I'm not sure it's a culture of science thing--at least not directly. It might be who self-selects into science, which in turn creates some degree of science culture (which might turn into a positive feedback loop). I suspect it's not so much a matter of being factual and direct, as preferring other people to be (thus the existance of rambly science professors; they might still appreciate your style). The sorts of people who self-select into science often like that kind of interaction, and prefer that others behave that way toward them. But there are a lot of people who feel really comfortable around my mother specifically because of her calm, direct, unemotional way of speaking and behaving, even when they themselves have vastly different styles. Also, animals and children seem to like it.
There are two problems with applying these receiving preferences to e-mails. The first is that e-mail lacks tone and body languge, making it harder to interpret. And the second is that e-mail is just simply not as personal as talking to someone face-to-face. And here is a case where even being on the phone is an improvement: it's very easy, when you recieve an e-mail, to not think about who it's from (beyond the ways in which that's specifically relevant to the e-mail), and so forget to apply what you know about the sender's personal habits and style to use as added context. With sufficient e-mail communication, you might remember their e-mail style, but... to a degree it's like receiving a communication from a stranger. That, combined with the lack of non-verbal cues, means that people will interpret e-mails as if they, themselves, had written them--much more than they'll do with oral communication (even a voice on the phone can act as a personality anchor to reminde someone of who it is they're talking with). So, if the e-mail is not written in the style that they would have used, they try to guess under what circumstances they would have written an e-mail phrased like that. Consequently, they might get the tone very, very wrong for reasons beyond simply not having as many cues to interpret it. So, my mother's style, which works very well in person even with a lot of humanities people, artists, and elementary school teachers, works very poorly in e-mail.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-07-15 06:49 pm (UTC)I'm not sure it's a culture of science thing--at least not directly. It might be who self-selects into science, which in turn creates some degree of science culture (which might turn into a positive feedback loop). I suspect it's not so much a matter of being factual and direct, as preferring other people to be (thus the existance of rambly science professors; they might still appreciate your style). The sorts of people who self-select into science often like that kind of interaction, and prefer that others behave that way toward them. But there are a lot of people who feel really comfortable around my mother specifically because of her calm, direct, unemotional way of speaking and behaving, even when they themselves have vastly different styles. Also, animals and children seem to like it.
There are two problems with applying these receiving preferences to e-mails. The first is that e-mail lacks tone and body languge, making it harder to interpret. And the second is that e-mail is just simply not as personal as talking to someone face-to-face. And here is a case where even being on the phone is an improvement: it's very easy, when you recieve an e-mail, to not think about who it's from (beyond the ways in which that's specifically relevant to the e-mail), and so forget to apply what you know about the sender's personal habits and style to use as added context. With sufficient e-mail communication, you might remember their e-mail style, but... to a degree it's like receiving a communication from a stranger. That, combined with the lack of non-verbal cues, means that people will interpret e-mails as if they, themselves, had written them--much more than they'll do with oral communication (even a voice on the phone can act as a personality anchor to reminde someone of who it is they're talking with). So, if the e-mail is not written in the style that they would have used, they try to guess under what circumstances they would have written an e-mail phrased like that. Consequently, they might get the tone very, very wrong for reasons beyond simply not having as many cues to interpret it. So, my mother's style, which works very well in person even with a lot of humanities people, artists, and elementary school teachers, works very poorly in e-mail.