I'm just curious how many people change their writing to accommodate the needs and demands of their fellow posters?
Well I imagine that we all do that to some degree or other; It's just part of knowing your audience, isn't it? Do you mean in any particular sense? Like maybe using more explicatives and trying to talk more about what Mary Jane Watson was wearing the other day so that you can fit in with all the cool kids?
Because all the people are smarter than me on sciforums I tend to use more difficult words than normal so that they are hugely impressed with my intellectual capabilities. It's working like an elephant on a chinese toilet.
"Change their writing"? Is there something like a "writing that one has regardless of the communication situation*"? (*situation: topic, participants, context) Is there something like "absolute communicaton"? I guess it can be, but only in a very limited specific field; like when two mathematicians (with the same degree etc.) discuss a certain mathematical problem. On SF, there are people of so many different profiles, ages, nationalities, cultures -- without adapting oneself to some degree to the other person, communication is not possible. Or what exactly did you have in mind by "accommodate the needs and demands of their fellow posters"? Were you thinking of things like seeking approval, sucking up, moralizing and relativizing at the same time, deliberately going off topic (to avoid self-exposure)? Do exapnd! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In all honesty, I'm just being bitchy. Of course we tailor ourselves to suit the situation, but I've actually found myself omitting portions of my intended posts in anticipation of stupid responses. In other words, do you sell out to extortion?
Tess: Used to. No more. But instead of selling out and derobing my language I'd exaggerate it in aiming for frienship and prestige. Look at this piece of shit thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=18514 Blegh. For some posters I've noticed analogies always work. As in my use of skittles to explain race to people around here, so I've been using them more. Some also like to play dumb with their language, like so: His act gets annoying at times, but its see-through.
I don't think my style ever really changes, but I do adjust the level at which I pitch posts according to the types of responses I get, particularly if I'm trying to explain something to somebody. That's part of being a good teacher. If you talk above somebody, they won't get much from the conversation, and if you talk below them then they will just get bored and not want to continue the conversation. I definitely adjust the length and thoroughness of my responses in response to the kinds of replies I get, too. If somebody can't be bothered to think and write a decent reply, but instead has a knee-jerk response or a one-liner, why would I continue to waste my time on them?
I agree. But ... what happens when that means leaving out essential parts of the ideas being discussed? Do you just ignore the person and move on to the next part? It's just that there's a certain level where it's not people's needs but their wish-list you start responding to, and that's where things get sticky. Is that rhetorical, or ...?
