Guest aaronb Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 A recent email exchange has moved me to reconsider Mr. Peng's interesting diatribe about emoticons (smilies). Hypothesis: Contrary to Mr. Peng's assertion, emoticons do have a useful purpose on the internet and this BBS. Postulate(A): all messages on the internet are brief. The authours lack one or all of time, skill, or predisposition to write colourful and descriptive prose. Postulate(: in brief messages, only content comes through. Barring 'sophisticated' ASCII graphics and extensive side-barring, content is king on this BBS, textually speaking. Postulate©: 7% of message impact is from content, 38% from voice, and 55% from physical characteristics such as body language. "Vocal Power", C. Kaya, 1989, ISBN 0-921996-00-4. First Conclusion: only 7% of what you want to say makes it. Postulate(D): this 7% leaves enough room for misunderstanding to start flame wars and abrupt concern that one's PBEM opponents are nasty, rude, and generally not worth the effort. By observation. Postulate(E): flame wars and the other stuff in (D) are, prima facia, a bad thing. Postulate(F): emoticons supply some of the missing 93% of what you wanted to say, mitigating against the issues in (E). So, smilies are a good thing. QED. My formal logic courses are about 18 years distant, but you get the drift. Mr. Peng, what say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 It actually doesn't matter, as despite the attempts of Peng (and many others on this board), Smilies will continue to not only survive, but to flourish! And how do I know this, you may ask. Well, I have proof, and it is in my fields. As I was checking them for weeds last week, I noticed a strange new plant. Similar to a dandilion, but intead of cute fuzzy seeds that children like to blow around, it contained small round yellow discs that defy any attempt at capture and extermination. After repeated applications of chemicals that would kill full grown trees, I have noticed a thinning in their number, but they seem to adapt by producing more of these seeds(?) from the plants that remain. Currently, this new weed is only active on 600 acres of my land, but I shudder to think of what will happen when it spreads to the surrounding fields. Intensive research is required into this new problem, as not only will there be more Smilies, but if they compete with a Barley crop, there will be LESS BEER!!! Craig (the farmer) see, I told you, they're everywhere. Help me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harv: It actually doesn't matter ... Well, I have proof, and it is in my fields. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... Mr. Peng seemed to think it matters. He has mastered the art of seeming silly to get his point across. As for your fields, they are just adding some impact, not having any other way to get past the 7% barrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 Without adequate time at this particular juncture to prepare a thoughtful response, may I ask a question or two to clarify one of the basic assumptions you appear to be making? 1. your reference appears to be from a book or article regarding vocal verbal behavior of humans. If this is the case, then it certainly makes sense that only 7% of percieved meaning comes from the actual content of the speech. We are conditioned to look for other cues to establish "meaning" including posture, facial expression and tone of voice. Is it the case that this reference is to VOCAL verbal behavior? 2. Written verbal behavior, on the other hand, has no such conditioned stimuli as voice tone, or facial expression, or body posture in the mileu to enhance the receptive response of the reader. Would you agree that comparing written verbal behavior to vocal verbal behavior is therefore inadequate to such an argument? 3. Given that some "unknown" (unknown that is until some scholar looks it up) percentage of written verbal behavior comprises and conveys the "meaning" of the written words (I would suspect that it is less than 100% as the reader certainly carries along some baggage that colors the meaning of the words), I would bet my left nut that it is decidedly more than 7%. 4. On this forum, there are contextual cues that can color a reader's response to a post by another human. As an example, to use MrPeng's postings (not a human but we will use him anyway), a new reader may read a Peng post and think, "this asshole should be banned and flogged," while a reader with a month or two or more of board history under his belt may have a little chuckle when Peng apparrenty blasts some undeserving bastard out of the water for seemingly no good reason. The contex in this example includes as variables the number of posts, the reactions of other posters, and the response of the bastard being skewered. Newbies with a little more history on the board may come to the same conclusion that MrWinky did: that old Peng is just a dirty slapper who likes to have a bit of fun with words. Then there is the case of someone like Losername, who given HIS context on the board, readers come to the conclusion that maybe he isn't having fun and maybe he really means it. Lewis has a REPUTAION of being mean. Peng has a reputation of being a clown. Neither of us tend to the use of smilies. Our histories are our contexts. It