Re: on line paper & affectivity
John Konopak (jkonopak who-is-at ou.edu)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:17:01 -0600 (CST)
At 11:05 AM 2/27/98, you wrote:
>At 09:50 AM 2/27/98 EST, you wrote:
>>Wow, Nutropsych provides us with a great example of how negative emotions
>can be sent over the computer!
>
>I wonder if our emotions/affectivity are effected differently depending on
>the channel of communication? If synchronicity between people is largely
>related to voice/body movement, and this has an effect on our emotions,
>than what happens when there are no bodys or voices present?
>
>Amy
>
I have wondered the same things. Surely it is just this problematics which
spawned the emoticons/smileys that were (and still are, though less so)
ubiquitous in electronic communications. Subtlety and nuance of expression
(meaning in the facial, rather than the lexical domain) are crucial for
communication, certainly. Smile when you say that, podnuh, etc., is one of
the expressions (there it goes again, to paraphrase that clownish,
orange-haired, rosy-cheeked, chain-saw weilding, "great" communicator) which
point to the ameliorating influence of the physical presence upon speech.
OTOH, on the web, those influences are formally absent; and this absence is
what the smileys are supposed to alleviate?
Then there's this: This very proximity, which facilitates and amplifies
communication also exists to suppress it. There is an intimidation factor
present, in the eyes, the demeanor, the stance of the physically present
interlocutor that isn't a factor in electronically mediated communication.
Anybody can "flame" anybody else, without the threat of the fist or the
brick upside of the head, and this isn't bad, either; especially for those
whose normal or usual modes of communciation are (perceived to be) overseen
by those (others) who have actual power to reprobate breeches in their
authority with "real" consequences. So, among friends communicating via the
web, it is possible (to choose a particularly egregious example) to say
"Shut up, bitch" in the knowledge that the respondent is neither going to
shut up, nor is in fact a bitch. But the same iteration, typed into the void
of the ether, and directed at another similarly faceless "voice," expresses
an intentional violation of conventions and the demeaning of the object.
Make any sense?
cheers
+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = +
| John Konopak, EDUC/ILAC,820 VanVleet Oval,U.of OK.Norman,OK73019|
|E-mail: jkonopak who-is-at ou.edu; Fax: 4053254061; phone:4053251498 |
+_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+
| "You may not be able to change the world, but at least |
| you can embarrass the guilty." --Jessica Mitford (1917-1996) |
| "Those who can, must!" --Anonymous |
+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = +
In a marketplace of ideas, there are going to be ideas that you find
abhorrent. The best thing to do is to respond to them.
--Barry Steinhardt, President,
Electronic Frontier Foundation