Voice awareness for non-voice users

I think Accent in communication more is a conversation starter than any indication of HOW someone is.

For example if you hear someone with a Russian accent you might have questions about Moscow or St. Petersburg (two places with a rich history).

But I'm positive the types of people who live in Russia are the same as the types of people that live in Indonesia and the same as the types of people that live in the US.

Being human is universal.

QFT! I married a brit, who incidentally I met in a yahoo chat room. He has a totally cool accent, even my name sounds great when he says it. What I found out, though, is that a man is still a man no matter how pretty he talks. He has the same kind of "male" attitudes as the American men I dated in my lifetime. Not that I'm bashing men....heck, no, I just love those creatures. They're still mostly all alike, though. (yes, stereotypes exist for a reason)

You're lucky then hon. If he ONLY has the male attitudes of Americans you might have missed out on some of the regional things too. He's not from Yorkshire is he?

<ducks>

Seriously what IS the big flipping deal with an English accent for you Americans?

Ooooooooh, I really like that.

Perhaps this is where some of the commuciation gap occurs.
If I am writing Sci-Fi/ Fantasy, and you are writing pure auto-biography.....there is a lot of room for mutual disaitisfaction.

Orfeu : Sorry Brenda, my uploaded mind-state is a bit wobbly tonight, because the LL servers are heavily fragmented.

Brenda: The Yankees lost again tonight

Orfeu: Who are these Yankees of which you speak.

Brenda: WTF???/....... forgedaboutit.............Tp's away.

He lived in Yorkshire before i met him....well, close to Leeds, anyway. But was born in and mostly grew up in London. Should I be worried about that?...lol Oh, believe me, I think there are some attitudes that might be regional in him, but overall, they really are all mostly alike. He's a gem, true, but sometimes he's a bit of a tarnished gem.
Funny, he says the same thing about the English accent......lol.

The points of learning the "Real" person, by actually hearing them speak and that real world meetings can be disappointments are valid. IF you wish to carry your SL interactions beyond it's confine

I also think that the special cases of people with speaking/hearing impediments are a seperate issue. Implementing the Voice feature is an additional communication tool. Those people do still have the ability to text, so nothing is being taken away from them. And if anyone would be so rotten as to refuse to text with someone who professes to be so impaired, then they should be left talking to themselves anyway. But I'm sure there are asshat realists who would demand proof someone can't speak or hear, and I hope there are special places in SL Hell for them.

Other than the fact that The Yankees losing would elicit a smile, that's a good thought.

A lot of people for some reason need proof over something that will never affect them. That is a pretty insecure attitude I think.

In the deaf example--

Any proof that they would ever need wouldn't matter unless they were going to RL co-habitate, at which point the proof would be redundant.

Hi.

So, you're saying region has no bearing on someone's personality, or 'who they are' at all?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

I explain it further in the post after the one you quoted.

Damn, you quoted me before I could change that typo. *fizzle*

Naw it's the ones BORN in Yorkshire you have to worry about. ESPECIALLY ones from the Leeds area.

***note*** I was born and raised in Leeds before anyone thinks I am being nasty. I am having a gentle dig at the culture which spawned me, God help them).

Michael is basically rowing up doo-doo's creek without a paddle in this debate.

To say that one can get to know another better merely by listening to their voice than through text is so wrong on so many levels its almost not even worth entertaining.

Being female I truly believe that, for females in particular, more often than not the written word does in fact tell as much, if not more, about any given person. The reality is that neither of these forms of communication alone is better than the other when it comes to really getting to know someone.

Case in point...when it comes to listening to men talk one would be naive to believe that by simply listening to their voice alone one is truly getting to know that man. Often times who they say they are, or what they promise to be, could not be further from the truth. In fact, I would suggest that both voice or text, in and of themselves alone, are relatively poor indicators by which to asses "the real person."

A much better indicator than either voice or text, would body language. One can often get more by looking directly into another's eyes and reading their body language than by listening to the gibberish coming out of their mouths. So that even in the absence of the inherent human ability to read and asses body language, the ability to meet someone in person alone can fall short of the "truly getting to know someone" barometer. Having said that, there is no denying that the combination of all of the above means of communication do increase the likelihood of assessing the true person. But any one of them by themselves falls far short in that goal, and none is any greater than the other in that claim.

In any event, to say that one can get to know another more by listening to their voice over a computer and a set of headphones, than by text over the same medium, is simply naive to say the least. And that's putting it nicely.

Wait...I'M wrong?

I can't even fathom how what I'm saying is wrong. It's practically fact.

