Mar 14, 2008 11:58AM GMT
Question
•
Technology - Cyberculture
Do you believe that the quality of your interpersonal communication online--through venues such as Sodahead--is better than the quality of your f2f (face to face) interpersonal communications?
I am curious about how the SH community assesses its quality of communication and how it compares to the communication in "real time" and f2f. Thanks for taking a little time to reflect and respond.
Loading...-
All of my communications friends certainly agree with you that about 70% of f2f communication is the "nonverbal" you suggest. Also, we tend to trust nonverbal more than verbal, so we think we are getting more honesty when we "eyeball" the person's body language and eye contact.
One quick note about eyes: watch the person's eyes when s/he is answering a question you've asked. If the person's eyes move to the left--the person is more than likely being honest with you; if, on the other hand, the person's eyes shift to the right, the person is about ready to create a lie. . . -
That's the direction I tend to lean. . .posting allows some time to reflect before answering. . .
http://www.dreamstime.com/st.... -
Answered Undecided
I don't have a clear sense of this myself, that is my reason for the poll. . . This idea came to me last night as I was listening to a concerto where the commentator made a point about the "conversation" within the music and what attributes need to be present in a "good" conversation.
I have been impressed with the many "conversations" I've had in the week I've been a SodaHead. . .I don't think they are as good as the ones I have with those in my personal life; however, I have to confess that some of the exchanges I do have f2f with my daughters or my wife or my friends often seem "automatic" and do not seem to pull from me the thought I apply to some of the conversations I've had here.
I also was wondering since I heard yesterday morning driving to work that teens spend--on average--about 40 hours a week in front of a "screen"--either TV or monitor. I also overheard my middle daughter's exchanges with her friends when they came in last night about 11:00pm from a night out. Given the tone, the volume, and the repetitions I heard--I don't really believe they three young women were really engaged in a "good conversation." And I wonder if their inability to have a conversation was due to their spending too little time really trying to talk f2f and too much time texting . . . .
These are just my first thoouts and really appreciate you responses and comments! -
I totally get where you are coming from. How old is the middle daughter? My 15 year old doesn't have the slightest clue about a good conversation. LOL She will when she is 30. There is so much more to a conversation than just typing your opinions and thoughts. I think that you can't really get to know someone until you meet them in person. I have met some great people on the computer and I end up meeting them in person at one point or another. I always feel so much closer to them after meeting them in person.
-
Does web communication embolden you to talk with strangers more than you would approach a stranger in f2f? (I would ask you to assume that you are not picking up any sense of threat from this stranger. . .just someone you may only know as an "aquaintance." Are you more likely to respond to this person in online communication than you would f2f or not??)
-
I agree that the world wide web gives us access to people would never have known in any other way. . .really helping to create a "global village." I am very optimistic about the potentials of tolerance and understanding this sort of communication affords us and will continue to make available for us. . .
Answered No
Don't get me wrong I dig the conversations I have on here. I am totally a people person and take many factors in when having a conversation with people. I like to watch body language and eye contact is very important. I think my conversations with people face to face are more valuable and go further than conversations on here.