Board index › Administration › WrongPlanet.net discussion

Making it Better: The future of WP

Page 83 of 162 [ 2587 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 162  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,181
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

20 Aug 2020, 3:04 pm

I'm thinking the spoken word can be just as potentially ambiguous. Personally I think my writing skills far surpass my spoken ones, when my intent is often misinterpreted.


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

20 Aug 2020, 3:08 pm

Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I have an advanced English degree, and I studied Linguistics. What are we questioning?
How to divine writers' intent from their text-only communications.


That's difficult sometimes and one of the main problems with text-only conversations. I'm sure we've all had that problem where we are misinterpreted, and I hope we have all apologised for those times. In other instances it's reasonable to infer or suspect a negative intent if there are direct / indirect slights against others, negative or accusatory language, repetitive patterns of ill-will, a history of that person not listening to advice about how to change their writing style, or a history of that person not ignoring those who expressed upset. Of course that should be clarified as well, and if it wasn't the intention there should also be an apology. We know all this and it's not rocket science, so I realise I didn't really answer your question. I thought there was a specific etymology you wanted me to deconstruct. :P


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 3:12 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I have an advanced English degree, and I studied Linguistics. What are we questioning?
How to divine writers' intent from their text-only communications.
That's difficult sometimes and one of the main problems with text-only conversations. I'm sure we've all had that problem where we are misinterpreted, and I hope we have all apologised for those times. In other instances it's reasonable to infer or suspect a negative intent if there are direct / indirect slights against others, negative or accusatory language, repetitive patterns of ill-will, a history of that person not listening to advice about how to change their writing style, or a history of that person not ignoring those who expressed upset. Of course that should be clarified as well, and if it wasn't the intention there should also be an apology. We know all this and it's not rocket science, so I realise I didn't really answer your question. I thought there was a specific etymology you wanted me to deconstruct.
No, nothing specific; just a general protocol for parsing text that would reveal the true meaning and intent behind it.

Nothing more.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

20 Aug 2020, 3:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I have an advanced English degree, and I studied Linguistics. What are we questioning?
How to divine writers' intent from their text-only communications.
That's difficult sometimes and one of the main problems with text-only conversations. I'm sure we've all had that problem where we are misinterpreted, and I hope we have all apologised for those times. In other instances it's reasonable to infer or suspect a negative intent if there are direct / indirect slights against others, negative or accusatory language, repetitive patterns of ill-will, a history of that person not listening to advice about how to change their writing style, or a history of that person not ignoring those who expressed upset. Of course that should be clarified as well, and if it wasn't the intention there should also be an apology. We know all this and it's not rocket science, so I realise I didn't really answer your question. I thought there was a specific etymology you wanted me to deconstruct.
No, nothing specific; just a general protocol for parsing text that would reveal the true meaning and intent behind it.

Nothing more.


Yeah, that's pretty much impossible to do unfortunately. That's why we have to be as careful as we can be with our words, and offer evidence to support our position / opinion / comments about other people when it's requested.

I know you like evidence and you'll agree with that. :P


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


Last edited by IsabellaLinton on 20 Aug 2020, 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 3:16 pm

envirozentinel wrote:
I'm thinking the spoken word can be just as potentially ambiguous.
Like when my wife says that everything is "fine", but I get the feeling it isn't, and there is no proof either way.
envirozentinel wrote:
Personally I think my writing skills far surpass my spoken ones, when my intent is often misinterpreted.
Same here.  When I speak extemporaneously, though, I have to repeatedly backtrack and digress to make sure that I get the right meaning across, but that usually leads to even more confusion and misunderstanding.  It's only when I read from a script, lesson plan, or prepared speech that I get (almost) everything correct.



Oh_no_its_Ferris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2020
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 728

20 Aug 2020, 3:22 pm

Fnord wrote:
Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
... ( this is going to get old real quick if I have to qualify my posts :lol: )
But this seems to be the way the discussion is going, in that we might all eventually be expected to explain, re-explain, and over-explain what we said, why we said it, to whom it was directed, and what we "really" meant when we said it.  It's like filling out an environmental impact statement on a tool shed -- more trees were felled to make the paper than the shed itself is worth.


We have a history so I think it's only natural to have a certain amount of skepticism , I have already witnessed you qualify a post to me as you obviously thought my sarcasm was something else. I think it helped to do so but to do it for every posts would stop me from posting as much as do ( hint to mods :twisted: ).


_________________
Release me from moral assumption
Total rejection total destruction


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 3:22 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I have an advanced English degree, and I studied Linguistics. What are we questioning?
How to divine writers' intent from their text-only communications.
That's difficult sometimes and one of the main problems with text-only conversations. I'm sure we've all had that problem where we are misinterpreted, and I hope we have all apologised for those times. In other instances it's reasonable to infer or suspect a negative intent if there are direct / indirect slights against others, negative or accusatory language, repetitive patterns of ill-will, a history of that person not listening to advice about how to change their writing style, or a history of that person not ignoring those who expressed upset. Of course that should be clarified as well, and if it wasn't the intention there should also be an apology. We know all this and it's not rocket science, so I realise I didn't really answer your question. I thought there was a specific etymology you wanted me to deconstruct.
No, nothing specific; just a general protocol for parsing text that would reveal the true meaning and intent behind it.  Nothing more.
Yeah, that's pretty much impossible to do unfortunately.
Yeah, that's what I suspected.
IsabellaLinton wrote:
That's why we have to be as careful as we can be with our words, and offer evidence to support our position / opinion / comments about other people when it's requested.
Easy enough to do when you know that your readers will sit and read through an entire wall of text, but awfully difficult when they read only the first few lines, assume hostile intent, and go off on their own multi-page rant against you, your ancestry, and your personal hygiene.
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I know you like evidence and you'll agree with that.
Thank you, and I do.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 3:24 pm

Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
... ( this is going to get old real quick if I have to qualify my posts )
But this seems to be the way the discussion is going, in that we might all eventually be expected to explain, re-explain, and over-explain what we said, why we said it, to whom it was directed, and what we "really" meant when we said it.  It's like filling out an environmental impact statement on a tool shed -- more trees were felled to make the paper than the shed itself is worth.
We have a history so I think it's only natural to have a certain amount of skepticism , I have already witnessed you qualify a post to me as you obviously thought my sarcasm was something else. I think it helped to do so but to do it for every posts would stop me from posting as much as do ( hint to mods ).
Nolo Contendere.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Aug 2020, 3:35 pm

That means a "no contest" plea----but it's still considered a guilty plea in the eyes of the law.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

20 Aug 2020, 3:36 pm

Online I have seen people write something that came off as rude to me or accusatory and then see the person react to it only to be treated as a bully by others. I think it's a big misunderstanding there because of how it was phrased. I think a simple explanation of "I thought the person was being rude and I seem to have misinterpreted it, my bad."

But the problem is people think they are always right on how they interpreted it they think they are being gas lighted when the other user says what their intentions were.

Even I have misinterpreted people and I have always apologized and explain what I thought they were doing. I assume they are being honest and sincere when they tell me what their intentions were.

Another thing I have noticed online is when this misunderstanding happens, the other person gets defensive too when you misunderstand them so no one ever figures out it was a misunderstanding. Two people are busy being victimized they go on thinking of each other as bullies and hating each other.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 3:47 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
That means a "no contest" plea----but it's still considered a guilty plea in the eyes of the law.
So what you you think I'm pleading "No Contest" to?



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

20 Aug 2020, 4:02 pm

League_Girl wrote:
But the problem is people think they are always right

Yes.

League_Girl wrote:
Another thing I have noticed online is when this misunderstanding happens, the other person gets defensive too when you misunderstand them so no one ever figures out it was a misunderstanding. Two people are busy being victimized they go on thinking of each other as bullies and hating each other.

Then, bystanders take sides instead of finding out the original misunderstanding.
It's not just an online community issue, it's the very mechanism of hostility escalation, often intentionally fed by propaganda.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


BenderRodriguez
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,343

20 Aug 2020, 4:08 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:

That's difficult sometimes and one of the main problems with text-only conversations. I'm sure we've all had that problem where we are misinterpreted, and I hope we have all apologised for those times. In other instances it's reasonable to infer or suspect a negative intent if there are direct / indirect slights against others, negative or accusatory language, repetitive patterns of ill-will, a history of that person not listening to advice about how to change their writing style, or a history of that person not ignoring those who expressed upset. Of course that should be clarified as well, and if it wasn't the intention there should also be an apology. We know all this and it's not rocket science, so I realise I didn't really answer your question. I thought there was a specific etymology you wanted me to deconstruct. :P


I rely a lot on recognising patterns of behaviour and sometimes communication both here and IRL - it has been extremely useful to me, particularly at work and to avoid abusive relationships. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour and all that - isolated incidents don't count.


_________________
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley


Last edited by BenderRodriguez on 20 Aug 2020, 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 4:09 pm

Magz wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Another thing I have noticed online is when this misunderstanding happens, the other person gets defensive too when you misunderstand them so no one ever figures out it was a misunderstanding. Two people are busy being victimized they go on thinking of each other as bullies and hating each other.

Then, bystanders take sides instead of finding out the original misunderstanding.
It's not just an online community issue, it's the very mechanism of hostility escalation, often intentionally fed by propaganda.
Do tell...

That's low-level sarcasm for "That's exactly what has been happening around here lately!"

:wink:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Aug 2020, 4:11 pm

You were saying either you’re both right, or you’re both wrong.

Sort of like a draw in chess.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Aug 2020, 4:11 pm

BenderRodriguez wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
That's difficult sometimes and one of the main problems with text-only conversations. I'm sure we've all had that problem where we are misinterpreted, and I hope we have all apologised for those times. In other instances it's reasonable to infer or suspect a negative intent if there are direct / indirect slights against others, negative or accusatory language, repetitive patterns of ill-will, a history of that person not listening to advice about how to change their writing style, or a history of that person not ignoring those who expressed upset. Of course that should be clarified as well, and if it wasn't the intention there should also be an apology. We know all this and it's not rocket science, so I realise I didn't really answer your question. I thought there was a specific etymology you wanted me to deconstruct.
I rely a lot on recognising patterns of behaviour and sometimes communication both here and IRL - it has been extremely useful to me, particularly at work and to avoid abusive relationships. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour and all that - isolated incidents don't count.
So instead of a linguist, I should be asking for input from an FBI Profiler/Psychologist, right?