therefore seems to me that the only variables to contend with on a BBS are the context of the posts. Emoticons (love that word, hate the things)are shorthand. I do not use shorthand. Some people do. I think they should be eviscerated with poisoned knives. So, unless you can show me some research indicating only a small percentage of the written word conveys meaning, I will stick to my guns. Readers without context on the board may need emoticon crutches, but I will certainly not supply them. Death to smilies. Peng ------------------ Peng sez "die a lot now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted June 10, 2000 Share Posted June 10, 2000 Ummm, I'm not exactly sure what you mean about the fields, their impact and the 7% barrier. However, apparently I should apologize for my post, as I didn't realize how serious you were when I read and responded to it. Sorry, Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harv: [...] However, apparently I should apologize for my post, as I didn't realize how serious you were when I read and responded to it. Sorry, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My martial-arts instructor would kick your ass for that - 'never apologize, never explain'. He may have trouble staying in a 'meangingful relationship', but I like his style. No worries. You have every right to be facetious, especially if you're funny at the same time. Mr. Peng: I'll get back shortly. Your posts require actual thought to respond to, and this takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your posts require actual thought to respond to, and this takes time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If he used more smileys, could you get back more quickly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Harv: Just what in the HELL is wrong with you, boy? Are you on the needle or the pipe? Lighten up for crying out loud. And I must agree with all my spit with aaronb about the not apoligising part. Its a sign of weakness. Now get back to the topic at hand. Please please please please dont let the barley die!!!! LESS BEER!? By God why are you sitting here jacking off reading this nonsense when BEER is a stake? Kill whatever it is that's taking over the barley crop and ask questions later. Now, MrAarronb, Harv has provided us with a fine example of what a lack of context does for the written word, and has BOLSTERED your argument that smilies are benficial. Had we littered our posts with the little bastards, Harv would most likely not have felt the need to apolgise. However, I think I am correct in my postulate that history and context can replace short-hand emoticons. What say you? Peng ------------------ Peng sez "die a lot now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Got one! ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Mr. Peng, cutting through, (ie, not reading your rebuttal {is a rebutt of the same sense of meaning as a retread?}) the pointed deliberate and noisy refusal to utilize the smilie is the equivalent of converting each and every epistle posted by you without them into an embodiment of the thing, which you so concertedly attempt to discredit, as though confidance in the efficacy of the item itself, the smilie, conveying its intended definition is lacking and requires the whole of the statement. That all of your posts, regardless of length, are essentally each one, one big smilie and can be abbreviated by the use of the simpler symbol is self evident. Such is the strength of that function that every time I see a posting consisting of a smile, it is though the author has appropriated, stolen, or plagerized one of your longer efforts. I must confess that at times you so sublimely exercise the art of the inflation of the smilie that it would require some combination of them to justly translate it into its more essential form. To our gentle readers: take care that the temptation of exorcism does not place one into such contact with the exorcised as to embrase the evil object itself. As the cattleman wars against the woolies, he grows at first accostomed to their sight, then he begins to appreciate the differences among them and finds himself assigning each one in a hiarchial scheme. It is not long after this that some are regarded accordingly as possessing more merit than others. It is but then a short step that he finds one the most attractive of the lot and finds himself becoming jealous of rivals to himself, whether they arise or not. If he loses sight of his beauty he becomes anxious. If he comes near her he loses composure. If he stands by her he loses decor. And finally he cares little whether there were witnesses or not. Peng, we all have been witnesses. Deny it or not, we know your true affections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Ahh yes, you are both correct about my apologizing, but as I am a poor weakened shell of a man since recently throwing the yoke of nicotine off my shoulders (and finally getting some oxygen to my shrivelled brain), I felt that I did not have the strength to resist an aforementioned flame war due to the aforementioned misunderstanding due to the lack of smilies. So I just caved, and said I was sorry. Please forgive me. (hmmm, more weakness, I must work on that) Craig (never using too many .'s in his posts) ps. did someone mention sheep? mmmmmm almost dark now.... [This message has been edited by Harv (edited 06-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: (...)1. (...)Is it the case that this reference is to VOCAL verbal behavior?