= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rain comments on Levels of communication - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
Yes, thank you, that's a useful distinction. Funny, how I hadn't thought of mixing the levels once they'd been neatly labeled and described. Something to watch out for.
Come to think of it, most political discussions are entangled with status issues as well.
On further reflection, I think the word "level" is misleading. It seems more of a focus, purpose, or goal of the speech, with varying percentages of each goal possible within a single encounter. This also makes me wonder what other topics might be added to the list.
I'm reminded of the purposes of writing: to entertain (social), to inform (fact), and to persuade (status/values), but I don't think these map very well, and the categories provided by Kaj may be more useful.
Trust building, flirting, group building (think people who just met agreeing or talking about something they all have in common), order giving, and catching up.
To start with.
Those all sound like they fit primairily into socialization, with varying doses of status thrown in.
Maybe a Venn diagram would work better than strict levels.
Voted up for suggesting a Venn diagram.