Ian,
I mostly agree with all you have said. However, let me clarify some points:
"Sometimes this is the case. In other situations we need the big words.
It's like math on a finer scale. E=MC^2 is wonderful to behold because
of it's simplicity. "
Aesthetics certainly does play a role in some communications. However, as
you say further down, the author should consider the audience. In some
instances poetry is appropriate, in some instances mathematical proofs are
appropriate. Therefore, we seem to be in more agreement than I realize. That
the author should be concerned with his target audience is important. We
certainly would not speak French to communicate in Japan, just because it
sounds nice (a very pretty word for "sounds nice" would have been
nice-melodious?). However, Opera in Italian has a certain power to it that
savvy Opera goers seem to prefer. Right now, you and I are engaged in
conversation. But, we also have an audience. Two methods of communicating
with our audience as well as each other, stand out immediately. Rhetorical
and Logical. Of these, the rhetorical is strongest by itself, while the most
superior communication is both rhetorically appealing and logically correct.
"I have read a lot of the posts that, I assume, you are referring to.
They tell me nothing. The language gets in the way of the message.
When asked to clarify we get deluged in bombastic <doh!> prose.
Read the signs. The person who does this has no wish to communicate.
Smile politely and let it slide..."
This would be the instance to which Daniel was referring. You give good
advice. Sometimes, I take the words and paraphrase them into understandable
parts and debate with my own words. It gets old after a while...
"In general we can write a paragraph to say something or we can write
it in shorthand which, we assume, is common knowledge to those who
follow a given group/discussion.
Sadly the informal nature of the internet has also bread dreadful
habits in many of us. RTFM, see the FAQ etc. etc. "
Using alphabet soup and jargon is also unacceptable, in my opinion. However,
as you note above, in certain audiences this is ok and encouraged. Again, it
is important to consider the audience.
[snip]-That means I cut some stuff out. Abridged. ;) Not because it is
worthless, but because it has already been well said.
>Something that is interesting in the communication of the internet, is that
>it is much more dynamic. In a book or a paper, the audience must be
entirely
>passive. This is not the case with this new medium. We have the leisure of
>the written word coupled with the feedback of the spoken word. I said
>leisure, because, as you say I can think about it, look at it, ask a friend
>about it, and so forth. And then, I can come back to you for clarification.
>
"Yes. But this lacks the intimacy of a good book. A well written book
will first set the tone in which information is shared. Not unlike
mediations. The writer attempts to sync their mind with ours so that
we can *share* something that they have seen."
I agree. However, you and I are on the Inter-short attention span-Net. There
is a certain set of expectations associated with Internet communication.
Should we abide by it? Perhaps I am over-generalizing. Perhaps the
expectations are set by each subgroup within the Internet. So the MOQ has
its expectations, whereas comp.ai.philosophy has its expectations. Back to
considerations of audience, and another word, context.
"You have to decide with whom you wish to spend that leisure time. When
I was a child a man said to me "Show me your friends and I'll tell you
who you are"... As I child I found this to be a very naive view of the
world. As an adult I see things differently."
A little off-topic response to this: As a child your friends are mostly
chosen by your circumstances. As an adult you choose your own friends. There
are some startling implications of this, since current technology has
enabled a much greater ability of individuals to congretate with like
individuals. The Bell Curve makes quite a good point about this.
[snip]
"I tend to ask for clarification. Word, especially in English, can have
so many meanings. And then there is sarcasm, irony and satire to
contend with..."
There is also the lack of indices, glossaries, footnotes, facial
expressions, hand gestures, and other aids to communications that we
normally have access to in other forms of expression.
[snip]
>Precision in language is especially important in a static communication.
But
>in a dynamic communication feedback allows for clarity. So, if I am unclear
>or ambiguous, I can count on you to point that out. Then I can explain
>myself further. And, I depend on you to help me express my ideas, and I
>depend on you to help me further them so that we can grow in knowledge
>together.
>
"I think I get what you are saying... but (always the but) this is how
we play chinese whispers..."
Maybe here we have a real difference. I think that this is what good
communication should be. By Chinese whispers I assume you mean the way a
story is changed in the retelling. If so, it appears that you believe this
to be a negative thing in communication, while I certainly do not. I believe
that we should learn from each other, and that our views should merge after
some time. If not, then communications must eventually be broken off.
"We can mistake much more with informal language than with more formal
language. It's friendlier to be informal but at some points clarity
can become more important."
Formalities can also be a barrier to communication. However, let's make sure
that we do not confuse informal with ease of understanding. It is formal
English to say "Jane went home."
"The author is the person who gets to set the tone. The reader gets to
decide if it's worth the effort to hear what this person is saying.
Sometimes we must let the conversation slide."
Agreed.
[snip] We are also in agreement on points 1-3. What a wonderful thing!
>4. Fear should be removed from the exchange
"Ahhh. Not necessarily... Depends upon what is being discussed is scary
or not. In debating God/Damnation there is always the fear."
If the goal is to communicate, neither participant should be afraid to
speak. Perhaps I was unclear. If, however, the goal is to persuade another
with fear, then this isn't communication. This is preaching and
indoctrination. You are possibly implying that above.
"Certainly fear of a lack of knowledge should *never* become a reason
not to participate. Provided you are willing to do the footwork to
learn enough to participate."
Yes! And, hopefully, if the speaker(s) are doing a good job, you will be
highly motivated to do the footwork.
>5. We should worry more about too little communication than too much
>communication
I get 500+ e-mail a day. I worry more about quality (smile) than
anything else.
It would seem then, that those who are attempting to communicate with you
are failing to consider their target audience. In an ideal situation you
would be interested to communicate back. From the bulk mail that I receive,
I feel that I am being told what to do, and not asked for my opinion. So, I
absolutely agree with your point, and I think it fits in perfectly with our
discussion.
>Your point is that is important to use a precise word.
"Not quite. At certain points precision become the most important
thing. In what I consider to be good posts the author with explain a
key concept in both formal and informal terms."
So, would you say that the best posts are those that communicate most
clearly with the greatest possible number of people?
[snip]
"OMMV"
What does this mean exactly?
"Where precision is necessary it
should be used. The author chooses this. If the reader has questions
about other parts then they can be answered with more precise language
/ addison thought."
It certainly seems to me that we are in agreeance that the author should
write/speak in such a way as to be most clear to the audience without
sacrificing meaning. However, I am less inclined to see a flaw with changes
in meaning, should that be acceptable to the author. A rigid clinging to
dogmatic views can bring communications to a rapid halt. However, both
parties must be willing to commit to sharing win/win scenario. If not, the
person who seeks to communicate can be rapidly bullied out of the
conversation by the person who is merely preaching. What say ye unto this?
-dave
David Prince
Systems Analyst
www.NeoNome.com -The New, Free, Peer-to-Peer Internet!
mailto:support@neonome.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST