Miscellaneous realisations

[kiya]

When I find myself feeling guilty over what, if I poke at it enough, appears to be linear time, I probably need my perspective tweaked a bit.

Some of my recent conversational stress appears to be rooted in my communication packets (especially when under stress) don't have enough mass to trigger other people's ping responses. The fact that when I am uncertain about receipt I use smaller and smaller packets does not help.

My computer troubles are going to send me over the edge into complete madness. As if I didn't have enough on my mind. Zootlewurdle, zootlewurdle, zootlewurdle.

I'm going to go make myself something warm to eat in the hopes that it means I don't melt down.

Comments

[thomasyan.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I am reminded of two things.

First, when in grad school the network had trouble, as evidenced by slow mouse response, my first instinct was to move the mouse around to see if it responded, thereby generating more network traffic, and therefore possibly exacerbating the condition. I sometimes worry that I do that in real life, too: If I don't hear back, one possible strategy to send in more pings to see if they generate acks. But if silence on the other end is because the other person needs time and space....

Second, sometimes when composing an e-mail, I have trouble articulating what I mean, so I back off and try to keep things simple. I omit nuances and try to stick to the basic message, and use short sentences. I now realize I don't know what effect this has on the tone of my messages. Does it make me sound angry? Intimidating? Since one way for me to get tongue tied is in emotional situations, coming across as angry when I am not is not optimal, so if that is what is happening....

[kiya]

A while back I established a protocol with some folks that I'd explicitly request acks to things at the beginnings of messages if I would get stressed by lack thereof and expected them to be complicated to respond to. That helps some.

It doesn't help with things that aren't already established as conversations, though.

Re point #2: I believe that approximately any communication protocol can be read incorrectly. Right at the moment, I also am feeling that they will be, especially at points at which it will cause the most chaos if they fail.

Tone is hard. And partially cultural.

[thomasyan.livejournal.com]

established a protocol with some folks that I'd explicitly request acks

Clever.

It doesn't help with things that aren't already established as conversations, though.

Like Usenet or LJ?

[kiya]

It was much better than stressing about the span of possible response. "Message received and read and the world didn't blow up" was a useful datapoint to get soonest.

... and yes, actually, like usenet/LJ in a way. More like LJ, though since this is my space and I can say what I damn well please here, the effects are moderated.

If I'm going to initiate a conversation about a specific subject, I do so almost circuitously; this is more the case when the subject is emotional or otherwise important, because ascertaining consent for having that sort of conversation is very important to me. So I mention the subject and see whether the responses show signs of interest in more detail; putting out all the detail at once is presuming consent. Ideally, there is a response of an equivalent level of data, and from there the participants can build up to an actual conversation about the issue.

If I am in doubt about receipt of the packet, I get even less information per sending, because more data feels more likely to transgress.

The 'why it's like LJ' is that I write all kinds of things here, and some of it gets responses and some doesn't. If conversations develop in response, it's in the 'I found this worth responding to' mode on the part of whoever. The other major difference is that stuff here is not directed and very little of it has significant freighting with meaning that needs response, which is not necessarily the case in a less broadcast-style medium.