email communication

[Adam Blatner]

Synchronicity, as this morning I began writing an idea that occurred in the reverie post-awakening: Titled "ongoing negotiations," I make the point that there is an infrastructure of numerous skills involved and this kind of relationship, such as in a relatively happy marriage, may be quite different from the earlier (only a generation or two ago) society in which one party was "the boss" and the other "submitted."
         As relevant to email writing, sometimes I find that if I don't throw in enough diplomatic language, with appreciations and acknowledgments for what I agree with, that my criticism seem to be taken as being too harsh, and sometimes I get a backlash reaction accusing me of pedantry, arrogance, and the like. So I tend to agree with Goleman.
        The presence of another person, some relaxed time, carrying forward a positive telic warm-up, room to communicate nonverbally, showing a willingness to back off, concede, negotiate, be interested not so much in being right as maintaining an optmal relationship... Well, I try to do that, but sometimes I fail a step or two in the process---and that failure can get magnified.
       My interpretation of the piece, and Peter's doubt, is that I need to try to be meticulous with all my capacities for tact and kindness, especially if I want to not ruffle feathers.

         Several years ago----I think it was on grouptalk, actually---I had some friction with a fellow who felt comfortable making more emotionally unmodulated or flagrant claims, accusations--- and when I objected, the response as I remember it was sort of "don't be so up tight."  Some folks are more comfortable and casual with cuss words and others not so. Some will exaggerate to make a point and others think that kind of exaggeration actually weakens an argument. So there needs to be a capacity to talk about the way we talk, email about the way we phrase things. 

       I'm not too wed to these hunches, but the conversation does lead to another point: A new technology---forks, automobiles, television, the internet, email, etc.---all evoke their own relevant procedures for courtesy and also for conflict resolutions. 

      Warmly, Adam
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: HV Psychodrama 
  To: Peter Howie ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:34 PM
  Subject: Re: Daniel Goleman on email communication


  in some way this is like stating that reading a novel is not as rich an experience as seeing a movie..which is, for most of us, totally un true,

  and yet, I do agree that in my experience, something is lacking in the reading of email that leads to miscommunication and misunderstanding...

  but I wonder if part of it is how we read it..fast, not something to mull over...

  I know that when I get a long email I end to skip around in it, unlike a letter or a novel where I can relish each word..

  So is it the writing, the reading or the context...interesting things to ponder.
  Rebecca
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Peter Howie 
    To: list at grouptalkweb.org 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:23 PM
    Subject: Re: Daniel Goleman on email communication


    Dear Steven,

    This is an interesting article and worth passing on.

    However it appears to contain what I consider a fundamental flaw which I am not sure is a philosophical one or simply ignorance. He states it in a couple of points: 

    "The typed words are denuded of the rich emotional context we convey in person or over the phone."
    &
    "But when we send e-mail, there's little to nothing by way of emotional valence to pick up. E-mail lacks those channels for the implicit meta-messages that, in a conversation, provide its positive or negative spin."

    This assertion of his, and I have seen it many times in email forums, is not to my knowledge based on research. 

    It appears to more based on a logical conjecture which I have come to consider as specious. It assumes a number of things of which I am making up a few here and there are probably many others. It assumes 1) that email writing is not coloured by a person's character 2) that email writing is not sufficiently coloured by a person's character that anyone else would notice 3) there is such as thing as neutral email writing 4) that email writing conveys only information of a particular sort of data-like-ness - as though the sender is only an automaton 5) obviously that email writing is different from other writing 6) that context doesn't effect the reading of an email 7) that previous emails don't effect current emails 8) that dry writing of the supposedly possible neutral kind is unlikely to produce big emotional responses 9) That strong emotions can not be projected through a few words 10) That strong emotions can't be effected by reading a few words 11) ...... And probably others.

    My experience is that email writing is like other forms of discourse - it is all about timing, context, interpretation, use of this word over that word and the inferences this bring forth in others. It is in fact because of the earlier assumptions about neutral and unemotional emails that have no meta-communicative qualities, and Goleman also makes this assumption, that have led to this wonderment at how things can so badly wrong. 

    Cheers for now

    Peter Howie
    Brisbane
    Australia




----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Grouptalk mailing list
    List at grouptalkweb.org
    http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Grouptalk mailing list
  List at grouptalkweb.org
  http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1153 - Release Date: 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20071127/37c7069e/attachment.html