View User's Journal

*sigh* D:
I'm feeling rather philosophical on this issue right now. So, I'm going to examine and discuss my own viewpoints on the four main methods I use to communicate with people - two of them 'RL' and two of them 'digital'. (IM's, Email, Phone, In-Person) I put those in quotes, because I don't feel that digital communication is not real, but anyhow, on with the philosophy.

Note: You'll find no emoticons in this entry, despite my usual preference for them, because this is a very serious subject for me right now, and I don't feel that any cutesy emoticon has a place here. You'll also find that the focus is heavily on the pros and cons of each type of communication for having a serious and/or upsetting conversation.

Instant Messages
A discussion I had with a friend recently, they came to the conclusion that IM's should never be used for serious discussion. That due to lack of tone of voice and facial expressions, it's too easy to be misunderstood. I don't agree.

I mean, yes, there is a lack of tone of voice. Certain facets of expression are lost when you're communicating in text rather than with your vocal cords. However, tone of voice is not always a sure-fire way of understanding someone if you don't understand what they're saying. In-person conversations, with the full range of expression available in tone of voice and body language and stance and everything, still can be misunderstood and frequently do result in misunderstandings.

IM's have the benefit that they don't require you to be somewhere you can't be right now, and still allow real-time conversation. Sometimes, the lack of tone of voice can even be a benefit... there are times when you're unable to speak that you are still able to type. So it can have drawbacks, but it's definitely not totally unsuited to serious discussion moreso than other forms of communication.

More important to a serious conversation than tone of voice is, I think, the timing of the conversation. Thrusting an upsetting conversation into the center of someone's work day or into the middle of another event that is really important to them, makes it likely the conversation won't go well, regardless of anything else, because the timing is bad. That brings me to....

E-mail
I think e-mail, or even a hand-written letter or note is sometimes better for a serious discussion than any form of real-time communication. Mainly, because an e-mail allows the sender to put down their portion of the conversation when they are ready to do it, without demanding that the receiver be immediately ready to respond or hear them. It allows both parties to choose their own times, when they are ready to deal with the subject being discussed.

It still lacks the full range of expression, since it's still a text-only format of communication, but because it lacks the immediacy of real-time communication, it can sometimes allow a serious and upsetting topic to be discussed with a bit less emotion and a bit more thought than real-time discussion would allow.

I tend to feel, that if I have something to say to someone, which might upset them or remind them of something that will upset them, sending an e-mail is a better choice when I'm uncertain of their schedule or what I might be interrupting with a real-time conversation. It allows me to lay out my thoughts when I have the time to do so, without insisting that they be ready to receive them at that particular time. Unlike...

Phone Calls
I don't think anyone enjoys leaving voicemail about something important and serious. Phone calls are probably my least liked method of communication for talking about something serious or potentially upsetting. It adds tone of voice back into the equation, but is still missing the body language, and depending on how good or bad the connection is, tone of voice may not come through all that clearly either. It demands immediate reception of what is being said, and while in an IM conversation some pauses while typing or thinking what to say are to be expected, in a phone call a long silence is always interpreted badly.

Phone conversations are good for long talks when two people can't be in the same place and simply have stuff to share or stuff to tell. For serious or potentially upsetting discussions, they are horrible. You can tell the other person needs a hug by their tone of voice, but you still can't give them one. If they're really upset, you may have to listen to sounds for a while when they become unable to talk. If one person is talking so much the other is having trouble getting a word in edgewise, it's not possible to use a visual cue to say, 'please let me speak'... and verbal cues always seem to come off as either 'I'm going to interrupt you now' or 'shut up and let ME say something', neither of which is really conducive to calm and reasonable discussion. This leads me to the last form of communication....

In the flesh...
Having a discussion in person is generally considered ideal, especially for a serious conversation. It is generally accepted that because it allows the full range of expression - not just words but tone of voice and body language, etc., that misunderstandings are at least somewhat less likely to occur.

I agree with this for the most part... but with a hesitation. Though, my hesitation probably revolves around something that is more unique to me than something common for nearly all. In-person communication is always more difficult for me. It makes me more nervous, it makes it harder to speak, I feel panicky and like I need to hide... and the less clearly I think, the harder it is to talk coherently, remember what the point was I was trying to make, remember what it was I just said, remember what it was they just said... to comunicate effectively at all.

Or, if I'm in the middle of an anxiety or panic attack, I simply can't keep my thoughts ordered enough to communicate coherently and clearly.

And this difficulty often makes itself felt in unexpected ways, or causes people to misinterpret what I say. 'I'm sorry' comes out not in an aggrieved sorrowful tone of voice, but in practically a yell, I'm thinking something and mean to say it and something else comes out, which doesn't make any sense, or makes a different kind of sense which wasn't intended... an informative sentence comes out sounding like an accusation.. and there's no chance to go back, look it over, change it, etc.

Talking about something in-person may be considered ideal, but it still has issues and problems. Sometimes leaving out certain pieces of expression can allow someone to be more understood rather than less. One thing that never changes though... with all four forms of communication, if you're having a serious and emotional discussion about something, timing is very very important. There's a couple of other things I try to keep in mind when I'm trying to discuss something I'm upset about too...

Conversation vs. Accusation
I'm not quite sure where I picked up this tidbit. My mind is prompting me with a vague memory that it came out of a book my mother read when I was a teenager, and that she shared with me. What it is, is that if you want someone to discuss something with you, and not have them instantly go on the defensive, but be more likely to listen to you and accept what you're saying... it's far more effective to focus on 'I' statements rather than on 'You' statements.

For instance, "You were being stupid and selfish and childish!" is almost certainly going to put the person you're talking to on the defensive and make them less likely to respond with any sort of remorse about what it is that they've done. It's most likely going to make them mad, but even if they're not mad, they're certainly going to have their hackles up. By contrast, "I felt hurt when you did that because it seemed to me as if I was being blamed for something that wasn't my fault." is a much less accusatory statement, much more likely to get the desired response from the person you're talking to, and result in actual discussion rather than an argument.

Telling someone 'what' they are, 'how' they intended something, 'why' they feel something, all cross the line into 'YOU', stray from 'I' and generally result in the person listening either getting mad or shutting you out entirely. Especially since, 9 times out of 10, you're going to be wrong about at least some of it. If you're on the receiving end of statements like that, you feel as if you've already been tried and sentenced without ever having a chance at defense.

It isn't something one can succeed at all the time, making sure to talk about how YOU feel without crossing the line into telling them how you think they feel, but it is definitely good to avoid when possible. Because you never really know what's going on inside another's head... and things are definitely not always as they seem. Besides, nothing ever gets solved by hurling accusations around, does it?

Conclusion?
I think all these forms of communication have their pros and cons... but I think that more important than the method of communication, is the timing of the communication, how open or closed we might be to the idea that we've misunderstood or misinterpreted something, and how clearly we're able to communicate that to the person we're trying to communicate with.

Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

More Information