressions Voice tone Voice volume Rate of speech Silences and Pauses Hand Gestures Body Positioning Body Distance The most successful people on the planet have the ability to tap into the 90% of communication that really reaches and leads people. Lots of research done on this. Not just number crunching. Qualitative research also. Yea and they said Wagner's music is really much better...than it sounds.

MrRodgers -> RE: written communication (4/14/2009 12:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 For me the written form of communication is preferred over face to face. I take people at 'face value' (okay that was punny), absorbing words far above things like body language and facial expression. There are times when I feel like I am blind, actually unable to discern the nuances of communication between people. The written word, for me, cuts through all of that and leaves what is really being said. I am however more skilled than the average when it comes to utilizing this format so perhaps that is the difference for me. I wrote before I could speak and I write much more than I could possibly verbalize. You've got it camille otherwise one couldn't just read Shakespeare, we'd have to go see every play to 'get it' I guess.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875