Wired News has a report
on research that suggests the tone, and often the intent, of half of
all e-mail is misconstrued by readers. Part of this is the general
imprecision of language itself (and our lack of skill in using this
blunt tool). The other part is the lack of 'clues' from other than the
context of the words themselves -- body language, facial expression,
and especially tone of voice convey far more than the meaning of the
words.
Here's a very rude and hugely entertaining test you can
try: Eavesdrop on couples in restaurants and, at first, don't look at
them -- just pay attention to the tone of voice and the words they are
using. You will probably find that (a) there is a substantial
dissonance between the words they say and the tone of voice they use
(if you wrote down the words and recited them deadpan the meaning would
either be very different from the tone they use, or the meaning would
be completely indecipherable), and (b) the tone of voice is a lot more
'articulate' (apparently closer to the real meaning that the speaker is
trying to convey) than the choice of words. Now look at them, and see
whether their facial expressions or body language convey something
more, or different, from what you picked up from their tone of voice.
If the couple know each other well, chances are any differences will be
just subtleties of degree, not of substance.
When I've done
this, it's been hard for me (and whoever I'm eavesdropping with) not to
laugh out loud. Couples in love emit these strange high-pitched sounds
(males as well as females) that convey ardour much more clearly than
their trite, bland word constructions. When a couple is not getting
along, or have seemingly grown apart, their silences speak volumes, as
do the sighs. Usually one person (not always the male) is doing most of
the talking, and it's like an agonizing fishing expedition, the talker
trying to drag more than monosyllables out of the non-talker. There is
an unmistakable distinct tone for: exhaustion, exasperation,
nervousness, restlessness, growing interest (in either the conversation
or the person with whom they are speaking), and growing disinterest (in
groups of three or more that can be masked by silence; in couples the
tone that evinces growing disinterest has kind of a choppy quality to
it, like a verbal shrug). The fact that all these tones are so apparent
despite the propensity of most males to dominate conversations is quite
remarkable (women tend to convey tones much more succinctly than men).
I
haven't extended the research to larger groups, or to conversations
between two males or two females, but I suspect that the general finding still applies -- when it comes to meaning, tone trumps content, and the face and
body just restate the tone for greater clarity.
I would also say
that males, compared to females, tend to rely more on visual clues and less on aural clues. Most women can convey dripping sarcasm in less than a sentence,
while walking away from you. When men try to do this, they sound like William
Buckley. Meanwhile, the movements of men's eyebrows and hands tend to
telegraph (sometimes inadvertently) their feelings without even needing
to talk. Women seem to have more control over these signals, perhaps
because they know how easily other women pick up on them.
And
don't ever try to put one over on the family pet. Dogs can read your
tone of voice and your facial expression and body language almost
before you express them.
Another interesting experiment is to
watch a television drama or comedy, or a movie, with the sound turned
off, and then at some point turn the sound on and see how much you
missed. I've found I laugh more at comedies when there's no sound --
clearly the actors are trying to make the best of generally lame
scripts, and the annoying laugh track doesn't interfere with your
appreciation. You miss more in genuine dramas (as contrasted with
so-called 'action' films, which are mostly cartoons without the clever
animation) when you turn off the sound -- though I confess that I've
often found the plot and dialogue I've constructed in my head when I've
turned the sound off, more interesting than the ones provided by the
writers. But despite the plot divergence, I usually get the relationship (both its nature and quality) between the characters spot on without having to listen to a word they say.
So
in case it wasn't obvious, the message here is that if you're trying to
convey something important, do it in person, or at least by Skype or
phone -- and never try to
convey criticism, sarcasm, irony (or any other subtle nuance) or bad
news by e-mail. It will always be misconstrued, no matter how you try
to finesse your message. In e-mail, smileys are just a way of
apologizing in advance for how you think you will be misunderstood.
Thanks to Dale Asberry for the link to the Wired article. |
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
