Categories
philosophy

Text v Speech

Following a recent conversation with some friends about how easily the written word can be misinterpreted I started thinking about the implications of this in world where increasingly communicate using emails, text messages and other forms of textual communication. Communication is a risky but worthwhile business! In Neuro-Linguistic Programming-based counselling the subjectivity of most communcation is demonstrated by the asking the client to think of some simple illustrative phrase like “the cat sat on the mat”. The therapist may then ask the client to describe cat, mat and their environment. It quickly becomes obvious that we appreciate to differing extents the biases within our interpretation of even a simple phrase. In person-to-person spoken communication we consciously and subconsciously ignore a whole range of possible interpretations by trying to focus on the emotional intent of the other person. Are they lying? Do they have my best interests at heart? Was that an insult? (if it was I don’t want to get them to repeat it and give them the chance to insult me again!). Several perceptive friends of mine have referred to a peculiar property of email we call “emotional amplification”. This is a property of email relating to:

  • Speed of communication. Many emails, particularly those used in professional communication are sent with the expectation that the subject matter will be understood and acted upon, upon receipt. Therefore there is pressure on the author to convey logical and emotional intent of the message immediately. Conveying emotional intent immediately (like “this is EXTREMELY urgent”) can lead to overstatement
  • Its half-duplex nature. You don’t get immediate feedback to each point so a long email that expresses many points can find itself in an emotional cul-de-sac where the reader becomes more and more irritated with each point.

With text messages this becomes exascerbated by the enforced brevity of a 160 character limit. The reader has first to decode txt spk or “text speak” and then must try to interpret what the intent of the message was. Chances are the writer has left much unsaid in an attempt at brevity. There are definitely many many conversations that should not be carried out over text messages. In general, anything where conveying emotional intent in a complex situation is vital shouldn’t be sent using text.
This problem was noticed at the inception of the internet and smilies were created to denote emotional intent. These appear fun to users of IRC and Instant Messaging but their purpose is quite serious. Preventing or defusing potentially damaging situations by conveying emotional intent symbolically. Other attempts to do this include Prosidic Font. Prosody is the ‘song or rhythm of everyday speech”. Prosidic font was an MIT project which encoded prosody (temporal, dynamic and emotional nature of speech) using a specially developed font. This is useful because
Research into emotion and speech has found that people can recognize affect with 60% reliability when context and meaning are obscured
I’ll leave you with a comment from the famous Canadian communications expert Marshall McLuhan:

When most words are written, they become, of course, a part of the visual world. Like most of the elements of the visual world, they become static things and lose, as such, the dynamism which is so characteristic of the auditory world in general, and of the spoken word in particular. They lose much of the personal element…They lose those emotional overtones and emphases…Thus, in general, words, by becoming visible, join a world of relative indifference to the viewer – a word from which the magic ‘power’ of the word has been abstracted.
Marshall McLuhan in The Gutenberg Galaxy (1962), quoting J.C. Carothers, writing in Psychiatry, November 1959.

Categories
films

Holding out for Hero

The chinese martial arts movie “Hero” has just been released in Ireland. Entertainment Ireland have a brief review here
I must confess I thought it was a wonderful movie. I’ve read quite a few reviews that compare it unfavourably with “crouching tiger, hidden dragon” but I disagree. Also my immediate memory of “crouching tiger” doesn’t permit me to make a direct comparison but my first impression is of a movie that I liked far more. Overly worthy perhaps but satisfying all the same.
The plot goes a bit like this.

For over a decade the King of Qin has lived in fear of assassination from a trio of powerful warriors in the unconquered regions. This time has come to an end with the arrival of Nameless, a middle-ranking official in his kingdom, who brings news that he has defeated them all. As Nameless claims his rewards in the presence of the King he relates his story of how he defeated the assassin Sky and used the love between Broken Sword and Flying Snow to defeat them. However the King questions some of the things that he is being told

