Overcoming Pseudo-Communications: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Overcoming Pseudo-Communications » Overcoming Pseudo-Communications

Overcoming Pseudo-Communications

Page: 1 2 3

Overcoming Pseudo-Communications

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 06/04/09 - 05:39 PM:	#11
makerowner wrote: It's only because we can distort others' words that we can be said to understand them correctly. How so?
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 06/04/09 - 05:44 PM:	#12
Maxvilly wrote: What do you mean with 9/10ths of sentences being worthless clutter. I don't think it's that high of an number, depending what you consider "clutter"! The context in which I'm speaking is regarding interpersonal connective value as opposed to strict information relay.
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 06/04/09 - 05:45 PM:	#13
Legion wrote: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that Vince? I only caught about a tenth of it. Which parts would you like repeated? lolol
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 06/08/09 - 09:03 PM:	#14
~vince~ wrote: 123savethewhales wrote: There's actually a part of our brain that is dedicated to assume how other people are feeling. I heard people with Autism doesn't have this problem. Now the question is rather such a literal breakdown of assumption is actually something to thrive for. I believe that this can often lead to a fair amount of bias in our judgments on others. Sometimes constructive perhaps, but not always. the problem is, without it it is pretty much impossible to understand human interactions in real time. The "constructive" aspect of this seeming bias system is precisely that it is "quick and dirty". It isn't perfect, but at least it's fast enough for real life conversations or picking up micro-expressions. Aside from that, your consciousness can only handle so much information at a time.
Keep it simple.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 06/16/09 - 12:12 AM:	#15
<p><br /> 123savethewhales wrote: the problem is, without it it is pretty much impossible to understand human interactions in real time. The "constructive" aspect of this seeming bias system is precisely that it is "quick and dirty". It isn't perfect, but at least it's fast enough for real life conversations or picking up micro-expressions. <br /> That makes sense. I just often get disappointed when people make these 'quick and dirty' judgments on me. I tend to notice vast amounts of error and don't know what to do.</p> Edited by Caldwell on 06/16/09 - 01:45 AM. Reason: caps
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 06/16/09 - 12:10 PM:	#16
~vince~ wrote: <p>That makes sense. I just often get disappointed when people make these 'quick and dirty' judgments on me. I tend to notice vast amounts of error and don't know what to do.</p> While it is possible for a perfect language to be developed for abstract things like mathematics, I don't think a perfect language is possible for day to day conversations. At first it seems that misunderstanding can decrease through 1. Increase in the skill of rhetoric in the speaker. Or 2. Increase in listening skill of the listener. The problem is that the 2 seeming compatible skills actually work against each other. While there are exception for abstract ideas like mathematics, of which a perfect transfer seems harmless, most day to day conversations isn't about perfect transfer of information. The speaker want to give you what he/she said, while the listener is actively trying to pick up what he/she didn't said. It is usually not in the speaker's interest to be entirely honest in all situations. At times the speaker might not even understand his/herself very well. Likewise it is also not in the listener's interest to just "take your words for it". It is no surprise then why these 'quick and dirty' judgments on you might not necessarily be true, or how you want others to perceive you. Likewise I see no universal remedy in pseudo communication, or perhaps even dangerous if completely removed from our language. In the individual level however, rhetoric and the way you dress can give you some control over other people's immediate perception of you. Unfortunately there are also many other things, such as gender, race, and height, that you can't change. They would need to be actively overcome by offering the listener conflicting information from his/her stereotypes.
Keep it simple.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 06/16/09 - 03:42 PM:

#17

123savethewhales wrote:

While it is possible for a perfect language to be developed for abstract things like mathematics, I don't think a perfect language is possible for day to day conversations.

I'm wondering if there are other more effective ways to communicate with people then. Perhaps through parables or body language.

~vince~

Don't confuse me with the facts.

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 06/17/09 - 04:16 AM:	#18
It is so truth, that sometimes I wonder whether converstaion is an exchange of tonality. When transcribing conversations (making a corpus) you really understand how disconected conversations are. People don't listen, interrupt, phrases are not finished, speaker A continues with his trail regardless, speaker b is trying to change conversation, speaker c relates everything to herself... Trails of thought change by the second, and nothing seems to be said. Most of what is talked are fillers, not actual contend. Also, if throwing statistics, it appears that 75% of the message in a conversation is carried non verbaly. So maybe it is not what you say but how you carry yourself that makes people make "quick and dirty" judgements of you. Do you make eye contact, do you stare at women's breast when you talk to them? etc... In relation to students. I agree that conversing to them from a Teacher centre point of view is pointless. They are mostly not listening. That is why it is better to change the way teaching is effectuated. Get them to do the thinking, the writing, do presentations, assignments, use media...etc, but don't just rant at them from your podium. Develop their ability to use their mind, not to accept your "Truths" complex or otherwise.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 06/17/09 - 08:48 AM:

#19

ms anthropist wrote:
It is so truth, that sometimes I wonder whether converstaion is an exchange of tonality. When transcribing conversations (making a corpus) you really understand how disconected conversations are. People don't listen, interrupt, phrases are not finished, speaker A continues with his trail regardless, speaker b is trying to change conversation, speaker c relates everything to herself... Trails of thought change by the second, and nothing seems to be said. Most of what is talked are fillers, not actual contend.

Fully agreed.

In relation to students. I agree that conversing to them from a Teacher centre point of view is pointless. They are mostly not listening. That is why it is better to change the way teaching is effectuated. Get them to do the thinking, the writing, do presentations, assignments, use media...etc, but don't just rant at them from your podium. Develop their ability to use their mind, not to accept your "Truths" complex or otherwise.

I often tend to use a socratic deconstructionist method when communicating with people, but I also tend to find that this gets most people irritated if used with any vast intensity. Therefore, I'm trying to learn more positive approaches.

~vince~

Don't confuse me with the facts.

ViperThunder
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 36

Posted 07/02/09 - 08:58 PM:	#20
I have a similar viewpoint on verbal communication. This is why I much prefer typing rather than speaking. One downside is that often times text cannot properly convey an idea with as much emotional force as speech can. I have found that verbal communication is more difficult when speaking with individuals whose culture and social upbringing differ drastically from your own. With my brother and close friends, on the other hand, I can converse relatively easily and with a mutual understanding. For this reason, I wouldn't put a specific percentage on the amount of useless speech in a specific conversation.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.