Why we always misunderstand one another on the Internet

[Olm the Water King]

Take a Wittgenstein class: He explains the problems of translating language, computer science, and artificial intelligence.

The Limits of Language

Wittgenstein explains why we always misunderstand one another on the Internet.

By David Auerbach

The best class I took in college was on the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Until that point, I had avoided philosophy of language as simply being too esoteric and hermetic to be of use. David Pears, a prodigious yet modest and approachable figure visiting from Oxford, changed my mind. In large part because of Pears’ instruction, Wittgenstein’s philosophy has been directly relevant to my thinking about computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. When other scholars were thinking that language and thought could be reduced to a universal, logical language, Wittgenstein turned the matter to practical questions and raised incredibly inconvenient questions that gained traction in artificial intelligence in the 1970s, 40 years after he was working on them.

...

 

[Qlip]

That's a good article. I think communication is more of a problem on the internet because much interaction irl is goal based, the meaning of things is less important as long as basic concepts can be negotiated. In places like this, it's a lot more about discussing ideas, and participants tend to not have very philosophical mindsets when approaching dialog, which leads to confusion.

This was a good quote:

We are unable clearly to circumscribe the concepts we use; not because we don’t know their real definition, but because there is no real ‘definition’ to them,” Wittgenstein wrote. Instead, our speech acts are grounded in a set of social practices.

 

[Coriolis]

I disagree that we do always misunderstand each other on the internet. For the most part, I feel what I write is correctly understood, and I doubt I am unique in this.

 

[Opal]

I disagree that we do always misunderstand each other on the internet. For the most part, I feel what I write is correctly understood, and I doubt I am unique in this.

You have more precise diction than most internet users, and also offer ideas clean of emotion... not unique, but uncommon, in my experience.

 

[Totenkindly]

Main point:

...So, language is quicksand—except it’s not. Unlike the parlor tricks of the deconstructionists who bloviate about différance and traces, there clearly are rules that shouldn’t be broken and clearly ways of speaking that are blatantly incorrect, even if they change over time and admit to flexible interpretations even on a daily basis. It’s just that explicitly delineating those boundaries is extremely difficult, because language is not built up through organized, hierarchical rules but from the top down through byzantine, overlapping practices. Some things can be pinned down with practical certainty, just not in isolation and without context.

 

[ceecee]

I disagree that we do always misunderstand each other on the internet. For the most part, I feel what I write is correctly understood, and I doubt I am unique in this.

I feel you are incredibly clear. I also feel that you set out to make yourself understood - not the other way around, as many people who communicate online do. What I have found is that "understanding" is placed on the reader - not the author. Some people can get away with that but most can't.

 

[Bush]

Use emoticons. Problem solved.

 

[Showbread]

I always just attributed it to the lack of body language and facial expressions available on the internet/texting. Hence why I use smilies.

I also disagree that we always misunderstand each other. I think it probably happens more often than we realize, but there has to be some successful communication happening otherwise we would all just give up.

 

[á´…eparted]

I always just attributed it to the lack of body language and facial expressions available on the internet/texting. Hence why I use smilies.

I also disagree that we always misunderstand each other. I think it probably happens more often than we realize, but there has to be some successful communication happening otherwise we would all just give up.

This.

Another major factor is that people are isolated behind a screen and consequences are less on their mind. As a result, they word things more strongly and less carefully, which others often take with full weight or further. If something were in place to make us more cautious in delivery, things would be better.

 

[windoverlake]

Any form of communication that isn't face-to-face or speaking in real time (FaceTime, Skype, telephone) is 'inanimate' in nature. Text on a screen or on paper is text on a screen/paper. Also, the default anonymous nature of the internet is possibly the largest contributing factor to why we 'choose' to misunderstand one another, because we're 'filling in blanks' but without any correct information. To illustrate with an example:

One INTP friend in particular is a great in-person communicator. They are expressive, fun, funny, enjoyable all around. But their emails or chat text is devoid of ... warmth, is the best way to describe it. They use a lot of Fe in person, but even after all these years I'm always 'filling in' what I perceive to be the blanks in their online communication. But for the INTP, they're just sharing data and simply don't feel it's needed to insert emoticons or even choose to structure their text communiques in anything other than telegramese. If we hadn't met in person first I'd have assumed they had no interest in being friends with me.

 

[Coriolis]

Use emoticons. Problem solved.

I cannot imagine a problem whose solution involves emoticons. Just -- no.

Any form of communication that isn't face-to-face or speaking in real time (FaceTime, Skype, telephone) is 'inanimate' in nature. Text on a screen or on paper is text on a screen/paper. Also, the default anonymous nature of the internet is possibly the largest contributing factor to why we 'choose' to misunderstand one another, because we're 'filling in blanks' but without any correct information.