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Written verbal behavior, on the other hand, has no such conditioned stimuli as voice tone, or facial expression, or body posture in the mileu to enhance the receptive response of the reader. Would you agree that comparing written verbal behavior to vocal verbal behavior is therefore inadequate to such an argument?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Written verbal behaviour may be given contextual meaning through description and literary devices (metaphor, pathetic fallacy, alliteration, epithet, etc.), all designed to ‘enhance the receptive response of the reader’, but these same tools are available verbally. If anything, it is more difficult with written language, and meaning may still be usefully extended: Shakespeare, rich in language, is best experienced live, and poetry, developed as a written art form, still attracts live readings (not from me). So, while the reference was to the spoken word, and is not an exact parallel to written language, any difference is quantitative, not qualitative. To answer your question: I believe the comparison is adequate, just not precise. Because of the gross lack of meaning in only the words (7%) of spoken language, even a large positive 'meaning shift' for written vs spoken language leaves a lot unsaid. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Given that some "unknown" (unknown that is until some scholar looks it up)(...)I would bet my left nut that it is decidedly more than 7%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Haven't found anything so far. Will keep looking. 'Decidedly more' leaves a lot of room for 'decidedly still a lot less than 100%'. As for your left nut, it is safe in the hands of a rational judge. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. On this forum, there are contextual cues that can color a reader's response to a post by another human. (...)Our histories are our contexts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Verbal language has the same contexts (known speakers in politics or specific industries). This actually strengthens the link between the 7% verbal and the unknown written. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It therefore seems to me that the only variables to contend with on a BBS are the context of the posts. Emoticons (love that word, hate the things)are shorthand. I do not use shorthand. Some people do. I think they should be eviscerated with poisoned knives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's my point: due to the issues in postulate(A), most people use shorthand. It would be better in some sense if they did not (as emoticons are intellectually sloppy, hence your assertion that the users deserve a messy, certain death). Our choices then are: bring the bulk of humanity to the point where it has "time, skill, or predisposition to write colourful and descriptive prose", or use emoticons and get 'close enough' results. The nature of the internet pushes against 'time', and human nature pushes against 'skill, or predisposition'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, unless you can show me some research indicating only a small percentage of the written word conveys meaning, I will stick to my guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've shown a link between verbal and written language (e.g., the Shakespeare example), and will continue to dig for actual research. Might take a while. Might never find it. But it's interesting, so I bet I do find it. Readers without context on the board may need emoticon crutches [\B][\QUOTE] Someone who needs a crutch and refuses, just grinds the bone ends together until healing never really works out. The only shame is in hanging on to a crutch too long. Of course, that's not your problem... you don't have any metaphoric broken bones. But the general case does, I think. Having said all this, your anti-smiley post was (of course) hilarious, in a subversive way. Thanks for your response - I got to exercise my brain a bit today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Hmm, let's summarise this thread: Bobbaro has obviously swallowed a copy of Chamber's Dictionary and is beginning to choke on it. Can someone call 911 please? Ta. Harv, aka Craig is looking for the sheep - was that weekend in the big city, err, Saskatoon not enough? Mr. Peng has been accused of being one big smiley - uh oh... AaronB and Mr. Peng discuss clearly past each other b/c they are not working from the same epistemological base. Hmm, this could become interesting. In essence ladies (yeah right) and gentleman, this is the thread to watch. Who ever said the board was getting stale? ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: If he used more smileys, could you get back more quickly? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Nice shot, Formerly Babra ------------------ We are both men of action. Lies do not become us. — Westley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: AaronB and Mr. Peng discuss clearly past each other b/c they are not working from the same epistemological base. