NetDynam 2.0 » reading email

article re listserv (originally posted to the list)

Apurr Sonar — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:39:26 +0000

i think this deserves to be shown to a potentially wider audience, especially since it supports my own ideas, and also has a few comments in which links to other lists also appear. the article, in Slate ‘magazine’, is called The joy of mailing lists, and well worth a read…

Speaking of Being Grumpy

simon — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:45:20 +0000

What has the internet done to us?

Don’t Understand?

hoon — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:48:17 +0000

(Another remote test too.)

Study says people don’t understand the emotional tone of emails, but think they do (source)

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Current revision (unreviewed)

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

People only ascertain the intended tone on an e-mail message about 56% of the time, not much better than chance, according to a study led by Prof. Nicholas Epley (University of Chicago) and Prof. Justin Kruger (New York University). The research also found that people think they’ve correctly interpreted the tone 90% of the time.

Epley and Kruger discovered that not only were the receivers of the e-mails overconfident about their understanding of the message’s tone, but the senders were as well. About 78% of the senders thought that the receiver would correctly interpret the tone of their e-mail message.

Epley explained that “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.”

He observed that “people often think the tone or emotion in their messages is obvious because they ‘hear’ the tone they intend in their head as they write.” Kruger likened this to findings from previous research by Elizabeth Newton that people vastly overestimated their ability to convey a tune by tapping out its rhythm. “It’s impossible not to hear the song as you’re tapping away,” he said. “So you have a hard time separating yourself from your own perspective and realizing how impoverished the listeners’ data really are.”

Epley stated that similar misunderstandings of emotional tone play a major role in starting online flame wars.

The study has been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“So Kick me Off the Stupid List Already!”

EileenKramer — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:02:46 +0000

Sometimes my own bad behavior astounds and confounds me…

I joined this list several months ago. A woman in LOTH advertised she had a Yahoogroup and I fit the appropriate demographic. I wanted the listowner to be active in LOTH. I figured a little mutual back scraching is in order.

Traffic on the list consists mostly of forwards about domestic matters, a few scare forwards about crime, some motivational cliches, and a few political forwards.

K never posted to the list, and Member #2 never spoke about K in any way, shape, or form. Member #2 sometimes spoke of her personal life, but never her friendship with K, their activities together, or K’s illness; for K was quite sickly.

I realized I have nothing in common with most of the membership except that I am over the minimum age. I am actually just two years over the minimum age. That should be warning enough. Minimum ages are a kind of red flag. Haldis learned that back in the fall of 2003 with True Hearts of Gold. I remember the lesson.

Still I’m sticking around to see the blood on the tracks. A couple of weeks ago, Member #2 sent the Ben Stein Christmas piece shortly followed by a letter from “a construction worker” complaining about welfare recipients and suggesting that they should take drug tests to receive their benefits.

I responded. Stein’s piece has always made me see red. I did not call him a self-hating Jew. I mentioned though that he had always lived in large Jewish communities where marginalization was not an issue and that he needed to brush up on his Second Macabees, where the story of Hannaukah resides.

As for the construction worker, a short rant upon the Fourth Ammendment fixed his wagon. I hit the send button and ducked. The silence was deafening.

Then some time yesterday, my bandwidth hog filter (Anything above 60kb ends up in my spam folder with good reason.) caught and trapped a letter from Member #2. Member #2 had lost her sister who turned out not to be her sister but a good online friend named K.

I feel not one bit of sympathy for Member #2′s plight and I know how WRONG that is. I feel profoundly guilty and disgusted with myself. It’s my place to be supportive and lend a hand even if it is only going through the motions. I learned that on numerous support committees.

The back of my brain is not even screaming: “drama queen!” or “bid for attention.” This has all happened way too fast to set off that response. Actually my reaction is: “I’ve never heard of K before. She wasn’t a member here. I can understand how Member #2 feels, or I should understand it yet I feel nothing.” My question for Member #2 would be: “If K was such a good friend of yours, why did I only hear about her after she died in bed?”

I know I don’t belong on this list. My lack of sympathy for Member #2 is evidence enough. Rebutting a couple of political posts is small potatoes compared to my own lack of the smallest grains of compassion or decency. I’m just a lurker oggling poor Member #2′s grief and that is a terrible role.

Meanwhile, I have a choice. I can make amends. I think Member #2′s loss is recent enough that I can send her a sympathy card. Doing the right thing and making the correct show of condolences counts for a lot and will be enough to clear my conscience, or I should do the decent thing and leave. This list does not need a lurker with a heart of stone. These ladies deserve better.