Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

Getting e-mail right

We all know that personal relationships are important, and that no matter the quality of our ideas and our work, good relationships help us meet whatever goals we have. However, relationships that rely on email may face a difficult battle. Consider this study by Janice Nadler, Ph.D., a psychologist and law professor at Northwestern University. She paired law students from Northwestern and Duke and asked each pair to agree on the purchase of a car. The teams were to bargain entirely through e-mail, but half of them were secretly told to precede the negotiation with a brief getting-toknow chat on the good old telephone.

The results were dramatic. Negotiators who first chatted by phone were more than four times likelier to reach an agreement than those who used only e-mail. Those who never spoke were not only more likely to hit an impasse; they also often felt resentful and angry about the negotiation. Of course, all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, but faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. Avoiding simple greetings, for example, can come across as rude, especially if communicators don’t know each other. A hurried email can give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And because first impression set the tone for subsequent interactions, the exchange can go downhill quickly from there.

The missing element in electronic communications is rapport, says Dr. Nadler. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice are all cues missing in e-mail (and smileyface emoticons can’t do much to replace them). But because messages travel instantly, people act as if they are in face-to-face conversation. This illusion of proximity tricks us into thinking we can communicate about difficult subjects, such as disagreements or criticism, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Even if we have the best of intentions, the lack of continuous feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on happily composing messages that will make the recipient angry.

The less we know someone, the more likely we are to engage in what psychologists know as transference — the tendency to project our desires and fears onto another person. Without social cues, such tendencies can get out of control, causing us to interpret messages in ways that are overly self-affirming and potentially extremely inaccurate.

By Hara Estroff Marano. In: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/ (with slight adaptations)

A Interferência do tempo

Há quem diga que o tempo não existe, que somos nós que o inventamos e tentamos controlá-lo com nossos relógios e calendários. Nem ousarei discutir esta questão filosófica, existencial e cabeluda. Se o tempo não existe, eu existo. Se o tempo não passa, eu passo. E não é só o espelho que me dá certeza disso.

O tempo interfere no meu olhar. Lembro do colégio em que estudei durante mais de uma década, meu primeiro contato com o mundo fora da minha casa. O pátio não era grande — era colossal. Uma espécie de superfície lunar sem horizontes à vista, assim eu o percebia aos sete anos de idade. As escadas levavam ao céu, eu poderia jurar que elas atravessavam os telhados. Os corredores eram passarelas infinitas, as janelas pareciam enormes portões de vidro, eu me sentia na terra dos gigantes. Volto, depois de muitos anos, para visitá-lo e descubro que ele continua sendo um colégio grande, mas nem o pátio, nem os corredores, nem as escadas, nada tem o tamanho que parecia antes. O tempo ajustou minhas retinas e deu proporção às minhas ilusões.

A interferência do tempo atinge minhas emoções também. Houve uma época em que eu temia certo tipo de gente, aqueles que estavam sempre a postos para apontar minhas fraquezas. Hoje revejo essas pessoas e a sensação que me causam é nem um pouco desafiadora ou impactante. E mesmo os que amei já não me provocam perturbação alguma, apenas um carinho sereno. E me pergunto como é que se explica que sentimentos tão fortes como o medo, o amor ou a raiva se desintegrem? Alguém era grande no meu passado, fica pequeno no meu presente. O tempo, de novo, dando a devida proporção aos meus afetos e desafetos.

Talvez seja esta a prova da sua existência: o tempo altera o tamanho das coisas. Uma rua da infância, que exigia muitas pedaladas para ser percorrida, hoje é atravessada em poucos passos. Uma árvore que para ser explorada exigia uma certa logística — ou ao menos um “calço” de quem estivesse por perto e com as mãos livres — hoje teria seus galhos alcançados num pulo. A gente vai crescendo e vê tudo do tamanho que é, sem a condescendência da fantasia.

E ainda nem mencionei as coisas que realmente foram reduzidas: apartamentos que parecem caixotes, carros compactos, conversas telegráficas, livros de bolso, pequenas salas de cinema, casamentos curtos. Todo aquele espaço da infância, em que cabia com folga nossa imaginação e inocência, precisa hoje se adaptar ao micro, ao mínimo, a uma vida funcional.

Eu cresci. Por dentro e por fora (e, reconheço, pros lados). Sou gente grande, como se diz por aí. E o mundo à minha volta, à nossa volta, virou aldeia, somos todos vizinhos, todos vivendo apertados, financeira e emocionalmente falando. Saudade de uma alegria descomunal, de uma esperança gigantesca, de uma confiança do tamanho do futuro — quando o futuro também era infinito à minha frente.

MEDEIROS, Martha. Revista O Globo. 17 out. 2004. n. 12. p.9.