Email etiquette course

[Suezoled]

According to the email "how to" course (for morons), 55% of communication is conveyed through body language, 38% is through tone of voice, and only 7% is through the actual words use. There were no sources or documentation given to support this statement. Feels a bit wrong, too....
Thoughts?

[roger]

How DARE you say that? Apologize. Apologize at once!!! :mad:

Sorry, just my normal nonsensical attempt at humor :)

As for the number, obviously the ratios will vary depending on content of the message. In a math discussion, obviously the verbal content will predominate. In a discussion about why the trash is not getting taken out, other factors may predominate, depending on the person.

I'm reminded of reading Miles Davis' autobiography. It was very difficult to understand in places, because he used the phrase "bad motherf*****" to describe players we approved of, players that he thought were terrible, and to describe just plain mean people. Sometimes I really had to work hard to figure out what he meant, and on occasion never did figure it out. I suspect his meaning would be obvious if he spoke this to me in person. Now this was a man for which the numbers you quote apply! :)

A counterexample would be an autistic person, for whom nearly all content comes from word choice.

It would be interesting to try to hold a conversation with nonsense words, being allowed to use real words only 7% of the time, and to see if you could communicate.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Suezoled
According to the email "how to" course (for morons), 55% of communication is conveyed through body language, 38% is through tone of voice, and only 7% is through the actual words use. There were no sources or documentation given to support this statement. Feels a bit wrong, too....
Thoughts?

Is this a course you took?

Or a book?

Or where did you see this?

[Suezoled]

Just an online tutorial things one of the committee folks cooked up. So, it was office only.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
According to the email "how to" course (for morons), 55% of communication is conveyed through body language, 38% is through tone of voice, and only 7% is through the actual words use. There were no sources or documentation given to support this statement. Feels a bit wrong, too....
Thoughts?

Look familiar?

http://www.stresscosts.com/AC/V3/AC38_7%25_Of_Communication.htm

It's just someone's opinion. But it sure does sound scientific, doesn't it.

Yet another marketing ploy complete with phoney-baloney "inspirational consultants" that your company wasted money on instead of dealing with the underlying morale problem.

Somebody's been snorting the white-out again.

[Suezoled]

LOL! I figured the team swiped it from somewhere. Only the presentation, by the time we got it, was watered down, dumbed down, and shaken 10 times one way, 10 times the other way, and dropped in a sugar pill.

The presentation should have taken 5 minutes, but I took 20, just looking at the whole quote I gave, saying "where the heck did they get these stats from?"

[Soapy Sam]

There's a grain of truth in it though. We miss out on irony especially. It's pretty common on this forum to have people take ironic humour as being serious opinion.
I think e-mail will force language to evolve.
(tho nt s mch s txt msgng!)

[Lucianarchy]

Speaking of irony, perhaps Suzoiled should practice a little netiquette and post threads in their appropriate place.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Speaking of irony, perhaps Suzoiled should practice a little netiquette and post threads in their appropriate place.

confusing irony with a mistake?

You're so special Lucianarchy. So very special indeed.

[Rat]

Originally posted by roger
I'm reminded of reading Miles Davis' autobiography. It was very difficult to understand in places, because he used the phrase "bad motherf*****" to describe players we approved of, players that he thought were terrible, and to describe just plain mean people. Sometimes I really had to work hard to figure out what he meant, and on occasion never did figure it out. I suspect his meaning would be obvious if he spoke this to me in person. Now this was a man for which the numbers you quote apply! :)
Miles Davis wrote a comprehensible autobiography? That's got to be worth a look!

Cheers,
Rat.

[Luciana]

Suezoled,

Any linguist can assure you that non-verbal communication is extremely important. However, this supposed ratio of body language/tone of voice/actual words can't be scientifically sound, as it would depend largely on:

* culture: look at how much the Italians gesticulate...
* intimacy between the speaker: if my mom gave me a hard look... she wouldn't have to say anything.
* register (formality): a charismatic leader grasps attention not necessarily by their choice of words.
* setting: radio? political speech? deal between guy and prostitute? job interview?

