EMC136 Words, Words, Words!! 3/4 
To:   Emergency Communications Units - Information Bulletin
To:   Emergency Management Agencies via Internet and Radio
By:   Auxiliary Communications Service (ACS) of the
      California Governor's Office of Emergency Services  

EMC136 Words, Words, Words!! 3/4    For release 6/15/98

(Topic continues:)
Why do we sometimes feel so angry when we hear or read words
with which we violently disagree? Is it because deep down in our
psyche we feel somehow threatened because somehow what we
read or heard "violates" a concept embodied in our belief 
structure? Maybe even without our realizing it?

If so, then what can we do about it? That depends on each of us
and how willing we are to work with the situation. It's your,
and my, choice for each of us. We can choose to ignore it, to
observe and learn, and to improve; or any combination.

What does all this have to do with emergency communications?
Hopefully, it helps us realize the impact of the words that we
use and how we may _not_ really communicate ideas and concepts,
let alone facts. Or, conversely, that we may NOT have really  
understood what the other person said or did, even though we
think so.

In some instances when we orally convey a message - especially
during stress and emergencies - we are far less assured of its
reception and retention than if it is in written form. That has
been proven often: "Put it in writing if it's important" is the
motto of many a business and government. 

However, what about E-mail? It is pretty hard to interact
effectively since both tone and sight (body language) are missing
and we have lost ALL of the clues from those sources.

With E-mail we have to be careful. Because it is digitally
"written" we tend to think it will be as well grasped as a
written (i.e., printed on paper) version. Truth, though, is that
an E-mail message is not always as effective as a printed
message.

E-mail is superb for quick comments, short messages and reports
and quick summaries. When it comes to longer messages, more than
one computer screen, the result can be devastatingly different
depending on the nature of the message and the persons involved.

Some people - on receiving an E-mail message with three items of
content - can only respond to one of them; and the only way
to work around that is to send them three separate E-mail. It
is as if their mind can assimilate only one topic at a time.
Of course, the same thing applies to articles in print, but less
so. At least in print, it's possible to use visual images or
"attractors" (drop caps, underline, etc) to capture attention
or to get a response on each item in the paper presentation. 

Why does a long E-mail NOT equate the impact of the same
message in print? Perhaps it is because it avoids:
 a.  time to analyze and reflect on the _entire printout_
 b.  less assumptions
 c.  incomplete and partial responses
 d.  visual interrelationships of the content, because 
     scrolling back and forth to see different paragraphs, and
     what they contain and how they relate, can be frustrating
     and inexact, thereby leading to errors in understanding.

Continues next week.
                                  ---
ACS Web page: http://acs.oes.ca.gov       FTP archive:
ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming for new
bulletins and ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/races for earlier ones.
Landline BBS: 916-262-0856 (graphical & standard interface).
State Chief ACS Officer Cary Mangum: Cary_Mangum@oes.ca.gov
EOM EMC136