268 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^

They enhance understanding, yes. But if they are given unsolicited, they not only convey information that was unintended, but they also implant motives, thoughts, desires and outlooks that may or may not coincide with the desired information wishing to be conveyed.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
They enhance understanding, yes. But if they are given unsolicited, they not only convey information that was unintended, but they also implant motives, thoughts, desires and outlooks that may or may not coincide with the desired information wishing to be conveyed.

It's no different than the role sentences play in a paragraph. The idea that text isn't ambiguous is silly. Contract disputes, for example, often turn entirely on provisions which can bear multiple meanings. Or libel lawsuits. 

Body language isn't any different. 

[humes spork]

I wouldn't mind also being able to play a slightly sociopathic character who may even enjoy and revel in the horrific and morbid. "Desensitized" works both ways.

I'm not suggesting complete psychopathic death fetishist, like a romanced Aerie in Throne of Bhaal, but a "little" unhinged would be good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I actually would disagree with this, Allan, at least the first sentence. I believe the things around words, like body language and voice and tone, do not increase ambiguity but rather add clarity.

My example: A female says, "I...like him."

What does this mean? it could mean a number of things.

1. "I...[looks away, smiles slightly, eyes close slightly, return to the viewer]...like him."

2. "I...[looks away and upward "thoughtfully," by which I mean with furrowed brows that go down over the (length of the) whole eye, eye half-closes, perhaps rubs chin]...like him."

3. "I...[setting of jaw, eyes get "angry" look--brows go downward on the inside but not on the outside, eyes open wider, mouth is pressed together in a firm line]..like him."

These all say drastically different things that I could never pick up in a line of text but would absolutely pick up if I saw the speaker. And this doesn't even take into account differences in voice, tone, inflection, etc. All of these things serve to make conversation much, much more than just a simple exchange and enhance understanding, not inhibit.

Of course you can find examples of the text not being informative in situations where the speaker clearly intented to convey some of the information using non-text components.  Text obviously doesn't contain all of the information intended by the speaker when the speaker was intentionally combining text with other tools.

My point here is that by doing that, the speaker is actually hiding information.  If that information were expressed through text instead of being expressed through tone or body language, more unambiguous information would be provided.

In Exile wrote...

The idea that text isn't ambiguous is silly.

Is anyone even claiming that text isn't ambiguous?

[nightscrawl]

In Exile wrote...

It's no different than the role sentences play in a paragraph. The idea that text isn't ambiguous is silly. Contract disputes, for example, often turn entirely on provisions which can bear multiple meanings. Or libel lawsuits. 

Body language isn't any different.

It depends on the body language and sometimes on the culture. There are different mannerisms in various human cultures that mean different things.

However, I would argue that for the most part, unless you have some brain disorder (I mean this seriously), that facial expressions can be pretty clear. is different from , which is different from . These are extreme examples, yes, but they get my point across.

Language is complicated, and true communication should not be underestimated. It is composed of many parts: word selection, word emphasis, context (prior knowledge), facial expressions and gestures, and understanding by all parties involved. Given the misunderstandings that happen on forums over the ambiguity of the written word, especially when it comes to conveying things like sarcasm or irony, forcing us to use silly emoticons to make sure our meaning is taken, I don't think that "words become less ambiguous when they are written," even as the placement of a comma can change the meaning of a sentence.

In fact, one reason I prefer the male Hawke over female Hawke is because of the emphasis he places on certain words, most of the time these just sound better to my ear and replicate how I actually might have said something, whereas the version spoken by female Hawke does not. An example being Aveline's quest in Act 1: mHawke, "Alright Aveline, you have something worth doing?" versus fHawke, "Alright Aveline, you have something worth doing?" In general, I felt that mHawke puts more emotion into his speech and sounds like a real person, whereas fHawke sometimes comes across as bored. This isn't really an indictment on the voice acting, so much as an example of how one person can say the exact same words as another person and convey a different tone.


This thread has really moved away from the whole desensitized thing. o_O

Modifié par nightscrawl, 04 février 2013 - 01:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan stated that words lose much of their ambiguity when written, and even further when typed. He stated that an unbiased reader results in a completely unambiguous text.

