4 ms·
I think the most useful context for tone would be to weed out people who display anger, irritation, or snark. Especially when the situation doesn't call for it.
by dolni 5y ago
I think the most useful context for tone would be to weed out people who display anger, irritation, or snark. Especially when the situation doesn't call for it.
> In additions, you will have "false positives" in the form of people being misread. For example, they could be saying something genuinely and the interviewer thinks they are lying or being sarcastic.
Text alone makes this far more ambiguous. You're going to have _way_ more trouble gauging someone's actual intent via words alone than vs words + tone of voice.
That's the point I was making. Tone of voice is a ton of information. Don't take my word for it, feel free to Google it and you will find pages and pages outlining just how important it is.
- meowface 5y agoThis sounds analogous to phrenology. The tone of someone's voice when they answer a question about web application architecture will convey information about the likelihood that they may sexually harass people? I don't think it'd make sense to ask a question like "how do you feel about sexual harassment in the workplace?", but if hypothetically such a question were asked, I also doubt even in that case that tone of voice would uncover a sexual harasser in a way that writing wouldn't. Voice tone does provide a lot of information, but I don't see how it's related to these points.