Why Emails Are Misunderstood

werdna writes "The Christian Science Monitor has a piece on why it's so easy to misinterpret emails. From the article: 'First and foremost, e-mail lacks cues like facial expression and tone of voice. That makes it difficult for recipients to decode meaning well. Second, the prospect of instantaneous communication creates an urgency that pressures e-mailers to think and write quickly, which can lead to carelessness. Finally, the inability to develop personal rapport over e-mail makes relationships fragile in the face of conflict.'"

inflection, emphasis, tone, etc. usually missing

[yagu]

From that article, I agree: "If you're vulnerable to this kind of unintentional prejudice, pick up the phone: People are much less likely to prejudge after communicating by phone than they are after receiving an e-mail."

But, from the article, I disagree: "E-mail tends to be short and to the point." While e-mail can be short and sweet, I've found it to be all over the map. I've seen e-mail as a freebie for people who expound ad nauseum, and it's (e-mail) ubiquitous presence multiplies the wandering missives. Short and sweet is more typical in business settings (though I've seen epics there, too.)

Consider the classic following example. Read each sentence out loud, with emphasis on the bolded word.

• I didn't steal the money.
• I didn't steal the money.
• I didn't steal the money.
• I didn't steal the money.
• I didn't steal the money.

I've fallen prey to this. It's too easy to project either your mood, or your opinion, etc. into an e-mail's text and consequently misinterpret the senders intent, message, sometimes to the extent you've flipped their intent 180 degrees.

Most of the time this is just a nuisance. Sometimes it can be amusing -- a story to share over beer (free).

It is worth exercising due care though to avoid escalations and huge misunderstandings sometimes creating hard feelings, and in more extreme cases damaging relationships. I learned from a few hard lessons, if after a few exchanges a dialog became testy and began escalation, I'd intervene on behalf of myself and the correspondent by curtailing the e-mail until a quick chat on the phone could reset the tone. That almost always worked.

(While some use some convention to help make tone and such more clear (e.g., *word*, emoticons, ALL-CAPS, etc.), I've found that to help marginally, and in some cases inflame a tense dialog further when that was not the intent.)

This why I hate smilies..

[Channard]

People are perfectly capable of writing letters without using smilies and stupid acronyms. At least they used to be able, god knows that the text generation is up to. The problem isn't that there's anything wrong with email as a form of communiation is that people don't think or re-read their mails before hitting send. If you had to click 'send', and then re-read your mail and click 'send' again ten minutes later, there'd be far fewer misunderstandings and a great deal less internet drama.

Emoticons

[Killjoy_NL]

This is why I think people "invented" emoticons :)

Or am I mad at those people >:(

All these thoughts make me sad :(

and cry :`(

Who can be indifferent about these things :/

I would be ecstatic :D

Ah well, back to my nintendo (>',')>

Re:ummm

[robertjw]

Fortunately, nobody ever misunderstands spoken conversations.

all you need to do..

[joe 155]

... is keep e-mails short and to the point, avoid telling jokes, even the old classic "a horse goes into a bar, barman says "what's with the long face?"" because it might be misunderstood... or they might not like your joke (even though it's the best joke ever)

Re:inflection, emphasis, tone, etc. usually missin

[linvir]

Somewhat ironically, you should have been more specific. English phrases are ambiguous, not the language itself. When speaking, people make up for it with intonation, where other languages would make distinctions using word order and choice. It's the reason I tend to use a lot if italicised words in my typing.

Then what about HTML format emails?

[IUSR]

Just like you did, e.g. make the words that need emphasis bold , etc..

True, even in Slashdot posts

[abscissa]

True, natrually. Even Slashdot posts can contain language and diction which seems haughty and arrogant. It is like the poster is trying to "educate" the less informed. Some people even make alot of spelling mistakes and get flamed for it, and we typically assume that these people are poor-intentioned, even when they use ill expressions to correct the original poster.

