/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 11642
15 kB, 413 × 393
Which statement is true?

a) Communicating in written form is flawed. You miss a lot of context and messages (like from body language). The chance for misunderstanding is therefore high. Communicating face to face is more efficient and clear.

b) Communicating face to face is flawed. You get distracted and manipulated by personal features of your couterpart (like charisma, charm or humor). Only the written form is failproof, exact and to the point. Everything beside the actual exchanged words in a face to face communication is subject to manipulation, especially by charismatic people.
>>
No. 11646
Written is best for an exchange of copius facts and instructions, while verbal is better for information that either requires emotional context, or emotional feedback. Now most communication is for simple things, like 'hand me that pencil',which is neither complex nor emotional-and I suppose verbal wins on those for it's convenience. So, to answer you're question, I would say both have flaws and it is up to the communicator to determine what is the best, or more efficient, method on a case by case basis.
>>
No. 11648
>Only the written form is failproof, exact and to the point.

You don't seriously think this, do you?
>>
No. 11649
>>11648
For me, the whole thread sounds like an excerpt from psychological test, where you chooseeither one point of view or another,so this test determines your psychotype.
>>
No. 11651
All human communication is flawed. True intercourse between conscious beings is impossible.
>>
No. 11652
It depends on the intent of the communication. Furthermore the things you are talking about say more about you than the message. Everything you're communicating is in a sort of social context. Some jokes are simply inappropriate or not funny depending on the receiver for example. Use of social cues has more to do with how you frame a message, sure, but in that sense it's social contexts like for example you would add more weight to what a climatologist has to say about the environment than some random mechanic, which likewise you would do anyway with them if you had known who the person is. It seems more that your question has to do with anonymity versus being known, in which case I would like to point out that there is more room for lies and manipulation in a given anonymous context because you cannot prove or disprove who said it, this allowing fear mongering, misinformation, and blatant lies to run rampant. All things being equal face to face is a better medium of exchange if only because you have a wider array of information to go on. I would not, for example, have much interest in interrogating a prisoner through pen pals. I would need to see his face, hear his intonations and voice inflection, see the way he does or does not shift in his seat, if I am looking for information on the murders, and likewise poker loses a certain something when all you have to go on is their hand and betting behavior.

But of course these things also rely on skill. Most people are not wordsmiths. A lot of people probably more easily convey information in person than in written form, as they are social animals and frankly writing itself was a symbolic invention that we've stuck with for a long time that for most of history was restricted to scholars, royals, a priest caste and so on. Therefore I would say it probably remains a smaller number of people even to this day who can superceded that peasant inability to thoughtfully communicate by the pen, and moreover it is that thoughtlessness in communication that often betrays them and the veracity of their statements. A simple "how are you doing?" "Oh I'm fine ernst great weather" can only be taken at face value, whereas IRL one can plainly see the man is troubled. There is a tiny minority of people who likely stick to the internet for this exact reason who find difficulty in person to person communication for whatever reason, be it anxiety or autism or whatever, and whose illiteracy of socially and emotionally reading a conversation makes the point moot. These are the minds of people who would have trouble say distinguishing sarcasm when they interpret everything literally, but then again, it is even harder for anyone to understand sarcasm online.

At the end of the day I think the written word is better for chewing on thoughts rather than blurting them out, and thus being able to return to them, whereas face to face like you said it's easier for conversation to flow organically and perhaps miss a question you meant to ask or to Korean thoughtfully respond. Not that this seems to matter on a place like a chan since as we have seen certain cancerous boards somehow manage to be even stupider than IRL.
>>
No. 11657
>which communication can be unambiguous

you are asking the wrong questions, OP.
>>
No. 11658
>>11649
Then I choose hand signals.

t.sneak build

>>11651
>True intercourse between conscious beings is impossible.

Maybe for you :^)
>>
No. 11671
42 kB, 474 × 355
>>11658
Oh rly mr smart guy so is that closer to a written language or is it body language?
>>
No. 11677
As far as i recall psychology classes.
>Communicating face to face is flawed.
Depends to whom you are talking to, from your knowledge of each other and from gender. It's hard to show emotions through a plain text, that's why memes are so popular today.
It's possible to have male to male conversation without non verbal signs, but this is some borderline except. And females use non verbal signs more often, that's why they also use smiles in text more often.
>>
No. 11683
First of all, any verbal communication carries with it a certain level of quality. I mean, look at what you can see on TV: most actors over there are incredibly well-spoken, literate, they are able to carry themselves with grace, elegance and basically supernatural clarity. I mean, check out Saturday Night Live, for one example: these folks are there on that screen because they know their ropes and they are able to deliver. Unlike this privileged class, the common man's tongue is usually bleak, bland and banal. We will never be like Tyler Durden or Abe Lincoln, and each one of us is aware of that and probably contemplates that sad fact of life often and with much bitterness.
However, with written word, you can have your time. If you have things to say and thoughts to share, you are not constrained in any way by your lack of verbal eloquence and on-the-spot clarity, but can compose your mind slowly and patiently and edit it until it reaches the quality desired. There, you've produced something of fineness, of perfection, something you can be proud of, words that will endure and stand.

On a side note, Ernstchan, while being one of the better places online, suffers from a terrible groupthink and being at all times extremely writer-conscious. Our vocabulary is strained and forced and quite neurotic. Half of the time it seems like our vocabulary here is the message itself.
>>
No. 11684
both
>>
No. 11685
25 kB, 450 × 297
Maybe like this:

Nonverbal messages tell you something about the person, not about the topic you are talking about. So if the topic involves the person, then face to face is more efficient.
But if the opinions or feelings towards the topic from the person don't matter, then they are a distraction. It could lead to you connection the nonverbal messages (like a digusted facial expression) to the topic, leading to manipulation. You own attitude towards the topic might have been different if you had just read about it.

