I have a phone call in a few minutes so that this woman I work with can 'relay a request' to me. If she had just written down the request in an email, the request would already be relayed and I would have a written record of exactly what its terms are. Instead, I spent more time than it would have taken to read an email on back-and-forth texting to arrange the call she wanted half an hour later, and that call will now take as long as it takes for her to tell me what she didn't write down.
The written word is your friend. You can absorb ten times as much information by reading an article about a topic than by watching a TV news report about it. There are some few people who are so personally important to me that I'd rather talk to them than read what they have to say, and for them I'd rather have the call or the meeting. Everyone else, write it down.
16 comments:
Agree. I keep thinking that in a hundred years people are going to view the primacy of synchronous oral communication via telephone that occured between the end of WWII and the proliferation of the answering machine in the 1980s as an anomaly.
That call ended up taking half an hour, during which she forwarded me the original request which was in writing. "So you'll have a record of it."
We could have done the whole thing in thirty seconds.
Perhaps one can only conclude that there were reasons not to write it down that asserted priority.
Yes. I can read a transcript 20 times faster than listen to someone talking. Plus, reading allows high speed sifting of non relevant content.
Have we not discussed here, in the past, the distrust Socrates held for the written form of a claim? Supposedly the philosopher felt that without a claimant to be interrogated, and to defend, the claim, that claim should be considered weaker than otherwise.
There are nuances that the voice declares and the pixels don't--as in AVI's point about "it signals "I would like to still keep the floor. But if you need to break in, this would be a good spot." "
And... I've had email conversations with non-native speakers which would have gone much faster in person, where I could have asked about missing words.
Ranking spoken dialog (dialectic?) above the textual manifesto may or may not be fair ... but it seems to me both rank higher than the "sermon" or "lecture" whether live or via YouTube. The courtesy afforded the speaker at the lectern, and the distance between the video maker and the passive audience, both prevent useful interrogation of a confusing claim.
That said, the instructional value of seeing some YouTuber from three years ago take apart the weed-whacker head and untangle the exact same kind of string-failure I'm dealing with, is never to be distained.
James,
I have had the opposite experience with foreign language speakers. If I can get them to write it down, I can usually work out what they're meaning to say even if I only speak a little of their language (or if they're trying to speak in English and only barely get it). Spoken language across a barrier like that is bad: everything that is mispronounced, or mis-phrased, blows past you and is gone. With written language, I can at least review what they said and ponder it.
J Melcher,
Socrates was making an interesting point; it is true that an argument that is merely written down is open to misinterpretation in a way that an argument that is spoken isn't, because the speaker will defend it if you start misinterpreting it.
On the other hand, if I got the argument exactly right once and I wrote it down, I don't have to remember exactly how all the parts fit together in order to reconstruct it next week or month. I can move on to other things and not worry about that.
I do, however, share your value where YouTube mechanical videos are concerned. They are the greatest contribution to human knowledge in a long time.
I do, however, share your value where YouTube mechanical videos are concerned.
With instructional materials, certainly, especially with those who interact with their audience, so questions can be asked and answered. I like, also, well-written instructions (which would include diagrams), as I can study them as well.
With business, though, I won't discuss anything over the phone. If the other party doesn't trust his own words enough to commit them to email or letter, there's no reason at all why I should trust them. Hiding behind the convenience or speed of a telephone call doesn't cut it. My emphasis here is on the call, though: if we're face to face, that works, also, so long as I get a recording or transcript afterward for reference. The body language readable in a direct encounter is pretty useful.
Eric Hines
J Melcher..."the distrust Socrates held for the written form of a claim? Supposedly the philosopher felt that without a claimant to be interrogated, and to defend, the claim, that claim should be considered weaker than otherwise."
That only works, though, if the verbal communication is two-way...if it's a lecture or a radio/tv program, not only can't you interrogate the speaker, but you also can't pause, as you could with a book or a newspaper, and think about an assertion that seems rather questionable. The stream just sweeps you along with it, which is probably excellent for propaganda purposes.
Christopher B..."I keep thinking that in a hundred years people are going to view the primacy of synchronous oral communication via telephone that occured between the end of WWII and the proliferation of the answering machine in the 1980s as an anomaly."
Katherine Boyle has argued that: "Family time MUST be synchronous. But lifelong friendships can go decades on WhatsApp/Signal and be strong. Moving work and friendship to the virtual realm creates more family time."
https://twitter.com/KTmBoyle/status/1571219662007898113
This in in line with her assertion that technology-enabled remote work enables better family life and child-raising, especially when a multigenerational home is possible. See the top and next-to-bottom posts at her Substack:
https://boyle.substack.com/
Sounds plausible, until you’re ready to strangle your family because you can’t get away from them. :)
"Sounds plausible, until you’re ready to strangle your family because you can’t get away from them"...years ago, I was talking with a pretty traditional Muslim, from Saudi. He was appalled at a lot of things about the US, particularly thought it was bad that family members moved hundreds or thousand miles away from each other. I asked him if he didn't have an Uncle Abdul or some such that he couldn't stand, and he said, "No, I love all my family memberss."
A little hard to believe...
Of dialog, dialectic, debate, and climate activists who inform the public of dangers by crying "SuperGlue" in a crowded art museum...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1580825174881886208.html
Dr Aaron Thierry, PhD in the science of "Ecology" and professional activist and communicator, has decided to withdraw from the dialog on Climate Change to be held in the UK next week. There might be people with other opinions speaking, it seems. And while that which can be destroyed by speaking the truth, should be so destroyed; well, sullying himself by taking turns on stage with climate skeptics is just too much for Dr Theory to stomach.
Post a Comment