Trusting Written Versus Verbal Communication
If you currently are or once was a student, I want you to think of a time when you had to provide knowledge on a specific subject. (Don't worry, I'll give you a moment.)
Did you have to write or type the information, or did you have to verbally say it to the professor or class? Throughout my experiences as a student, I had to transcribe my thoughts and ideas on a piece of paper or a computer screen. It was rare that I had to verbally tell my professor the answers to a quiz.
If the experience of typically formulating answers through written response resonates with you, why do you believe this way of providing knowledge is commonly used?
In Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves To Death," Chapter 2 delves into the power between written and verbal forms of public discourse. As I read this chapter, I couldn't help but formulate questions regarding people believing written or verbal forms of discourse.
What if one is a good speaker or a poor speaker? What if one has good or bad writing skills? How do you distinguish the truth from false information?
Perhaps one is providing the truth orally, but the person trips over their words while speaking. Do you believe that person, or do you assume they are lying because they appear to be nervous? I also thought about written information. What if one is an expert in writing and is able to manipulate others into believing something that is false, or a writer with poor writing skills is trying to convey the truth? I find these questions interesting because both forms of communication can provide the truth. Even though written and verbal communication can provide the truth, I can see how one form of communication can appear more trustworthy as compared to the other.
"The written word endures, the spoken word disappears; and that is why writing is closer to the truth than speaking" (Postman, 21).
As students, we are allotted time to prepare research essays. We are also given time to prepare speeches in which we may need to state verbal citations. When one reads a research essay, people may believe the facts provided are true because of the essay's references. If one presents a speech, the presenter may forget to state a reference or incorrectly provide the citation. Listeners may not believe the speaker as much as they would believe an essay on the same topic by the same person.
When Postman discusses Socrates' example in Chapter 2, he states the following: "To disdain rhetorical rules, to speak one's thoughts in a random manner, without proper emphasis or appropriate passion, was considered demeaning to the audience's intelligence and suggestive of falsehood" (Postman, 22). As one writes information, the writer does not state they are unsure of the topic or that they are nervous. When people communicate verbally people may state they are unsure if they are correct about a topic right before their discussion. Perhaps this is a factor for why some people view verbal discussion as less trustworthy as compared to written forms of discussion. From taking these ideas into consideration, do you believe the way people trust written versus verbal communication have an influence on how you partake in public discourse?
Perhaps, additionally, the untrustworthiness of verbal language also stems from verbal language's linguistic differences. We structure our sentences differently down to word order and specificity when speaking, having clumsily thrown something together to keep up with racing thoughts, but the written word allows a--pause---to recall a good synonym, place *that* word over *here*, and the likes. The phrase, "I can't remember who said this, but..." is heard all-too-often, and makes the written word lose its credibility because without a source, as you said, we have nothing by which to judge the quality of information.
ReplyDeleteI personally love the spoken word, but ONLY under premeditated circumstances. I used to shine in speech and debate activities, speaking with confidence, because I knew my sources were legitimate, I knew how to state my credibility, and I knew how to phrase things objectively and with many-a-grammatical-flourish like a well-oiled, copper machine.
But, with my social anxiety (ironically, abbreviated SAD), I can blurt out little things that I'll regret for days (or more) as I think, "I could have said that better," or, "my tone seemed very curt and could have been offensive"; I could have thought of a better comeback... (Can't we all, given about a week and a long, hot shower?)
Therefore, when I don't know someone well, I usually refrain from saying much at all until I soak in their *vibes* and know what kind of tone, language, and structure is optimal for their ears to eat up. And I avoid spoken arguments whenever I can to keep my emotions from speaking louder than my consideration for what's the best for both parties, and my desire not to hurt the other's feelings is too great. To sum it up, unless it's cold, hard facts I'm spitting, I shy away from spoken discourse because no one trusts it nearly as much as the written, more-thought-out word.
It's true that modern discourse must be written to have any sort of validity or weight (even dissertations require being written out beforehand), but that should not be the case. Truth should not have to depend on the medium it is presented with; it should be the truth regardless of how it appears. I would imagine that that is part of the reason transcripts of trials are created, now that I think of it. A witness or lawyer can speak as they wish, but once it's written down it can be used again later for or against either side depending on the content.
ReplyDeleteI feel written word will always have more power than spoken word simply because of society. We find people untrustworthy, so we are more hesitant to believe when they are speaking rather than writing. There is this idea that "oh, if something is published in a book then it must be true because smart people write books" or "books have to go through so many stages to be published"; on the other hand when someone goes and gives a speech on something thoughts may be "they don't know what they are talking about, they seem nervous" or "where did they get this information?" Society pushes the narrative that written words are automatically true and just, while spoken word can easily be manipulated.
ReplyDelete