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You just used 'epistemological', correctly, in a sentence. To whomever is still handing out 'cool points': give some to this guy. Right now, we are working out our epistemological differences, since we are seeking truth rather than debating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Hmm, let's summarise this thread: Bobbaro has obviously swallowed a copy of Chamber's Dictionary and is beginning to choke on it. Can someone call 911 please? Ta. Harv, aka Craig is looking for the sheep - was that weekend in the big city, err, Saskatoon not enough? Mr. Peng has been accused of being one big smiley - uh oh... AaronB and Mr. Peng discuss clearly past each other b/c they are not working from the same epistemological base. Hmm, this could become interesting. In essence ladies (yeah right) and gentleman, this is the thread to watch. Who ever said the board was getting stale? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and keep your dictionaries handy. ------------------ We are both men of action. Lies do not become us. — Westley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aaronb: You just used 'epistemological', correctly, in a sentence. To whomever is still handing out 'cool points': give some to this guy. Right now, we are working out our epistemological differences, since we are seeking truth rather than debating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahh, truth. That elusive thing. What is 'true'? Is your truth more true than mine? So many questions. I think you should try and establish whether you both believe that there is a truth, and not at least two, one for you and one for Mr.Peng. Hmm, just because I am typing this anyway: I recently had a girl I met at a party believe my suggestion that establishing a 'Club Seal', where stressed company executives can relax and wind down by, well, clubbing seals, is a reasonable business proposition. Something about my body language must be wrong. She still thinks I am devil incarnate. Not sure what the point of relating this is, but I love to tell a story. As for the cool points, can I get my PhD instead? My supervisor and I engaged in this sort of discussion without a common base for about two years, until she gave up... Still fun... Okay I stop now... ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think you should try and establish whether you both believe that there is a truth, and not at least two, one for you and one for Mr.Peng.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am primarily interested in MrPeng right now, so I'll be brief: "Atlas Shrugged", "The Fountainhead", "The Romantic Manifesto". Yes, I have Objectivist leanings - after several years in the relativist desert, prompted by too much Nietzsche, this is a long, cool breeze. If MrPeng is a serious relativist, all is lost. But serious relativists don't rail against smilies, so all is not lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 In order to stall for time in composing a rebuttal to your last excellent post, I will post my training and leanings. I was raised as a Skinnerian. The analysis of human behavior was my bag (until I discovered Novell NetWare!), so I guess my philosphical background is logical positivism. I am particularly fond of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior, which by his definition encompasses far broader types of behavior than most of us think of as "verbal". As far as Truth goes, I have said it on previous posts, the only truth woth talking about is the truth we reach by agreement. "Did you see that?" "Yup." "Me too, it must be true." a simplistic sort of rendering of inter-observer agreement, but it is an important part of the nature of the scientific method. If one can not reproduce one's results, or others can't reproduce them, the results are typically not trusted. So, perhaps this is not the place for such discussions, as enlightening and enjoyable as I find this particular one, It is soooo OT that it is not likely to make it much longer. However, I will continue the discussion as long as the thread remains open. (just as soon as I get the kids off to bed and placate the spousal unit with some sort of BS). Regards Peng ------------------ Peng sez "die a lot now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aaronb: Yes, I have Objectivist leanings - [...] If MrPeng is a serious relativist, all is lost. But serious relativists don't rail against smilies, so all is not lost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Am an objectivist myself. It is not my fault, staying in Japan for two years made me into one. This should be fun - nothing more boring that relativism. Enjoy. I wonder how many board members we lost already... Oh, and while I find it enjoyable to watch, do not expect any valuable contributions from me. I am a management PhD student. I know enough about this stuff to come down on the side of positivism b/c it makes my life easier (and because my supervisor is an economist - my supervisor thinks, therefore I am). But go on, I love to get the references and I enjoy the match... ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Edited because I am drunk [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 06-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Topic: Mr. Peng is wrong Is not. (The idiots needed someone to respond for them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: Topic: Mr. Peng is wrong Is not. (The idiots needed someone to respond for them.