Correspondence through email is a novelty item as far as human communication is concerned, because it's written only, the actual words are extremely important, they're agile, deal with everyday matters and can have multiple recipients. Absolutely nothing that came previously can be compared to that. Society is just adapting to this kind of environment, and the rules to what is proper and what is not are just being grounded. Thus the appearance of scams like this, with a pseudoscientific approach for email communication.

[Rat]

Modern Greek has more than seventy common gestures...(including) placing the left hand on the knee, closing one eye, looking with the other into the middle distance, and wagging the free hand up and down, which means "I don't want anything to do with it".
Quoted from Bill Bryson. Would any of our resident Greeks like to confirm or deny this?

Cheers,
Rat.

[El Greco]

It's true, but doesn't this happen in every culture ? What's so special about a wink ? Hey we even have a relevant smilie! ;) Don't people use culturally-influenced gestures all over the world ?

Now, if the author means that ALL Greeks use gestures extensively, then I disagree. It depends on the person, on average we are more or less like every mediterranean nation. I for one, don't use many gestures except when I'm flirting a woman :D

[Rat]

I don't think I've ever heard flirt used transitively. Fantastic. No, really.

But would you get the meaning of that specific gesture as quoted? I suspect that, if I tried that, people would think that I was having some kind of fit. I've tried it, and I just look like a slightly spastic Columbo.

Cheers,
Rat.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974
But would you get the meaning of that specific gesture as quoted? I suspect that, if I tried that, people would think that I was having some kind of fit. I've tried it, and I just look like a slightly spastic Columbo.

I think I wouldn't get it, but this is just because you can't possibly get the hang of it just by reading its description. If you actually watch a few locals who use this gesture, I bet you will be able to replicate it very convicingly. BTW, this particular gesture is one I almost never use personally.

[El Greco]

When I think of it, I realize that I often replicate the gestures of the people I'm talking to. It had started as an experiment in my NLP days and now it has become an unconscious habit.

[Rat]

Yes, I suppose that there are many hand gestures in any culture that are used and could be picked up fairly quickly without instruction.

Regularly, I smack the side of my hand against my forehead, then move it away while wiggling the fingers of that hand. If I read that description, it would mean nothing to me; if I saw someone do it (at least with raised eyebrows and slight shake of the head) I would take it to mean either "it's over my head" or "I can't be bothered with it". All conditioning, I suppose.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by El Greco
It's true, but doesn't this happen in every culture ? What's so special about a wink ? Hey we even have a relevant smilie! ;) Don't people use culturally-influenced gestures all over the world ?


They do, Greco, but with varying intensity. Some cultures are more introspective and people will prefer subtle gestures. Or assign little importance to non-verbal communication. The Portuguese, for example. They're very literal. Don't try saying something and meaning something else (as in irony) because they will never pick it up. You'll think that your body language made it obvious, but they won't pay attention to it. And when you try to explain that you said a but meant b, they will look at you with such a pitying look that you'll feel ashamed at your attempt at humor. :D

And that varies from individual to individual. Some people are hard-pressed to pick up the facial expression clues. They can't tell when they're boring you. Other people won't get your meaning until you make a dramatic presentation of whatever it is you mean. Mostly, this means shouts. And I've also known people who will try to read your body language and emotios so much that will pretty much ignore what you're saying. It's like the woman who asks "are you sure you won't be upset?" when the guy has said many times that he won't.

That's why placing statistics on this kind of ratio seems highly improbable to me.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Look familiar?

http://www.stresscosts.com/AC/V3/AC38_7%25_Of_Communication.htm

It's just someone's opinion. But it sure does sound scientific, doesn't it.I love the way she says,<blockquote>People will often argue with the 7% statistic. I have seen articles theorizing why it is not true, [. . .]</blockquote>but she never explains why she thinks it is true. I mean, she does talk about it a bit, but she never tells us where the 7 % figure comes from.

Anyway, it doesn't matter where she got it from. She's wrong. My extensive research into the subject has conclusively shown that the correct figure is 8.3 %.

(And did you know that 91.6 % of all statistics are made up?)

Ok, in all seriousness now, how would one go about assigning a number to 'the fraction of communication that is conveyed through the actual words used', as opposed to body language or tone of voice? Before we can even try to decide whether the assertion made in the email course is true or false, we first have to figure out what it means.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by 69dodge
I love the way she says,<blockquote>People will often argue with the 7% statistic. I have seen articles theorizing why it is not true, [. . .]</blockquote>but she never explains why she thinks it is true. I mean, she does talk about it a bit, but she never tells us where the 7 % figure comes from.

Anyway, it doesn't matter where she got it from. She's wrong. My extensive research into the subject has conclusively shown that the correct figure is 8.3 %.

(And did you know that 91.6 % of all statistics are made up?)

Ok, in all seriousness now, how would one go about assigning a number to 'the fraction of communication that is conveyed through the actual words used', as opposed to body language or tone of voice? Before we can even try to decide whether the assertion made in the email course is true or false, we first have to figure out what it means.

Heck, this is a simple question. We don't. We recognize that in-person communication has a significant non-verbal element as well as inflection and tonal elements. Trying to break down actual percentages of meaning to specific activities in in-person communication is sort of like nailing jello to a wall. We know that the words we say are modified by how we say them and the non-verbal body language that we put with them.

I did some searching on that 7% statistic. I found it primarily in inspirational speaker websites and an inspirational speaker trade magazine in addition to a Microsoft presentation. In investigating these individual websites, none stated the source of their claim. Marketing loves to invent new ploys and scientific sounding hooks to convince companies to buy a service. Quoting statistics is a great way to do it as few corporations question where the statistic comes from.

Chances are, the study exists only in the minds of a marketing department somewhere.

[alfaniner]

HOW DO YOU GET SOMEONE TO NOT SEND EVERY SINGLE EMAIL IN ALL CAPS? I TRIED FORMATTING A NEARLY UNREADABLE FONT FOR MY REPLY, BUT HIS SOFTWARE CONVERTS IT TO SIMPLE TEXT FORMAT. I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL HE NEEDS SOME LENGTHY INFORMATION.

[Gregory]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
There's a grain of truth in it though. We miss out on irony especially. It's pretty common on this forum to have people take ironic humour as being serious opinion.
I think e-mail will force language to evolve.
(tho nt s mch s txt msgng!)

Why? Normal mail didn't, and it suffered from exaclty the same problem (although I've never had this problem, actually; the only people I write to know me well enough that they can tell when I'm being ironic even withought hearing me talk).

[Rat]

On the very rare occasions that irony isn't clear from the context, I tend to use the old exclamation mark in brackets to make it clear.

Sadly, in this age of emoticons and the like, this has also become a vulgar symbol, but I still use it.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974
On the very rare occasions that irony isn't clear from the context, I tend to use the old exclamation mark in brackets to make it clear.

Sadly, in this age of emoticons and the like, this has also become a vulgar symbol, but I still use it.

Cheers,
Rat.

I find emoticons absolutely wonderful. They substitute body language and inflections in mail communication. Therefore, they serve a very important role that isn't completely covered by words alone.

Some say that clever writers do not need emoticons; Tolstoi wrote War and Peace without resorting to one. Excellent. But we're speaking of literature in this case. Journalism, business letters, official documents also do not need emoticons. But the more email communication becomes ubiquitous and informal, and prone to substitute everyday conversations, the more it needs emoticons.

Using symbols to express non-verbal communications is brilliant. If miscommunication happens even when people are face-to-face, any effort to clarify your position is welcome.

[Rat]

I kind of agree. It depends on how well the person to whom you write knows you. They can usually tell when I'm being ironic. But yes, there are occasions when emoticons are useful, if not essential.

Overuse of emoticons is akin to people who make quote mark signs with their fingers.

Cheers,
Rat.

[alfaniner]

"La-ser"

[Luciana]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974

Overuse of emoticons is akin to people who make quote mark signs with their fingers.


But then some people do have exaggerated gestures, loud voices and the facial expressions of a Jim Carey. :D