Short of writing like Charles Dickens I don't anticipate a solution any time soon. (Webcam?)

I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has more urgency than the mouth. Many a regretful statement has passed through mine. And sarcastic and deadpan humor often goes misunderstood, even when my face is in the room. I want some objective evidence email is any worse than what came before. The email is so misunderstood seems like more favor-of-the-month journalism.

Same thing goes for posts

[Ponga]

Maybe email clients should have a 'Preview' button too, eh?

RL

[DimGeo]

It happens in RL, too, you know. Especially if you are talking with people of the opposite sex. In fact, it happens all the time.

Ignorance and Illiteracy

[Anonymous Coward]

What is email? It is simply text. It is little different than books, newspapers, magazines, letters etcetera. Yet these other media don't seem to have nearly as much trouble being understood. This is because the difficulty and cost in producing these media better restrict access to those that are better educated.

Better educated people are able to write and clearly convey a point or concept or emotion. They are also able to properly judge when it is suitable to use a one line message and when it is necessary to write three pages of text to accurately convey a point.

But, the masses that use email seem to lack this basic level of literacy. They generally lack discipline as well as writing ability. Sadly, the problem is only getting worse as instant messaging and SMS text messaging invade popular culture and further erode basic literacy.

I'm guilty of this...

[Zaphod2016]

Finally, the inability to develop personal rapport over e-mail makes relationships fragile in the face of conflict.

Awhile ago I was working on a project with a few freelancers. It worked out well, so we continued working together. Everything was roses until we ended up in a really ugly project and the "blame game" started. A day later, this wonderful "team" of ours was nothing but a ghost. The resulting flamewar would make even the most persistant /. troll blush.

Freelancer != Employee

Email/IM != Meeting

I'm not sure why, but it would seem as though people *need* to be forced together into horrible and painful meetings when the time comes to make "tough choices".

My mistake was in allowing my own anti-meeting bias to cloud my better judgement.

But sometimes emails are supposed to offend

[i am kman]

Actually, I've found most emails correctly carry the emotion of the sender - particularly if their very mad or frustrated.

The problem is people feel much freer to express extreme anger, curse, and belittle people over email than they ever would in real life.

Look at many of the posts to this website - while some people really are complete assholes, I'd bet a significant fraction of the posts here would NEVER be said in a face-to-face conversation (particularly if someone dares to actually compliment Windows). That's precisely because emails correctly convey emotion that most people won't express in real life.

Work rules

[evildogeye]

We have a rule at work. If you are going to say something nice, feel free to send an email. If you are going to send something critical or mean, pick up the phone or walk over to the persons desk.

Re:Then what about HTML format emails?

[koweja]

There are still way to many email clients in use that only accept plain text, so you can't necessarily guarentee that the recipient will see your markup.

Why misunderstanding is misunderstood

[Chemisor]

The problem is not with the lack of nonverbal cues, but with people who are easily offended. Such people simply assume that everyone hates them and everything else in the world. Obviously, such mindset leads to interpreting every sentence in the worst possible way, seeing insult in place of irony, personal attacks in passionate arguments, and hatred in the omission of flattery. The email world would be a far friendlier place if everyone assumed goodwill in correspondence instead, choosing to interpret every statement as if it came from a dearest friend, trustworthy and kind, if perhaps sometimes absent-minded. The best way to become friends with any man is simply to start treating him like one.

Education and Literacy

[skayell]

Having worked for some very high tech companies where the employees would hardly fit the classification of illiterate or ignorant, I don' think your comment is on the mark. In fact, I would say it is f&*#ing ignorant.

Books and Newspapers are written by people who are supposed to be good at communications, but often the articles are confusing, misleading, uninformed, biased or just plain wrong.

The truth is that people are doing the communicating and people are flawed. I believe emails can have all of the flaws of people, just amplified because they believe email to be an informal communication. Coupled with the reasons mentioned in RFA, emails are certainly misunderstood, but not necessarily more so than say a letter.