Telling me that someone can WRITE who they are...is ludicrous. Telling me that in written-word, you are JUST as able to tell who a person 'really is' is madness.

Madness.

EDIT: I think you are stuck on the word 'voice.' This debate isn't about that word...this is about what a voice can 'say' and how it's 'said.' The way someone says a word, a sentence, a story...the way a person uses emotionally charged words, the way their brain works when placing words and sentences together to form a story, the way they choose to use their native language, the tone in their voice, the speed of how they talk about certain things, and change the speed of how they talk about other things....

The feeling in a voice. The choices made. The inflections.

Written words can not give you this to the degree a voice can--I don't care if you are Walt Whitman.

My point is, Michael, that neither is reliable to that extent.

Or...

Both are equally as reliable.

Again, in your zeal to make your point you forget that the same argument can be applied to one who prefers to text. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some may feel that they can express themselves better through text than by using voice?

Voice over a computer network, in and of itself, absent body language to go along with that voice does not reveal much at all Michael. It simply reveals it in a different way than it is revealed through text. Now if it is your contention that this is the way YOU prefer to communicate, then I respect that. But to say that it is THE truth. That is wrong and short sighted.

Think outside the box and explore all sides of this issue and you will be surprised how enlightened you may become on this matter.

Voice or Text, don't matter. It's more about how they act in general.

A touch general...and safe. OK.

But that isn't the point of this discussion. Which is cool. Add one to your post-count.

lol.

I'm totally teasing you.

Well, the concept of love was brought into the conversation.

Someone can be completely full of shit and use voice. Someone could be the most wonderful person you've ever met and only ever text.

Actions "speak" louder than words every time.

Where the Hell is my Stipend?

Aww c'mon Michael, if there's a debate, at least give us a level table. You're comparing typeset to phonetics. Not fair!!! Now if you said Literal expression v. Verbal expression there are many ways to say 'I love you'. I suggested some in my earlier post. And Infinitely? Maybe many ways, some acceptable, some unacceptable, some downright comical. I'm not saying you are wrong with your intonation, speed etc but text doesn't deserve the hammering you're giving it.
The handwritten letter has been enough to keep excellent long term friendships alive in the past. Yes, the TrueType font has stripped a little of the personality out but the emotion, the sincerity can still be there. Can, because yes, lies have been written as well as told. There are people who can beat the Polygraph. There's room for both voice and text. I could go with your earlier mention of a stalemate

lol...ah man. You guys keep missing the point, or straying totally off cue...

It's not how someone feels they themselves prefer to express who they are...it's about what they offer to others. Preference is irrelevant. It's about the receiver, not the transmitter...the transmitter just 'does', and the receiver has to perceive and translate.

Does that make sense?

How can you say voice (over internet/phone) doesn't reveal much at all? I just...can't explain it to you then if you're not on that boat. Let's move this along...

I just think that you need to think outside the box (as you said to me)...I've played the Superman trick on you...you're the one in the box still...lol. I'm joking. What I mean is...you're the one thinking linearly...and missing the point.

If you can't see how someones voice, their words, and their inflection tells many stories...if you don't believe that...than why am I the one in the box?

See...ha! That's the thing...it's clear as day what this debate is to me. It's the confusion of you all that makes it humorous.

Break down the debate...that IS what everyone is saying...that the written word is on a level playing field with vocal expression in terms of 'knowing the real person.'

Just because my debate holds water and has an obvious advantage, doesn't mean you call it 'unfair.'

You don't hear lawyers standing up in court saying, 'unfair' just because the other lawyer has a stronger case...

Let's face it...my example 'I love you' makes perfect sense, and is a completely valid example of the difference in expression between the written word and the spoken.

And your example...literary expression is another story yes...but if you think that story was deep...let's hear it read aloud by the person who wrote it...that would much more telling of the character/author/story...

Donald Sutherland And Clint Eastwood stole all the Linden Gold in that little French town.

Michael, Its not a matter of a stronger case...previously you said that only through voice could you see someones soul. You go on (granted, my perception) to say that you just cannot really learn about someone without voice and that only through voice can you learn about them based on stereotypes. In a lot of peoples opinion, that is just plain out false. There are degrees, there are things you may learn faster or better from voice over text, but to say you cannot learn of someone and who they a really are without voice is too cut and dry. Its not all or nothing, there are variations, at least to most.

I think its your insistance that you are right while telling other people they shouldnt insist they are right that is frustrating (at least that is how it is coming out, intent or not). It is possible for you to be wrong, even if you dont think so.