I'm sticking mostly to the personal communications... --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [> >I wrote:] <snippage throughout>
> >> At times I wish people would just get the Gist of > >> what I or others mean and not > >> pick apart the details which are often due to > >> misspeaking. > > > >What I notice about email, as much as I enjoy the > >List, is that as _conversation_ it is lacking ~1/4+ > (I am _so_ guessing this figure!) > > I keep hearing %70 but I also work with an > anthropological linguist who says > this figure is ridiculous and depends greatly on > culture. Wow...was *I* off-base. A speech pathologist colleague says the figures vary from 60 - 90+%! (in face-to-face conversation, America) > >of the communication > >that occurs in face-to-face interactions. Body > >language, facial expression and tone-of-voice can > >enhance, reinforce, shade/nuance, and even reverse > or negate the words spoken. This was my thought, but I wasn't so totally wrong: http://canfield.etext.net/Chapter1.htm#aspects "...Nonverbal communication can accent, complement, contradict, regulate, repeat and substitute for verbal communication.(Richmond & McCroskey, 1992)" > There are many who do not necessarily fit the same > mold. Algonquin men for > instance can use very little body language when > speaking among friends in > agreement, but can show �exaggerated� body language > when only very slight disagreement. Culture certainly seems to be a huge factor (there were also a lot of sites about Japanese nonverbalese). I think gender is too (see below). > Many Dyslexics (such as myself) are very good at > �reading people� only, not > while they themselves are talking. I can tell you my > hypothesis on what I am > doing. I am trying to process my thoughts into > language and that is the same > system I use to read body language. The system I > would use to process > language most likely developed early and was coded > for some other task (most likely visual processing) ....> If someone makes an exaggerated > expression then I stop translating > thoughts to words, loose my place, and have to reset > to get back...<sniplet>...It is important for me to > note here that I can very > easily talk and perform motor functions or logical > processing at the same time.... > > >Emotions are a pale shadow > >of this vibrant non-verbal signaling. For me > >especially, both by nature (I have 'always' been > >empathic) and training (observation is vital to > >medical personnel), this void hampers my ability to > >understand what is actually *meant* rather than > just what is being *written.* > > So do you naturally try to read in and fill the gap > between the written word > and the �to coin and acronym- NVS (non-verbal > signaling)? Do you try and > imagine what the NVS would be? Do you try and read > between the lines on an emotional level? I 'visualize' the NVS *without* trying. ;) Especially tone-of-voice, which is so often critical to interpretation of what is said (IMO). [more on that below, WRT my 'dress frex'] So when I'm really stressed, my own emotion colors words I read unless I try very hard *not* to let that happen. But in face-to-face conversation, that is much less a problem because of NVS cuing. (?sp?) > >Now in non-vital matters, "white lies" and "spin" > >are to be expected -- frequently I still find it > >annoying, but must admit to using both! See discussion below re: spin vs. finessing. I actually use 'finessing' rather than spin (I see the latter more as political rather than personal) -- I was using the term 'spin,' but in actual conversation I have never used it except in a political context. If you want to call this semantics, ok. :) > I only use this crap at work. > > >> I am interested in your take on person to person > >> communication, what you think > >> would have been the most appropriate action taken > by Bush et. al., and how > >> the spin doctors from their opposition could have > >> been dealt with without > >> resorting themselves to any degree of "spin"/ > > > > First part: answered, at least partially, above. > > ....a certain degree of "white lying/spin" is > > necessary to keep social interactions smoother. > Frex(sp?): > > a friend, obviously pleased with her new purchase, > > asks you at a party how you like her new dress. > Do you say , "All those ruffles - I'm thinking: > "potato > > chips," and that shade of yellow makes you look > like a > > zombie!" or "Oh, so Victorian is back "in" now? > You know, I think that green-&-blue scarf of yours > would *really* contrast nicely with the yellow..." > > You see, I would never ever do this. I would tell > her exactly what I thought. > Not being derogatory. In fact I find it offensive > when people do this sort of > thing to me. Usually it is clear to see what they > really think, and if not, > then it does hurt later when you find do find out. <shakes head> Ah, but in this scenario I *did* tell her that I didn't like it, only with NVS. "O-oh <falling inflection of voice> <slight pause> sooo Victorian... etc." <eyebrows raising along with rising tone-of-voice> <slight pause> "You kno-ow, I ...etc." <head cocked to one side, eyes slightly squinting; voice enthusiastic on the "green&blue scarf" which I actually like, but more flat on the "yellow" - yet NOT sarcastic> As we are friends (in the scenario), I will know how sensitive she is to criticism (remember, she is delighted with this dress, and trashing it is an indictment of her taste, judgement and sense), so I will not cross the line of insulting her, but she will later look at this dress much more critically. I