I won’t tell you any more about the plot, instead urging you to see the movie.
However I read quite a few reviews of the movie that would have dissuaded me from seeing it so I’ll use this opportunity to say why they’re all wrong, the critics misguided and why in my not-so-humble opinion it’s near perfect.
All the critcs agree that this film looks absolutely fantastic. The cinematography is inspired. A colourful cavalcade of sweeping shots, lithe balletic movements and bold, dramatic scenery. And that’s just the first 10 minutes. So many hollywood directors could learn from Yimou Zhang’s masterful integration of light and sound, colour and contrast to form a seamless whole. Indeed, such is the beauty of the spectacle that the dialogue may be superfluous. There are many scenes where the ‘connectedness’of actors and their surroundings is evident. All the elements (wind, water, earth and fire)articulate the characters emotions. Typical chinese martial arts movie then!
Ok so here’s what I think of the criticisms:

  1. The plot is convoluted and doesn’t work. I found it interesting, not overly complex and the juxtaposition of the story, the unravelling of truths and the cinematic shifts in colour that accompanied this were a joy to behold
  2. It doesn’t have the emotional resonance of crouching tiger Who the hell cares? In my opinion it’s a more accessible movie, more entertaining and it definitely has an emotional resonance. Perhaps not one that many western audiences will want to see because it expouses the sacrafice of the individual towards a greater good. (This ain’t a hollywood movie kids)
  3. We never empathise with the characters, they’re not developed as human beings, more as stereotypes of their Fidelity, Love and Idealism This is a silly criticism. The movie is clearly supposed to be fable. It’s not some bloody soap opera or reality TV show. When expect the characters to be well rounded when the whole movie is about high morals, contrasts, archetypes and their portrayal with a rich tapestry of colour

For me this movie had two important lessons that we often ignore.

  1. There are times when the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Human history has thought us this time and time again as painful as it is to learn.
  2. Hatred infects all aspects of our lives and ultimately those we love suffer most because we choose to hate.

To summarise. Go see the movie, you may like it!

Categories
technology

Design By Contract in C

Charlie Mills creates a Design-By-Contract library for C (which could equally be used for C++ with minor changes) in his most recent OnLamp article. DBC views functions and methods as contractual agreements between the functional caller and the object/module providing the function. Charlie’s implementation is a really neat idea using Object Constraint Language (OCL)to describe:

  • function preconditions
  • function postconditions
  • type and function invariants

The implementation is hacked up using Ruby and Racc and is available here.. I’m currently playing around with DBC for Java using iContracts and I’ll post the inevitable success stories here soon…

Categories
technology

Steve Vinoski’s comments on the WS* standardisation track

Following on from my earlier post about WS standardisation. Steve Vinoksi points out that traditional standardisation efforts are often too slow and overly political. In this month’s IEEE Distributed Systems Online (DSO) he discusses WS-NonexistentStandards. Lots of standardisation work but where are the accepted standards and how does the process facilitate the creation and adoption of practical standards?
To get around these problems, WS-* authors appear to be taking a different approach toward standardization:

  1. Write a specification and make it publicly available.
  2. Invite interested parties to one or more private workshops where they can learn more details about the specification and provide feedback.
  3. Iterate steps 1 and 2 until chosen feedback from the workshop participants has been incorporated, and the specification is considered finished.
  4. Submit the specification to an official standards body with the hope of fast tracking it to actual standardization with minimal changes.

Overall, this approach reduces the number of participants involved, which can be a good thing because it reduces the overall volume of communication required to create the specification and resulting standard. However, it can also reduce the resulting standard’s effectiveness, even rendering it useless, because it circumvents at least some of the process of building consensus by not being a truly open process. A standard that is not generally agreed on is a standard on paper only.

This definitely seems to be part of the problem. It’s in marked contrast to the IETF standardisation process which often appears much more open and perhaps democratic. However, it’s a fine line to walk. I can’t help but feel that 2 modifications to the process would significantly improve matters.

  1. The creation of WS-arch so we can categorically say what piece of the WS-jigsaw goes WS-where? 😉
  2. Incentivised involvement of independent s/w developers in the standardisation process. Spec consumers rather than spec producer/pushers who can’t provide neutral guidance. Maybe even some decisions could be put to general developers using a web-based voting system.

Probably/definitely need to think about this more…