Is it because it's the first time scientists have looked into this?
Sounds like. 'Cuz nothing is true until Science says so....
Well, lady, I must say-- You're my kinda stupid.
Mal ,'Heart Of Gold'
Natter 45: Smooth as Billy Dee Williams.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
tommyrot - Jul 21, 2006 5:01:40 am PDT #7891 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
JenP - Jul 21, 2006 5:02:37 am PDT #7892 of 10002
It's our tone discussion... now with science!
Cashmere - Jul 21, 2006 5:04:00 am PDT #7893 of 10002
Now tagless for your comfort.
Is it because it's the first time scientists have looked into this?
Maybe somebody was just looking for a way to spend some grant money.
Frankenbuddha - Jul 21, 2006 5:05:26 am PDT #7894 of 10002
"We are the Goon Squad and we're coming to town...Beep! Beep!" - David Bowie, "Fashion"
She deafened me with science!
(heh, type "silence" first)
§ ita § - Jul 21, 2006 5:15:43 am PDT #7895 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Where's Rick? He needs to step in with "I've read the whole paper and what the article fails to convey is..."
I do wish that there were fewer articles like that, ones that seem to trumpet the obvious as a scientific discovery, because it does contribute to scientists seeming more isolated from real life and less useful.
Vortex - Jul 21, 2006 5:21:35 am PDT #7896 of 10002
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
Can someone talk me through why this is news? Is it because it's the first time scientists have looked into this?
because now there's data.
Jesse - Jul 21, 2006 5:23:33 am PDT #7897 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
It is true that sometimes the obvious, conventional wisdom, type things turn out not to be true, so it's not like the data is meaningless because "everyone knows that!"
meara - Jul 21, 2006 5:26:28 am PDT #7898 of 10002
Because sometimes the "everybody knows that!" things turn out to be wrong? (edit: or, what Jesse said)
The two faced cat and the lipsticked fish are both super creepy. Eeek.
I have so far today done an hour long conference call, several emails, and a half-hour long call with someone else for work. I think I'm ready for bed. :)
Sophia Brooks - Jul 21, 2006 5:26:30 am PDT #7899 of 10002
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
§ ita § - Jul 21, 2006 5:26:59 am PDT #7900 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
But I don't think tone is conventional wisdom. I do think it's obvious. Which is why I wonder if the paper's about something more subtle than that.
Isn't there a disorder, for instance, where the hearer can't interpret tone? I have a vague Oliver Sacks memory. That would seem to imply its existence right there.
I'd rather believe I don't get the article than believe that tone has just been discovered, in 2006, way after text-based communication has been shown to lack a certain something that aural interpretation affords.