The cause of flame wars
A recent study claims that despite the fact we have only a 50% chance of correctly understanding the tone of an email message, we think we got it right 90% of the time. The consequences? Flame wars!
Obviously the richness of human communication (irony, teasing, sarcasm, etc..) can NOT be adequately transmitted via emails, but the problem is much bigger than I thought.
Wired News: The Secret Cause of Flame Wars
According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I’ve only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they’ve correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.
Remember this next time you get mad over a message.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
The original paper doesn’t actually say 50/50, instead, it says the chance of picking correctly the intent of irony vs sincerity was no better then random chance. I find this a much more accurate way to say it than a 50/50 chance.
Choosing between irony vs sincerity is one of the toughest problems in plain text. One thing that makes it tough is that by convention we typically use “quotes” to show something is ironic. Yet this conflicts with using quotes for quotes, quotes for emphasis, and quotes for calling attention to a phrase — all common uses of quotes in text. No wonder we can’t interpret irony accurately.
There are also a number of other psychological and sociological causes for the cycle of flames, including over-interpretation of emotional content, emotional contagion, and lowered empathy during higher intensity emotions. I’ve written more about these in my blog at Flames: Emotional Amplification of Text: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/02/flames_emotiona.html
February 14th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
The original paper doesn’t actually say 50/50, instead, it says the chance of picking correctly the intent of irony vs sincerity was no better then random chance. I find this a much more accurate way to say it than a 50/50 chance.
Choosing between irony vs sincerity is one of the toughest problems in plain text. One thing that makes it tough is that by convention we typically use “quotes” to show something is ironic. Yet this conflicts with using quotes for quotes, quotes for emphasis, and quotes for calling attention to a phrase — all common uses of quotes in text. No wonder we can’t interpret irony accurately.
There are also a number of other psychological and sociological causes for the cycle of flames, including over-interpretation of emotional content, emotional contagion, and lowered empathy during higher intensity emotions. I’ve written more about these in my blog at Flames: Emotional Amplification of Text: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/02/flames_emotiona.html
February 20th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Thx for the complement of information. This interpretation of text thing is increasingly important in a world where email is the most used way of communication.
February 20th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Thx for the complement of information. This interpretation of text thing is increasingly important in a world where email is the most used way of communication.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
[…] data on email interpretation (see previous post here). Link (via […]