http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/JapanProj/FLClipart/Adjectives.html
However, in terms of the actual conversations that take place and of the information sharing that occurs, I can't help but think how the responses we send via e-mail are not actually instant. Let's think about his. In order to reply to an e-mail, you must first read the message that was sent to you. Then you must interpret it, craft a response to it, and send it back. The thing is, there is absolutely nothing that is forcing you to respond instantly and, as a result, the messages we get back from people are not always their immediate responses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonigirl/2391732708/
Face to face conversations...now those are instant. The responses you get from talking to someone face to face are a lot more telling (and sometimes more honest) than what you get in an e-mail. First off, you can get a person's immediate reaction (whether they want you to or not), without having them say a word; you can read their facial expressions, body language and other physical cues. Secondly, if you ask someone a question face to face, they are expected to give you some sort of immediate response...and since not giving a verbal response is even a response, you can tell right away how they feel and what they think. You can't get much more instant than that!
http://www.leap2.org/Images/EmailIcon.jpg
Of course, I'm not saying that conversing through e-mail is a bad thing, and I'm certainly not implying everyone is out to manipulate what they say (because for the most people, this is not the case at all!). E-mail is still an extremely efficient medium of communication and if you are not particularly adept at public speaking or giving spontaneous responses, it is wonderful. What I'm simply doing here is trying to grasp and re-evaluate this idea of instantaneity. In my opinion, there is more to instantaneity than being able to send information really quickly, and by realizing this, I think we can broaden our understanding of the benefits, limitations and consequences (both positive and negative) of using this technology. Everywhere you go, e-mail is at work - at school, at work, in our communities, in our homes - but in order to fully understand its potentials and restrictions, I believe it is necessary to look at its different components, like this, and under many different lights.
4 comments:
The statement of the difference between face to face conversations and e-mail conversations are certainly an important aspect of studying communications.
Now, to be fair, all aspects of inter-personal communication must be examined under a similar light, at least in my opinion, be it letters, videos, emails or what have you.
But I think the key element here is that people rely so heavily on email or other forms of messenging that there way a digree of forgetting the differnet context and implications this new way of communication carries.
Also, I wonder how email differs in turns of conversational differences versus instant messengers like MNS. One tends to respond faster and with shorter comments than through email with such devices...
What does everyone else wonder?
Hey Heather!
Great thoughts on email... never though you were so crafty that you'd go to the effort of editing out honesty :P I agree with your points about how email isn't necessarily the most efficient form of instant communication, and I think you get your points across very well. One question I might pose to you is "Why do you think people use email in a social context if speech, or the telephone is more efficient in elisiting honest conversation?" Any thoughts?
E-mail may not necessarily be an instant form of communication, which is why MSN is called instant-messaging rather than e-mail. In response to Heather's question: I have a friend that lives in Brazil and we talk about once a week through the use of e-mail. It may not be the fastest way to talk, or even the most efficient but it is the most convenient. Sure, I could call her on the phone or talk with her on msn, which would be way more efficient, except for the long distance charges and the fact that the time difference is so big that when I wake up she is basically heading off to bed and vice versa, not to mention both of our busy schedules. Email to us offers a way for us to exchange information in a somewhat timely manner (more so than physical mail), and add pictures or videos to go along with our life stories or news. So I would say that our email conversations are no more less honest than if I would pic up the phone and call her.
Hey Heather, I really like the graphics you incorporated into your blog...I may "borrow" that idea from you :)
In regards to your blog post, I agree with you that the word "instant" needs to be redefined in terms of comparing the speed at which one can respond in a face to face conversation versus an email. However, we have to acknowledge that the ways in which we communicate via email and, to draw on Cassidy's comment, instant messengers such as MSN, differs from that of face-to-face communication. For example, it is easier for me to form my thoughts when I am writing, whether it be an email or instant message, even if I am writing my response at the same speed that I would be speaking my response. Maybe that's just me, I tend to talk raaaather sloowwwww....
In response to Cassidy's comment, I think there is a difference in the formalities of email and instant message. Abbreviations are more often found in MSN conversations than emails. I think emails are a simulation of letters, and instant messangers are a virtual simulations of conversations. Not meaning that people use abbreviations in face to face speach...however, I did hear a 15 year old boy say "lol" the other day instead of actually laughing which made me cringe.
Post a Comment