Just what are these blanks filled with when we are speaking in person?

The written word was the primary way humanity communicated across any distance for generations. Indeed much of what we know of history comes from letters written by people living in those times, places, and situations. I don't think text on paper as a medium is that limited. In fact, I often hear the lament that the modern information age has brought about the end of the art of letter-writing.

 

[windoverlake]

Just what are these blanks filled with when we are speaking in person?

The written word was the primary way humanity communicated across any distance for generations. Indeed much of what we know of history comes from letters written by people living in those times, places, and situations. I don't think text on paper as a medium is that limited. In fact, I often hear the lament that the modern information age has brought about the end of the art of letter-writing.

It's appearing like the modern info age has brought about the end of the art of letter-writing; or maybe it's actually been turning it into an art form, because letter-writing and hard mail is now viewed as 'specialty'. In some parts of the world they're no longer teaching cursive writing in schools (!!!wtf!!!), which is a motor skill that's linked with brain development; is it wise to skimp on that? But maybe cursive writing will become an after-school curricular, and eventually all writing by hand will be outdated and relegated to hobby, like calligraphy is today/currently.

Just what are these blanks filled with when we are speaking in person?

You pose a great question. I'll sit with it and return to here if anything viable for sharing floats up. But 'inanimate' and 'filling in blanks' is more about tone, hence why I put them in quotes; at least that's what I wanted to indicate. I don't actually think of text on screen/words on paper as inanimate, and I prefer it myself 90% of the time. However, with certain people I prefer to have as many options of expression open, and that means face-to-face and in the same room without an enforced time limit. As far as 'filling in blanks', I think that could be more about the individual and the context of the interaction. The example of text-based communicating with my INTP friend is not so much about the form of communication as much as it is about me and my Fe. All the same, in that situation, I am filling in the blanks because I'm reminding myself of the difference that is our respective text styles.

ETA:

Your question made me think of poetry. It's words on a page/screen, but there's something 'then living' about them once you hear them read aloud, especially/only if they're read aloud by the poet/author. Voice as 'magic spell' or something.

 

[Bush]

I cannot imagine a problem whose solution involves emoticons. Just -- no.

Let's at least push for the interrobang.

"You did what‽"

"Are you just the biggest [expletive] [expletive] in the [expletive] world‽"

 

[prplchknz]

for me it's sometimes people write 3 50 line paragraphs on a personal problem, and i'm like nope don't care.

 

[Coriolis]

Your question made me think of poetry. It's words on a page/screen, but there's something 'then living' about them once you hear them read aloud, especially/only if they're read aloud by the poet/author. Voice as 'magic spell' or something.

Interesting. I'm not a great fan of poetry, but I especially dislike hearing poetry read. I find when people read poetry, they use intonation that seems forced and is very distracting from the content. I therefore much prefer to read poetry myself. It's a bit like preferring to read a book over watching the movie version. I fill in that extra dimension from my own imagination, rather than have someone else's interpretation foisted on me before I even know how I see it myself.

The one exception is songs. Put a good poem to good music, and it's golden. Like this:

 

[BadOctopus]

Can you imagine if Shakespeare had used emoticons?

"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York! "

Ugh.

 

[prplchknz]

I always just attributed it to the lack of body language and facial expressions available on the internet/texting. Hence why I use smilies.

I also disagree that we always misunderstand each other. I think it probably happens more often than we realize, but there has to be some successful communication happening otherwise we would all just give up.

I pretty much have.

except every so often i try and that always backfires.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you imagine if Shakespeare had used emoticons?

"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York! "

Ugh.

can he please please pleas be please be dressed like a 12 year old girl as well from the 00's?

 

[windoverlake]

Interesting. I'm not a great fan of poetry, but I especially dislike hearing poetry read. I find when people read poetry, they use intonation that seems forced and is very distracting from the content. I therefore much prefer to read poetry myself. It's a bit like preferring to read a book over watching the movie version. I fill in that extra dimension from my own imagination, rather than have someone else's interpretation foisted on me before I even know how I see it myself.

The one exception is songs. Put a good poem to good music, and it's golden. Like this:

That was really beautiful.

There are good poetry readings and horrid ones. If someone's performing a poem, that's never a good sign. Good for you: run away; flee.

I'm not a fan of poetry, either. I wouldn't say I'm a hater, but my 'not getting' of poetry makes me picky about who I read. I do own one volume of poetry, but the poet died nearly 80 years ago.

 

[windoverlake]

Can you imagine if Shakespeare had used emoticons?

"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York! "

Ugh.

Book deal for you.

 

[Coriolis]

Book deal for you.

At best, she could aspire to a graphic novel deal. Nowadays, sadly lucrative.