No, he said that unambiguous text was impossible without an unbiased reader.

That only leads to the conclusion you reached if you assume an excluded middle.

[Mr Fixit]

I'd say there's plenty of evidence all around us that a) body language exists, and it's very effective and precise in conveying information - just look at animals. What do you think all those birds do with their dancing and silly posturing? What is a tail tucked between legs?

Don't know about Sylvius, but I can read a person with great accuracy observing his mannerisms and behavior, while it takes me vastly more time to form an opinion based on spoken or written words alone, and that's only natural.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, he said that unambiguous text was impossible without an unbiased reader.

That only leads to the conclusion you reached if you assume an excluded middle.

I'm not sure what you mean. What middle do you speak of?

Just because something is possibly true doesn't make that thing necessarily true.

Making unambiguity possible - what Allan described - is not equivalent to ensuring unambiguity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Don't know about Sylvius, but I can read a person with great accuracy observing his mannerisms and behavior, while it takes me vastly more time to form an opinion based on spoken or written words alone, and that's only natural.

Since I cannot read minds, I am not able to determine the accuracy with which I can read other people's mannerisms.  But I can tell how well they're reading mine (if I can assume they're being honest about their assessments), and they're terrible at it.

My tone and body language are routinely misinterpreted.  Therefore, it cannot be the case that my tone or body language is informative.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Don't know about Sylvius, but I can read a person with great accuracy observing his mannerisms and behavior, while it takes me vastly more time to form an opinion based on spoken or written words alone, and that's only natural.

My tone and body language are routinely misinterpreted.  Therefore, it cannot be the case that my tone or body language is informative.

Exactly. You said it yourself. Your tone or body language isn't informative. Which doesn't mean that other people's tone or body language isn't informative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You determine it by asking questions that involve what you believe you've seen. To continue my examples:

These are in response to the universal "I...like him."

1. "Oh?" Smile back, raise eyebrows. "You do, huh?"

2. "Ah. Don't really know him that well?"

3. "What happened? Why don't you care for him?"

All of these things are direct responses not to their words, but to their unintentional body language.

By what mechanism do you perform the reading in the first place?  That's what I'm asking.

I'm not asking how you resolve ambiguity, because that would require some starting point beyond complete uncertainty.

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Don't know about Sylvius, but I can read a person with great accuracy observing his mannerisms and behavior, while it takes me vastly more time to form an opinion based on spoken or written words alone, and that's only natural.

My tone and body language are routinely misinterpreted.  Therefore, it cannot be the case that my tone or body language is informative.

Exactly. You said it yourself. Your tone or body language isn't informative. Which doesn't mean that other people's tone or body language isn't informative.

But for you to assign meaning to people's body language, you need everyone's body language to be informative.  Otherwise you're just guessing.

What would you do when dealing with me, where my body language isn't informative?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius doesn't buy in to the following concepts, and this list is not comprehensive:

* Society (and by extension the field of Sociology and any conclusions it has reached)
* Empathy
* Communication
* Psychology

Furthermore, his issues with empiricism are not absolute, but lacking any useful experience in the concepts above, combined with his unwillingness to accept testimony - from lay persons or authorities - that does not fit in to his idiosyncratic patterns of logic, make discussing such concepts with him amusing but pointless.

Essentially, he demands standards of precision and consistency that not only don't exist, but aren't necessary for the vast majority of people.  In his unwillingness to accept that there is still reliable value within ambiguity, he basically spends a lot of time wrapping his brain around the fact he doesn't really understand the human condition.  Only the Sylvius Condition, and everyone else is wrong.  Because we'll never "speak" the same "language" when it comes to these concepts, and he denies the validity of the very tools we could use to explain ourselves to him, the impasse is likely permanent.

Long ago I got into discussions with Sylvius. They were enlightening.

Enlightening in the sense that his brain works way differently for whatever reason (and this is probably why his body language may be different too), and that there is a massive gulf between us in reasoning.

Hence I don't try to discuss things with him anymore.
It is utterly pointless.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 05 février 2013 - 11:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Observation is the means by which you build the mechanism. Now that you've built it, what is it? How does it work?

But, as this conversation now has nothing at all to do with game design - even tangentially - I'll leave it at that.