3 ms·

The end result of adapting our language to the medium is to lose in expressibility and gain in portability. Forcing technology to catch up is a more coherent op

by fao_ 8y ago

The end result of adapting our language to the medium is to lose in expressibility and gain in portability. Forcing technology to catch up is a more coherent option in the long run

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
That's the exact same trade off we made for writing in the first place. Yet here we are still conversing with text despite the technology to record and send each other video having been widely available for a decade or more.
- fao_ 8y ago
  That's specious reasoning. If you mean, body language is the main or majority channel for communication, well, how much body lanuage matters to communication is contested and differs based on context anyway (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201109/is-nonverbal-communication-numbers-game https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201109/...). If you mean, there is a loss of expressibility going from the spoken word to the written word. Is there? You would have to prove that that loss is as significant as the symbolic/representational destruction you are advocating. Much of the imperfect synonyms we have developed in english are used to signal tone and intent -- things that are usually signalled in body language. So, just because we are using the written word does not mean we cannot express those things. You have something in a larger space, you can represent it in a smaller space using longer and more complex series of glyphs. > Yet here we are still conversing with text despite the technology to record and send each other video having been widely available for a decade or more. Yes, for the very reason that it erases the extra data. you not being able to see me means that you have to go on my words alone, rather than making extra-contextual judgements about me as a whole based on my physical appearance. That seems only to cement my point, though.

by fao_ 8y ago

The end result of adapting our language to the medium is to lose in expressibility and gain in portability. Forcing technology to catch up is a more coherent option in the long run

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

That's the exact same trade off we made for writing in the first place. Yet here we are still conversing with text despite the technology to record and send each other video having been widely available for a decade or more.

fao_ 8y ago
That's specious reasoning. If you mean, body language is the main or majority channel for communication, well, how much body lanuage matters to communication is contested and differs based on context anyway (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201109/is-nonverbal-communication-numbers-game https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201109/...). If you mean, there is a loss of expressibility going from the spoken word to the written word. Is there? You would have to prove that that loss is as significant as the symbolic/representational destruction you are advocating. Much of the imperfect synonyms we have developed in english are used to signal tone and intent -- things that are usually signalled in body language. So, just because we are using the written word does not mean we cannot express those things. You have something in a larger space, you can represent it in a smaller space using longer and more complex series of glyphs. > Yet here we are still conversing with text despite the technology to record and send each other video having been widely available for a decade or more. Yes, for the very reason that it erases the extra data. you not being able to see me means that you have to go on my words alone, rather than making extra-contextual judgements about me as a whole based on my physical appearance. That seems only to cement my point, though.