VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4579 posts, RR: 39 Posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
I came across this interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, which suggests that email flame wars (and I would suspect internet flame wars in general) are often the result of simple misunderstandings. Certainly given what I have seen happen here from time to time, I'd be inclined to agree.
Quote: The senders of the messages expected their partners to correctly interpret their tone nearly 80 per cent of the time, but in fact they only scored just over 50 per cent, said the report in Wired.
Those attempting to interpret the message believed they had scored 90 per cent accuracy, according to the results which have been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
"That's how flame wars get started. People in our study were convinced they've accurately understood the tone of an e-mail message when in fact their odds are no better than chance," Mr Epley told Wired.
The researchers said people often believed that the tone in their messages was obvious because they could hear it in their head as they wrote.
YeahitsK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
I've run into this in my work life as well. I have a formal style of writing emails, and people sometimes mistake that for me being mad or accusatory. Very interesting that the article suggests using emoticons to offset this. Use them wisely!
Anyway, this sort of simple "misunderstanding" mainly happens with email at my job, where everyone is just trying to do their duties, more or less, and may not know enough about you to know when you're joking or not. However, on a place like A.net, I think we all know where each other stand once we've been here for a while. It's probably pretty rare that the regulars confuse each other simply by misreading what they post.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Quoting SATX (Reply 4): However, on a place like A.net, I think we all know where each other stand once we've been here for a while. It's probably pretty rare that the regulars confuse each other simply by misreading what they post.
And effective use of emoticons - however annoying they may be to some people - will alleviate some problems also . . .
I think SATX is a putz . . .
I think SATX is a putz . . .
In one line I'm being insulting and derogatory . . . in the other I'm kidding and being . . . the emoticons help to tell the difference.
Thanks SATX for allowing me to use you as a test subject.
For the record, I don't think he's a putz . . . we don't agree often, but he's not a putz . . . .
ArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3689 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
Quoting S12PPL (Reply 2): You post so often, too. It's a wonder you never get banned... Still an attention whore I see, Mitch. Tell me, do you still like to tell everyone how pathetic you think you are to gain sympathy?
Yes, I do. Just the fact that you spend about 3 seconds remembering things makes me really happy.
Just as long as you spend a few seconds thinking about it, I'm happy. That's all I want.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30015 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1362 times:
Flaming is like sex....If you understand that it is meant for entertainment, rather then a simple act of savagery inflicted on another human being, then it is much more enjoyable for everybody involved.
[Edited 2006-02-19 06:36:04]
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
StuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
There have only been a few times that I have been flamed on here when I didn't deserve it. That being said, "deserve" would mean that my viewpoint opposed or strongly opposed the discussion in progress or what I knew to expect out of the "typical" A.net user.
Sometimes, being flamed is a good thing. If you and the others you are conversing with are opposed on a viewpoint, I look at it as feedback that I am getting my point across and I need to clarify points or I need to tighten up my argument in my subsequent responses. I don't take it personally (although I know some of it might be meant that way) and I try not to make discussion items become personal (but they are sometimes taken that way).
And we frequently are on opposite sides of what we are discussing, but this time I am in partial agreement with Armitage ....
I'm VERY guilty of this one, but not to make people mad- to try to make them be sure of their viewpoint on a subject, to play "Devil's Advocate", in the interest of generating further discussion. In that respect, it often is a case of misunderstanding and "kindling temperature of my ass" is reached!
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19366 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
I believe that the potential for misinterpretation is rife in impersonal forms of communication, such as email, where you can't immediately clarify something or judge based on body language or whatever. I have experienced it first-hand.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Ozvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 396 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 9): I believe that the potential for misinterpretation is rife in impersonal forms of communication, such as email, where you can't immediately clarify something or judge based on body language or whatever. I have experienced it first-hand.
Pe@rson, are you referring to a recent "holiday" from A.net by any chance...