Re:Education and Literacy

[pwnawannab]

Books and Newspapers are written by people who are supposed to be good at communications, but often the articles are confusing, misleading, uninformed, biased or just plain wrong.

That's why Jay Leno's Monday shows are so funny.

Re:Ignorance and Illiteracy

[VWJedi]

"This is because the difficulty and cost in producing these media better restrict access to those that are better educated."

That is true (in most cases), but the "difficulty and cost" also result in additional editing and proofreading. Certainly in the case of a book, the text may be read by many people (author, author's friends, collegues, editors, etc.) before going to the publisher.

Unfortunately, those people do not always understand the author's meaning (e.g. technical writing), so you'll still find dumb mistakes in the manual or textbook you just spent $100 on.

Re:inflection, emphasis, tone, etc. usually missin

[tvon]

The problem isn't the langauge, the problem is the person doing the writing. You can't expect to write the same way you speak, it just doesn't work.

Re:Work rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it harder to be mean to someone's face, but if I have deal with someone while I'm angry, I don't want a written record of my anger in their hands. Far better that it be forgotten over time.

If I am writing an angry letter to a politician or business, I always have someone else proof it, or wait a day.

The 5 rules of e-mail

[DrLex]

After years of internet usage, I have distilled 5 rules for an e-mail to be understandable for the average person.

1. Never ask more than 1 question in an e-mail. People will only answer either the first or the last question. If it's really necessary to ask multiple questions, make the mail look like a questionnaire (i.e. put all questions together, bulleted with numbers, with no text in between).
2. If you ask a question, always put it at the very end of the mail, and don't forget the question mark.
3. Never try to tell people more than 1 important thing in an e-mail.
4. Never try to tell people an important thing and ask an important question in the same e-mail. They will most likely only read the important thing and forget about the question, even if you follow rule 2.
5. Keep your e-mails so short that it's actually impossible to tell anything useful, but if you try to explain it properly it will be too long anyway to fit in the average person's attention span, and people will even understand less than from the too short mail.

Only if you really know your correspondent well, you can deviate from these rules.

Re:Poor Vocabulary?

[maxume]

First, you mean that the resolution of the language is degraded, not degredated, which isn't yet a word, but has more google hits than makes me comfortable(346 vs. 19 million for degraded).

You usage of populous completely misses the meaning of the word, it refers to a large population in a given place, not a part of a given population. Perhaps you were being pompous and referring to your less than literate majority, I don't know.

Also, believe not beleive, subtler is more subtle than "more subtle".

Sometimes, it makes sense to convert a full color PNG to an 8 bit gif. It also makes sense to use language that you have full command of. Using words without understanding their nuances leads to communication that is no clearer than that with less words.

I don't really mean to be such a dick, but if you are going to spend time expounding on the superiority of your vocabulary, you should endeavour to make it actually appear superior.

As far as letters written with well ink are revised more than email? Probably not. The larger effort involved in the creation and sending of such a letter supports the idea that more thought would be spent on it though.

I also have trouble with the idea that the most cited letters are typical of the time, it seems that the most cited letters would be the ones that are in some way outstanding, which would likely make them more interesting. So they would either be written with exceptional skill or relate extraordinary events, etc.

Re:inflection, emphasis, tone, etc. usually missin

[MrNougat]

Consider the classic following example. Read each sentence out loud, with emphasis on the bolded word.

And yet you, using only text, have been able to use the same five words in the same order in five different ways, delivering five different subtle meanings.

This points to the fact that the problem is not with writing vs. speaking, but (as I have said many times before to many people) with the way a message is written.

Too many people think that an email (or any written message) is simply "whatever I would say written down verbatim." This could not be farter from the truth. The syntax of written language is dramatically different than that of spoken language. One syntax should not be used in the other medium.

