Skip to main content

Say it with a smile?

Social media is full of pitfalls, where understanding is concerned.  Face to face encounters with others involves a great deal of facial expression, hand gestures, body language. In short, emotion matters.   Our body language tells much more than the words we utter.

Of course, we can use emojis in our messages -  or we can add kisses, xx, after our abrupt response, softening the impact of, say, a disagreement.   There are a hundred and one ways of saying 'sorry', but how do you say it 'as if you mean it'?



See what I mean :) ?   I wasn't rude :) Do take care :)

Beware of negative emojis?  Negative emojis are more likely to be poorly processed.

A new study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behaviour,  now shows that men and women process emojis differently.  On the whole, it seems that women rate negative emojis to be more negative than do men  :(.  While positive emojis :) are about equally interpreted.

Some of us haven't got much further than using the old standard smiley face ":)".  But now people respond with hundreds of different kinds of emoji in an attempted substitute for body language.

We often see gifs being used for laughter in place of the old LOL.   Does that still mean laugh out loud?

Many emojis are used as pacifiers.  LOL is often used at the end of almost all phrases.  Know what I mean lol?  Or more expressively a heart.  They don't really mean to love you.  They are appealing to you? or are they? What are they doing?










Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As