Epithany

[shadowkat]

Just had a minor epiphany...I realized that in some respects I've had more genuine interactions with people through written correspondence, whether it was livejournal, FB, email, or letters than necessarily in person or over the phone. I think because when we write -- we give the other person time to say what they are feeling and thinking, and we have time to read and re-read to ensure we understood it. We can also clarify and come back to it later if we are too busy. It's there. Not something to be misremembered or misheard.

It can be translated, often more effectively than oral speech. Since you can see the text, and are not just relying on the sounds, and hoping they aren't muffled by other sounds.

And clarification can be asked repeatedly.

There's a permanence too - to the conversation. That is lacking in oral or face-to-face, unless you've recorded it.

And, in writing, you can often see the person, not their gender, their physique, their organic form, their race --- but who they are through the words and how they use or play with words. What they say.

Granted tonal quality is lost, but sometimes that can be clarified as well.

I realized it tonight with various interactions...on Face Book, and thinking back over the ones I've had online over the years.

I don't know if it is fair to say one is better. But to say that friends you met soley through written correspondence aren't friends? Is silly. Even if we have no faces and have never met in person.

I realized today, that often I'm at my most authentic and candid when I'm on live journal. Under a fake name. I feel free to say what I think. In some respects the people reading this journal know me better, far better in fact, than anyone else in my life does. Assuming of course you are still reading.

Writing on lj can feel at times like sending out messages in a bottle. You aren't quite sure who is on the receiving end.

Comments

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

That is all so true about written communication, and so well said. I think that written communication can have tonal quality, but the writer has to be sensitive to it!

It's why online education can be good, if it's done the right way.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I agree. I think tone is actually something that can be misunderstood face to face as well. It always needs to be clarified -- because if someone is in a bad mood, they may be snappish in tone, even if they aren't angry at you.
I know it happens a lot at work.

So the speaker and writer need to be sensitive to it, but being human? That's a 50/50 gambit at best.

Online education -- I think can be really good, but it is lacking in certain respects, such as interactive discussion and interactive play or experimentation. Not sure it works for drama courses, science, or psychology. Or even art in some respects. But it should work well for Literature, Writing, History, Math, and other disciplines. I think it depends on how physically interactive the class needs to be?

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I taught literature online for ten years, and my classes were very interactive. 30% of students' grades depended on their participation in discussions, and I structured the discussions so that everyone took part, a better level of participation than I had in many on-ground classes. It just requires small classes and lots of work by the instructor.

To clarify - I think it depends on the course...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think it's different with literature -- that doesn't require physical interaction, just vocal or written. Actually literature works better with written interaction, because it's about written words.

But, biology requires dissection and physical demonstration. Dance -- you sort of have to know the space and work with a partner. You can do it with skype but not as effectively. Drama -- works better in person, because 98% of acting is body language. Often actors do things without saying a word. Psychology -- you sort of need to be there in person to do the experiments. Readings and discussion? That can be online. But interactive experiments? Not so much.

I remember when I was in undergrad going on various class field trips -- we'd go to the Red Rocks and look for geological differences in the rocks. Or we would see if we could pass lie detection tests. Or put together a play.
Or go on a retreat in the mountains and write poetry and exchange it, orally read the poems to each other. Another course had us -- physically going to see plays together, discussing them, and writing about them afterwards.

In those scenarios, a great deal can be lost if it is just done online.

So, it depends on the course, I think.

Re: To clarify - I think it depends on the course...

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

That is true about physical things, though cornerofmadness does teach some online anatomy, I think. I don't really think public speaking or foreign language work well online, either, but people teach it.

To me, it's the difference between small classes with real interaction with a live teacher, and those huge, prerecorded MOOCs. I have tried those and they really don't work.