Very nice line of questioning; I hope you get lots of responses.



The perception of someone's tone is a very large factor in the types of responses received. Words are so clumsy; over 90% of what we communicate, as human beings, is done so non-verbally (which include our tone of voice, pace, inflection, body language, gestures and the like). Yet here, in this happy home of ours, typing is all we have. We stumble through using imperfect words that are often received in a tone completely contrary to how we meant them; it's a tough, hard road to hoe.



I'm sure it has a huge effect. Depending on the tone I perceive, most "distasteful-tone messages" I just ignore (unless, as a moderator I feel like I need to step in). Angry and badgering posts quickly thrust any decent exchange into "trash-talk"; and that doesn't do anyone any good. I, personally, try to be patient knowing that these are just the words that I might be interpreting poorly (or may have been phrased poorly). I'm not sure how successful I've been; how would someone know except through subsequent feedback? Sometimes; however, I do try to restate someone's point back to them, before I question it, to at least try and understand before refuting or exploring.



I don't know, really. I guess that would depend on what "end effect" we most want. Primarily, I'd suppose that to be productive exchange of ideas. I could come up with other judgments of what constitutes a "good post", but most of this would be grossly subjective.



Probably; either directly or indirectly. For Example: If you intended this post to communicate a subtle message impugning someone's judgment of a post of yours, yet I came back and tried to give you my thoughts on each point (instead of taking your subtle hint), your intent would be lost on me. Bad example, I know... in any case, we can only interpret someone's intent to the extent that they enunciated it.

Towards any end, good questions for discussion. Thanks

Who Cares, You F$%&in K$%&!

:eek:

I thought this last question was interesting... Like Khethil said, so much of face-to-face communication is through body language, and with people you meet you have a frame of reference (ie. how you know them, where you are, what is the purpose of the conversation etc). But, for me, I find that since all of this is gone on the internet I spend an inordinate (and mostly wasted!) amount of time trying to work out people's intentions in their posts, and also trying to convey the right intention - guarding against all eventualities - in my own.

This probably means I put a lot of stock in body language and context in my own f2f conversations and I try to account for this through more precise than usual language on the net. I guess the intention I perceive in others plays a large part in whether I reply or not (ie. reply if I think the poster is being honest and not flippant).

Interesting Qs... am interested to see what other people say.

Their is both a satisfactory answer to them and a unsatisfactory one. Thats the key to any line of questioning in my opinion. There are things that will sit well with your thought process and reasoning and others that will be uncomfortable. I like looking at the posts that seem absolutely comfortable to the point of setting themselves up for attack, from the unsure people out there. I also like looking at the posts that linger in between but always find away to approve or disapprove. The process is where the knowledge is, not the ending.

Tone........ Merely how you want the information to grab or present it self to people.

I dont disapprove of angry tones by saying you cant learn anything with such emotions affecting your thought. Thats a game tactic to make others feel more comfortable, but its not natural. Angry doesn't have to mean insulting. But insulting isn't so clear in my opinion. Sometimes people feel offended to quickly and use it in a very bias opinion which causes resentment. Its truly a art that takes years of discipline.:yinyang:

When I read a post like yours, in which you use spellings like ""posets", "goog" and "angery of badger like", I ask myself whether this is because you find English difficult for some reason, or because you haven't re-read your message before submitting it, or both.

In the first case, I would be willing to spend quite a lot of time trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and to provide a response. In the second case, I would feel that you were wasting the reader's time, forcing us to do the work you should have done in re-reading and correcting your language, and I would spend less effort in trying to respond to you: if you haven't thought much about what you are saying and how to say it, it isn't likely to be wise or interesting.

At present I don't know which category you fall into.

The irony is thick...

BTW, just a thought, but this thread really dosen't belong here does it?

Probably not. Good Call (Moving to Uncategorized)

While I have not experienced that type of thing in this forum, there have been times in the past that I have. Ya know, that type of thing actually puts an empty feeling in my gut. Guess I am too sensitive. I never converse or interact with this type of attitude. Its a waste of time and life is too short.

Deciphering tone and intent can be painful, especially when reading an author for the first time.
1) A reader normally will expect certain types of posts in certain areas of the forum. These posts are approached with various degrees of passion. For example the logic forum by its nature has fewer passionate posts than does the religion forum. This is not to say that there is any less controversy, just less passion. So when one ventures into the religion forum one s/he expects a certain amount of inflammation. Arguments there, although often well constructed amd logical elicit feeling. There are very few people in the world who do not have a strong visceral reaction of some sort to religion. ethics, language, sociological issues, psychological issues, etc... Angry as a badger responses are common in these areas, because much of our personal identity is wrapped up in the matrix that is the "nooshphere". We tend to get upset when someone says "that which makes you you is wrong".

2) When reading a post from a familiar author one will expect to see the "style" of that author. When I read a post from a particular author I expect to see specific vocabulary choices, sentence structures, paragraph structures, typos, modal choices, causal chains or lack thereof, dialcetics, topical choices, patent responses etc... Once an author has established a style in the reader's mind, it is hard for the reader to interpret any post outside of that particular style. Even if the reader were to peruse the fiction forum and read from a familiar author it would be interpreted much the same way. If I were to read a post by an author who is habitually prone to glibness all post will retain an aire of glibness no matter the actual content. The result of this is that there are some authors who I take seriously and some that I don't. There are some authors that I read carefully there are some that I skip, for I already know most of what they are going to say based on responses that I have read in the past.

This forum even has reputation functions that address this question. One builds a reputation as the instigator, the devil's advocate, the analyst, the peacemaker, the logician, the theologian, the crusader etc... based on one's posts. All styles except the blatantly inflammatory are rewarded by the people who are already predisposed to read that specific style of post.