The Secret Cause of Flame Wars

[+ Tom Isern]

The Secret Cause of Flame Wars

from Wired News http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2

 

By Stephen Leahy | Also by this reporter

02:00 AM Feb, 13, 2006

 

"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.

 

According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they've correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.

 

"That's how flame wars get started," says psychologist Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago, who conducted the research with Justin Kruger of New York University. "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," says Epley.

 

The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in their answers.

 

Those who sent the messages predicted that nearly 80 percent of the time their partners would correctly interpret the tone. In fact the recipients got it right just over 50 percent of the time.

 

"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," Epley explains.

 

At the same time, those reading messages unconsciously interpret them based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. Despite this, the research subjects thought they accurately interpreted the messages nine out of 10 times.

 

The reason for this is egocentrism, or the difficulty some people have detaching themselves from their own perspective, says Epley. In other words, people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.

 

"E-mail is very easy to misinterpret, which not only triggers flame wars but lots of litigation," says Nancy Flynn, executive director of the e-Policy Institute and author of guidebooks E-Mail Rules and Instant Messaging Rules. Many companies battle workplace lawsuits triggered by employee e-mail, according to Flynn.

 

"Some people write absolutely, incredibly stupid things in company e-mails," said Flynn.

[jackhammer91406]

I think this is a great article and really hit the point of why so many things happen the way that they do. I don't know how many times something I have said has been construed the wrong way. An equal number of times I have also failed to get the humor or sarcasm in something I have read. When that happens, the fun really begins.:9

 

I guess that's why we saw the birth of the smileys (emoticons?) :o

I also think a lot of guys feel juvenile using them and out of frustration start using words or names to convey their frustration or even anger. x(

 

The sad fact is, we live in a cyber universe now. The old ways of conveying meaning through inflection and tone are gone. New ways of communication require a much more careful use of the language and in the cyber word, speed is everything, thereby cancelling out the careful approach necessary to accurately communicate.

 

OF course there will always be some who, it seems, measure their existence by belittling others.:-( I don't know how one can live like that, but there it is.

 

The above is an opinion, based on feelings, emotions, the authors perception of reality , personal experiences, things my grandfather taught me, and dammit, just plain guesswork. Anyone taking offense or even, God forbid, umbrage should see a doctor or I can give them a few of my meds until they can get an appointment.:+

[+ deej]

>I guess that's why we saw the birth of the smileys

>(emoticons?) :o

 

Yes, emoticons (although smileys are the tip of the iceberg).

 

"Back in the day" (as it were), when computers were all text all the time (no such things as smiley faces), the smileys were all text as well but there were others.

 

If a remark was meant as humor, you'd follow it with a grin: <g>

If it was a humorous taunt, you'd grin, duck, and run: <gd&r>

 

This list goes on forever.

 

Then there are TLAs (three letter acronyms). We all know LOL. There are a ton of them and, typical of things made up by nerds, they're not all three letters.

 

The original need they filled was communication but the impetus was purely financial. In those days, computer users paid for every character sent. You could say "I meant this as a joke" or you could save some bucks and add <g>.

 

MANY of these emoticons and TLAs have fallen by the wayside with cheap broadband's wide availability and the advent of the graphical web and images.

 

HTH <g>

[+ Charlie]

The article seems to take for granted that emails are different from other forms of written communication. As someone who has studied and taught rhetoric for 40 years [do you hear a smug, pedantic tone there?], I can say that readers' misinterpretation of tone is commonplace for all kinds of writing, from newspaper articles to novels. It may be more common in emails simply because they tend to be dashed off more quickly and thoughtlessly than other forms of writing.