Re:Work rules

[Who235]

Though that isn't a rule at my job, it is one of my own personal rules - but for different reasons.

I refuse to commit anything to writing that could come around and bite me in the ass later.

At least over the phone or in person, I can always rely on people's imperfect recollection of what I said to defend my nasty temper.

But an email - forget it. I might as well put it on a billboard then.

How is email different from Old School Letter?

[Szaman2]

I call bullshit on this!

Writing an email, is almost exactly the same as writing an informal letter. You know, one that you put into envelope and drop into the mailbox. How many slashdot readers still corespond with friends or familly on paper? And no, postcards, and wish cards don't count!

It seems to be a dying art nowdays, but for hundreds of years people used snail mail to communicate with eachother. And for the most part, we figured out how to deal with the ambiguity of the language. You simply articulate your thoughts. Instead of writing one short ambigous sentence, you can allways write 3, that will clearly state your position, intent and indicate your tone. This is what they should teach you in an english class. Why did you think they make you write all these essays, and position papers in your english classes. Written communication is as important as verbal communication, if not more.

English language is not ambigous! We do not need verbal clues, and tone of voice to convey meaning. Think about it - somehow novel writers, poets, journalists and bloggers have no problems communicating their messages using written word. And yet, the second they start composing an email, all their english skills somehow dissapear and they revert to using emoticons, boldface and italics.

No, the #1 reason why emails are misinterpreted is that people who send and read them have poor written communication and reading comprehension skills to begin with.

I use email every day. It is actually my prefered mode of communication. And even though English is my second language, my messages are very rarely misinterpreeted. In the rare cases someone misunderstands me, I actually go to a great length to re-phease what I said and set the record straight in a follow-up email.

Re:inflection, emphasis, tone, etc. usually missin

[geeber]

I've seen e-mail as a freebie for people who expound ad nauseum

Much like slashdot posts. (I kid, I kid :)

I believe the real problem with email can be summed up in two statements.

People don't read carefully.
People don't write carefully.

This is sometimes the cause of turgid e-mails.

[sirrobert]

Consider the following sets of sentences:

• I didn't steal the money; he did.
• I didn't steal the money.
• I didn't steal the money; I borrowed it.
• I didn't steal the money; I stole other money.
• I didn't steal the money; I stole the frog.

The parent post correctly points out that often there is not enough context to provide cues to allow the recipient to decode all the information the sender intended to convey.

There are something like four main channels we use to communicate when speaking with another in person:

1. Diction (This is the words we use.)
2. Intonation (This is a 'hyper-verbal' channel. We raise our tones at the end of a sentence to indicate interrogation, etc.)
3. Gesticulation (Use of 'body language' to provide cues as to how to interpret things spoken. Examples: Raising one eyebrow to indicate irony.)
4. Tempo (This is the rate at which we speak certain words or phrases.)

There are other more subtle channels, and some of these channels are the interplay of two channels (intent to be humorous, for example, can be indicated by offering conflicting information on different channels, or on the same channel at different times). The primary channel is Diction: verbal language is a model of rational thought. This is not the case for the media of the other channels; they are not models of rational thought, but are accompanying channels designed to offer logical content regarding the interpretation of the model.

Because the content of these channels is logical in nature, they can be rendered within the model -- that is, they can be rendered verbally. The information conveyed in these other channels is designed eliminate interpretational ambiguity. Thus, if one is skillful at this rendering, ambiguity can be largely eliminated in typewritten communication, at the minor cost of brevity. The less skill the sender posesses, the less the ambiguities are eliminated and the more major the cost to brevity. This is sometimes (but not always) the reason for the rambling nature of e-mails in any type of communication.

P.S. Note that in sentence two above, I did not offer supplimental verbal text to offer interpretation. That is because without context, it should be read in an even "tone," none of the words being emphasized. The other interpretations are the result of the assumption that the statement is in contrast to some other (often implicit) statement.