think part of your objection is related to your gender (and vice versa, my POV is of course related to _my_ gender); women as a general rule are more careful of their friends' and loved ones' feelings, while men tend not to think of stating a (sought) opinion as a potential insult. So *please* tell how you would let a woman know that she looked like a "zombie potato chip" without being derogatory... <huge grin> OTOH, if she were not a friend but a stranger or casual aquaintance, I would likely divert with something along the lines of "Ooh, I do enjoy shopping for a special occasion." > I find this sort of lying and speaking around the > truth despicable. Perhaps > it is my cultural upbrining, but I �can�t express > this enough. <serious> No, I didn't lie; I 'finessed the situation.' FWIW, I don't think of this as 'spin,' which to me has a negative connotation. And I don't think that that is semantics, but perspective. I do think that the genders handle communication with potential emotional overtones very differently -- I think that this is grounded substantiatively in our biology, and is heavily reinforced in our upbringing. I distinctly remember my mother telling me, when I commented snidely on a little friend's choice of toy (a baby doll, which I despised), "But since she loves it, you shouldn't hurt her feelings by laughing at her choice; how would you feel if someone made fun of your tiger?" (a stuffed one, much beloved - I still have it) That I made the comment in private shows that at 6yo, I'd already internalised "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!" - at least in public. > >But if > >you're shopping with her, you can say when she tries > > it on, "Mmm, I don't think it does anything good > for your shoulders....nah, not a keeper." Yup, spin > is needed here for sure! ;) Here I am being sardonic in that last sentence. Or at least meant to be. :) But as we are not "in public" (ie at a party), I will be *much* more straightforward with the NVS: <big face squint on the "Mmm"> "*any*thing" <vigorous head shake> <dismissive wave of the hands with "naah"> And I chose a feature of the dress that truly doesn't complement her; in this scenario the friend actually *does* like the color, so I will denigrate that last of all. If she ignores all those cues I will wind up saying "You're not *really* going to get that, are you?!?" <eyes widen dramatically with the *really,* expression of open disbelief with "are you" and voice rises with both> > Wow. So our disagreement is actually much more > subtle than it might appear. I > despise spin of this sort, but recognize that it is > effective in public > persuasion. We both can see through the spin in most > cases, but you find that > person to person spin is acceptable, and (unsaid) > probably even the courteous > thing to do. At the same time you find public > persuasion spin despicable. > What exactly is it that allows you to have a > difference of opinion on the two? Re: subtle disagreement: I truly think the gender factor plays a large part here. I really do *not* see 'finessing' as 'spin' -- perhaps because I think of 'spin' as attempting to sway someone's mind *to your benefit,* while 'finessing' is swaying someone's mind to *their* benefit (albeit from your perspective!). And I only find "public persuasion spin" despicable when it is excessive and the stakes are life-and-death; as for the rest, of course one expects people with differing views to slant things in their favor! We differ on what we think is excessive/manipulative and what is acceptable/pursuasive. > I can see that there are actually several types of > spin and I differentiate > between them. Here I provide a list hitting > �waypoints� on the axis going > from acceptable to unacceptable. > > Type A) Saying something in a certain way so that it > has a particular sound or feel to it. > > Type B) Using a particular set of words which allows > others not paying close > attention to �read in� some unspoken and perhaps > unintended information. Type Bs) Using a particular set of words which encourages others not paying close attention to �read in� unspoken information, *quite* intentionally. ;) > Type C) Stating things in a way so that particular > facts, or true beliefs are > hidden, but not in a way that gives a skewed view. > > Type D) Stating facts, but leaving particular facts > which might be important unstated. > > Type E) Stating only what suggests the state one > wishes to be conveyed. > Different than leaving out information which may > contradict, it is including > only information so that a particular picture is > painted. > > Type F) Simply not stating facts, so that an > assumption of agreement is portrayed. > > Type G) Miss stating facts. Stating true things in > such a way that one > purposefully makes it sound like something else > which is not true. > Exaggerating. Saying it�s two orders of magnitude > when it is only one. Etc. > > Type H) Lying. > > While I do not prefer (B) I do find both (A) and (B) > acceptable. Sometimes in > extreme situations (C) may be necessary. The rest I > find despicable in an > amount equivalent to the points on the axis. > > What Bush did in the quoted speech is of type (B). > The �Yellow Potato Dress� > incident, fictional as it may be, is of type (D) > �the woman asked for an > opinion on the dress, but the true opinion was never > given.- Yes it was, but not in words; in NVS it was *quite* clear. Type A. <scratches head> Dang, in my head it was like a little commercial - music and all! :) OK, enough for now... ;) Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
