| Believe a first encounter with another person can use one of three
media, which form a continuing spectrum.
On one end: IN PERSON:
Here you get voice tone, dress, looks, body language, personal
environment etc. In this context, you get the most information.
In the middle: TELEPHONE:
Here you lose body language, looks and certain other aspects. You are
forced to draw conclusions on less information and give more
importance to what you do get.
On the other end: NOTES, VAXMAIL, VAXPHONE:
Here you lose everything which can't be transmitted in writing.
You also can't clarify assumptions as easily because the media is less
interactive.
If you are a person who is unbiased on these characteristics, and
know what is important to you, the IN PERSON meeting is probably the
best. You get the most information to use as you see fit.
But if you tend to create first impressions on visual characteristics
which you consider less important, such as looks, home or office
clutter, or dress; then maybe telephone or written forms for the first
meeting are a plus. You would be forced to judge on less info which
may be good if you consider the unavailable info (presently)
unimportant.
Unsure which media would transmit/receive "chemistry" the best.
But chemistry is probably a good topic for another note.
So that settles it ... it can't be settled.
Mike
|
| I will make a generalization that I think is reasonably true: 'noters' are
(or have become) fairly comfortable communicating through written media.
We may tend to forget that this is not true for everyone, and in fact, may
be true only for a minority of people. Many people are not particularly
comfortable communicating (or being communicated to) in writing.
Written and face-to-face communications are substantially different. A
person may be comfortable with one or the other or both (or neither), and
disuse of either for a period of time probably reduces one's level of skill
and comfort.
I probably have a more intellectual approach to meeting people than
average; hence exchanging mail, letters, notes, etc. works well for
me. I can also meet someone in person and make small talk, etc., but
if I find the person at all interesting, I immediately want to get around
to "what do you do", "what do you think about X" (where X is something
of more significance than last night's sports scores), etc.
Similarly, I find the rapid growth of personal ads in recent years quite
interesting. Once the exclusive province of "lonely hearts" and those
seeking particular sexual practices, the large majority of personals are
now from "everyday" people seeking more-or-less typical relationships.
Again, this seems to imply starting a relationship based on a more explicit
awareness of what you want or don't want in another person, whereas
more traditional ways often result in significant issues being politely
ignored for some time.
We might also remember that in previous generations, i.e. before telephones
and high speed travel, communication via letters was much more common.
People built friendships, some even courted by mail, without ever a
face-to-face meeting or even voice contact. So, what we're doing with
electronic notes and mail is, in some ways, well established in tradition.
It just happens a hell of a lot faster, and, it seems, it may actually
change your expectations about how you deal with a new acquaintance.
Dan Murphy
|
| I think there is some precedence for relationships being based only
on written communications in the "mail order brides" process of
the last century. This process was probably adequate for the goals
of the parties seeking the relationship.
My goals in a relationship have a lot to do with the suitability
of different ways of communicating. Vulcan mindmelds are more likely
to occur if synchronicity isn't required and physical
attraction/distraction is not high. Conversely, physical attraction
is unlikely based on phospor.
The addictive part of noting and mail is its asycnhronous nature.
Not being very spontaneous, I feel much safer if I have the option
of cntrl-z-ing out of an embarassing line of thought. I can't do
this when I am looking at you.
|