Me adding something nonverbal to my message by attaching that picture could lead to you thinking i am an idiot and therefore you could come to a different conclusion of my post than if i hadn't attached it
>>
No. 11686
47 kB, 600 × 481
Nonverbal communication is like metagaming in an RPG, but IRL.
>>
No. 11687
Communication is inherently flawed because it simultaneously exists in at least three states with different meanings or lack thereof. It exists in the perceived universe of the speaker, the perceived universes of the listeners and in the unperceived material universe. Each of these states understands the phenomenon of communication differently, even if only subtly. Slight differences in comprehension based on life experience and upbringing can stack up over time into greater misunderstandings in communication because you can only ever engage with the talking head that exists in your perceived universe (based on your own personal understanding of the other entity) rather than having a direct line of contact into the other person's self. Then this gap is further divided by the fact that human communication exists as communication only within perceived universes and its state in the material universe is just vibrations in fluid matter. There is no way to discern a truth in human communication because in the unsullied material universe, there exists no Form that gives the vibrations meaning, thus it ends up with a personal understanding of a corrupted perceived world being stripped of meaning and transmitted into realspace to be picked up and reinterpreted by other corrupted perceived universes.

Language is kind of a spook tbh. We all speak dialects as nations of one.
>>
No. 11688
>>11683
>I mean, look at what you can see on TV: most actors over there are incredibly well-spoken, literate, they are able to carry themselves with grace, elegance and basically supernatural clarity. I mean, check out Saturday Night Live, for one example: these folks are there on that screen because they know their ropes and they are able to deliver.
Snl is famous for being the show where actors show unprepared sketches, overact and than giggle at their costumes. It plays on the fact that people like to see others laughing. I assume you probably meant something else.
Overall acting is somewhat different from conversation and some nice actors can't put two words together or used to play completely different persona on screen.
>On a side note, Ernstchan, while being one of the better places online, suffers from a terrible groupthink
The only thing we silently agreed on ec is that this is the safe space for long reads. Atleast with one notable poster i horribly bragged on kohl, here we just politely ignore each other. I wouldn't call it groupthink, although posters share some common traits.
>>
No. 11692
>>11687
But would you not agree that there exists a realm of ideas, notions, imaginary objects, even dictionary definitions? Any thought or construct of speech can be perceived as a superposition of primitive imagined objects and the interrelations between them. All the math objects exist there, and so does any text have an existence in being related to existing notions and systems and structures of notions. Consider Loglan, for example; a language existing to represent objects and their interactions with maximum precision. Would two users of Loglan still deviate in their particular understanding of speech or text? Is there any room for subjectivity in Euclid's geometric axioms, for example?
>>
No. 11694
>>11692
Yes, the problem is that it is not guaranteed (and perhaps impossible) that the same symbols convey the same meanings to different people. It's even possible that we are communicating in completely different languages with the same semantics, living in our own private bubbles of meaning, and although it seems as if I am having this particular conversation with you, that you are, in turn, having a completely different conversation with me, that you interpret as meaningful on your own terms.

Perhaps we are all out of phase. Gnosis is a solitary path.
>>
No. 11695
>>11692
It can be as minor as the fact that you read the arabic numeral 2 as whatever it is in !Latvian and not as Two as I would in !English. While we might get very close results they are not the same because I define the thing in regards to how it exists in my perceived universe which has zero bleedthrough with yours. We might even see shades of colour in slightly different hues and so our understanding of those words or concepts fail to truly connect 1:1.
>>
No. 11754
325 kB, 848 × 820
>>11642
since b) contains an absolute statement
>Only the written form is failproof, exact and to the point.
i cannot agree to it, but it contains some other true sub-statements.
same goes for a).

since you formulated it as a binary true/false question, i would answer "neither".
would the question only contain the first statements
> a) Communicating in written form is flawed.
> b) Communicating face to face is flawed.
i would answer "both are true".

in general, i would share the hypothesis of >>11651

i agree with most (all?) posters here stating, that written communication is better for fact based communication, e.g. math thesis, while verbal communication is better suited for emotional communication.

i would want to add another questions: what about forms of communications outside the written/verbal spectrum? (like music, paintings... or "art" in general. you know, the kind of stuff people create because they lack the words to convey what they feel.)

would you agree that those things try to break the bounds of established language to add further things the mind can think about to it?
>>
No. 11773
179 kB, 1366 × 768
Reminds me of whole discussion
>>
No. 11779
52 kB, 429 × 455
>>11754
>what about forms of communications outside the written/verbal spectrum?
OPs question did assume the mode of communication was language, and thus the question focused on which form of language was more accurate. On that assumption all non- verbal cues are listed (in ops pic) as potential distractions. But you're right that things like art and music, being non-verbal, fall entirely outside the range of his question. I suppose if we were to add a third c)Non-verbal as an option, then the question would be how does non-verbal communication rate in terms if accuracy? I think that would be an unfair question. Art is communication, but it's best for all the fuzzy stuff(read: emotions) we can't use words for. How well can a lecture convey fear?
Or hope? Not nearly as well as a painting or a symphony. And so before we could ask: what is more accurate? We would, again, first need to know what was it that was being communicated?. Beyond that is the additional question of Does the person I'm communicating with speak my language? Above in this thread there are good points made that even speakers of the same language may not speak the same language. In situations where a language barrier exists, non-verbal is easily the most accurate form of communication. And of course this third non-verbal category isn't limited to formal 'art'. You can say "turn left" in any number of ways, but none would be as accurate as simply pointing.