Assignment #1 option C - 1/31/06
For any number of parties to engage in conversation, their knowledge at that point must include some amount of common ground. Common ground is comprised of the knowledge and beliefs shared by a group of people. For two people to converse effectively, they must each i) have some piece of information and ii) be certain that the other person fulfills constraint i.
Common ground may be divided into two large subcategories – communal and personal. Communal common ground defines the knowledge shared among people with the same hobbies, profession, nationality, or any other classification that may be attributed to a community of people. Generally, these classifications relate to specific cultural groups. Once two parties identify one another as being a member of a certain cultural community, they are able to assume that they both share knowledge about that community and thus converse freely about that joint knowledge without worrying about a possible lack of understanding. If two people recognize one another as American citizens, for example, they can both safely assume that they each know what the American flag looks like.
Personal common ground links specific people together through shared personal experiences and events. If person A and person B are aware that a book is sitting on a nearby table, A can ask B to retrieve it for him or her. When two friends go to a concert together, the experience gets added to their common ground, allowing them to have a conversation about it in the future. The more common ground shared by two people, the more intimate their relationship.
Communication technologies such as the Facebook rely on common ground to connect groups of people. Facebook and similar services allow users to browse through members who share the same interests they do. Users can essentially become acquainted with a person without ever talking with him. The person being researched is not even aware that some other individual is learning such a great deal about him. Normally, this might be considered an invasion of privacy, but the Facebook invites and promotes such activity. In accordance with
posted by Evan @ 6:18 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't agree with your assertion that “Users can essentially become acquainted with a person without ever talking with him”. And in my opinion, it is not true that “two people no longer have to meet one another to discover whether or not they are compatible.” I feel that it’s always necessary to meet someone face to face to know for sure whether you are compatible with him/her, regardless of whether you have the same or different tastes.
True, a certain degree of acquaintance, or rather, knowledge, likely very limited, may be gained based on what one reads on another’s facebook profile. Bob might find that he has the same tastes in music, tv shows, and movies as Charlie’s, but that doesn’t make them any more compatible than, say, Daisy and Elisa, who barely share any of the same interests. Sure, common ground is established in Bob and Charlie’s case, they might have shared things they can talk about. But compatibility is much more than just interests and mutual knowledge of things. One has to take into account other factors, such as personality, to measure compatibility. And without meeting face to face, where the immediacy factor is salient and so many perceptual, auditory, physiological, and psychological cues can be given off, there’s no way to know whether two people will get along, like each other, become friends, or not. Thus, it’s not certain that “the first time” two people with the same interests talk, “it can appear as though they have known each other for years.”
Post a Comment
<< Home