One of the great points that stayed with me after our last Symposium was a Japanese concept of “Read the Air,” introduced by Yukiko. Emphasizing different non-verbal components of communication, it obliges us to be conscious of our and our interlocutors’ body language and mood, as well as our surroundings. Apparently, this subject has been of some interest to the scientists. It turns out that reading the air is not only something that we do, consciously or not, but also something that affects our physical sensations. There was an interesting NYT article “A Cold Stare Can Make You Crave Some Heat” by Benedict Carey about a scientific analysis of the effect of social rejection or the ‘cold stare’ on people. It was found that when feeling disregarded or dismissed (verbally or not) in a social situation, people perceive a decrease in the outside temperature. Next time you get that coffee or hot chocolate, think whether it’s really a caffeine craving.
About
CAC.OPHONY is a weblog on communication-intensive instruction at the college level and its implications for students about to face the challenges of writing and speaking publicly in professional settings. CAC.OPHONY is written and edited by the Fellows of the Bernard L. Schwartz Communication Institute, Baruch College, City University of New York.
Baruch College is the 2008 recipient of TIAA-CREF Theodore M. Hesburgh Award in recognition of the Schwartz Institute's outstanding faculty development programs.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
In a world increasingly marked by a decline in the number of communications channels in use (e.g., what does body language mean in an e-mail communication?) it could well be that the quality of communication will fall. Indeed, my hypothesis, reflecting anecdotal evidence from scanning e-mails at my institution, is that this is happening.And on top of this, there is no air to read that might allow us to counteract this decline in quality.As the quality of communications falls so does the quality of our decisions.Perhaps I’m an old fuddy-duddy, but the new rules of communication enabled by the technology seem, from time-to-time, to have deleterious effect on quality of communications. Quantity is going up; quality is going down. I don’t, by the way, mean to tar all technology-enabled communications with this brush. Reading the air is a wonderful metaphor and explains why I prefer teaching in the classroom.But what do we do about this? Is there nuance in the new forms of communication that is the equivalent of Yukiko’s air? If we find it, can we teach it? And if we teach it, will it stick?
Reply to James Drogan