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well said. ------------------ We are both men of action. Lies do not become us. — Westley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 I speak in defense of the proper tactical deployment and use of smileys. The original M1A1 smiley-face is indeed objectionable to all reasonable men. It is a pathetic attempt to connote jollity, potpourri in little craft baskets, and cuddly kittens, things from which all normal men flee in disgust. It is best dealt with in the manner illustrated so graphically, above, by Formerly Babra. Mr. Winky is the worst offender, and the main source of the esteemed MrPeng's ire. Why? Because it is a substitute for eloquence, a replacement for language, and an overly generous nod to the conceptually stunted, including those too stupid to realize that they themselves are the target of serious invective. For an author, its use is either an admission that he lacks the courage of his convictions and wishes to remove some of the "sting" of his words (ah, how the best words take some skin with them!), or a supreme insult to his audience's powers of comprehension. Consider above. It was unnecessary to add Mr. Winky after writing "the esteemed MrPeng", since everyone is aware that there is no reason for anyone to hold him in any particular esteem. He is inanimate. The use was obviously sarcastic, and those left feeling that I hold MrPeng in special esteem are precisely the sort of riff-raff for whom the "bad" smileys were created in the first place. This said, I believe that some of the other members of this sadly misunderstood clan serve to augment even the best verbal barrages. Simply stated, they are an additional device provided by this brave new digital medium to increase the pain and discomfiture of one's enemies. If one keeps this simple rule in mind, one finds many acceptable uses, provided they are never used in place of verbal clarity. Of these, the most useful is the Grin of the Fecal Diner . This delightful weapon in any taunter's arsenal adds visual insult to verbal injury. In many ways it is a counter-smiley; following a blistering riposte, it is a means of conveying to a smiley-conditioned audience "Yes, and I really mean it, and I want you to feel a little worse for having read this". It is a virtual pie-in-the-face, a picture for all to see that the poster is laughing and spraying saliva directly in the postee's face. Consider: "Peng fears to PBEM me because he is used to playing girly-men in flower print dresses and is only half a stupid flightless bird missing the 'win' and uses tactics he learned from the Martha Stewart show". Can't you just feel the nicotine-scented aerosol of contempt? The Scowl can add a threatening demeanor to the most harmless exchanges. In a recent post regarding an opponent I made a reference to the fact that I was unhappy with "his little schreck", followed by a Scowl. I had already expressed my unhappiness, including the coy entendre that his "schreck" might be undersized, and that I myself have a stout, wrinkle-free, MANLY schreck. The Scowl lent a terrifying aspect to this and he is probably even now standing naked before a mirror in shame with a giant comedo extractor in his trembling fingers. The is a non-prosecutable icon for the author's wish to actually do physical injury to the recipient (or the general public), and provides a legal firewall for one's feelings. Razz and roll-eyes may also be used to convey contempt, without putting into words that which constitutes probable cause for thread death. Cool can be exceptionally irritating after a vicious and successful flame, since it shows how satisfied the poster is with himself and the psychological damage he has wrought. I do not understand what embarrassed and confused are for, but both smack of apology, which is obviously inappropriate. I recommend that these suspect smileys get the Babra treatment to prevent accidental misunderstandings. To summarize, the sparing use of the right smiley in the right place is a powerful meta-verbal communications tool, if one remembers the simple rule: to increase the pain and discomfiture of one's enemies, but never used in place of wit or clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Hmm, just because I am typing this anyway: I recently had a girl I met at a party believe my suggestion that establishing a 'Club Seal', where stressed company executives can relax and wind down by, well, clubbing seals, is a reasonable business proposition. Something about my body language must be wrong. She still thinks I am devil incarnate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Part of the process of arriving at objective truth is asking the right questions. In the above case, for instance, the only important question is "Did you bag her? If not, why not?" Everything you need to know will be contained in the answer. This thread is becoming wildly OT, and all this talk of logical positivism could very quickly bring about a fire-storm of Monty Python quotations. You have been warned.... ------------------ Ethan ----------- Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts