[LMB] When World-Views Collide, books

WILLIAM A WENRICH wawenri at msn.com
Sat Jan 8 23:05:54 GMT 2022


Someone could appear angry. They are. However, they aren’t angry at the current situation but at the guy who cut them off in traffic or the person who flipped them off on the way there.

William A Wenrich

  *   A sinner dependent on God’s grace.

________________________________
From: Lois-Bujold <lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk> on behalf of Beatrice Otter via Lois-Bujold <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 3:25:22 PM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold. <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Cc: Beatrice Otter <beatrice_otter at zoho.com>
Subject: Re: [LMB] When World-Views Collide, books

---- On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:02:59 -0800 WILLIAM A WENRICH <wawenri at msn.com> wrote ----



Truly. Also, things like body language can be misinterpreted or for a different reason than thought.



Beatrice Otter:



Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers" does a fairly good layman's-level exploration of this. There are two big problems with body language/facial expressions/tone of voice and all the accompanying clues. First, it varies from culture to culture, sometimes by a huge margin. Second, even *within* cultures, not everybody is "correctly" using these things in ways that line up with cultural expectations. You have some people who are very good at falsifying their cues to make themselves look better/more trustworthy; you have some people who just ... don't project (or pick up on) the "right" cues and so look *less* trustworthy or "weird." IF you are really good at reading such cues and IF you are dealing with someone from the same culture as you and IF that person is someone whose social cues match and correctly align with their current emotional state and truthfulness, then you can pick up a great deal of accurate information using such cues! ... and if any one of those t!
 hings is not true, you may still think you have learned a lot from those cues, except you are *100% wrong* about what they're actually telling you.



Text-based communication has less information than face-to-face communications, it is true. But what information there is is more reliable. You might misunderstand the tone (were they serious or sarcastic?) but the actual content is verifiable to all parties, and not based on gut reactions and whether or not your social cues and their social cues were both accurate and interacting properly.



Beatrice Otter
--
Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to wawenri at msn.com
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.herald.co.uk%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flois-bujold&data=04%7C01%7C%7C2b7e74d568f34a6b3a5608d9d2f5ca31%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637772775374859966%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0Uw5Fy81EfTw1TWpnwtTIye4Wp8Tx9q%2Bnq0h2Gnieko%3D&reserved=0


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list