In networking, there is this idea called collision avoidance. In data networks, information is sometimes transmitted over a medium that is shared by multiple computers. In these circumstances, it is possible that two computers will start transmitting data almost simultaneously, corrupting both data sets. Even if both check to make sure no one else is transmitting, one might start transmitting after the other one, but before it detects the signal. While this is not very common on physical wires since the advent of Ethernet, where hubs, switches, and routers direct the traffic on shared cables, this is still a major concern with wireless networks. While collision detection helps computers know when corrupted data needs to be retransmitted, the ideal solution is collision avoidance, which prevents collisions altogether. Collision avoidance involves communication between computers before sending data, to prevent collisions that would waste network bandwidth.
Collision avoidance is also important outside of the field of networking, and most people use it daily. Maybe you are walking down the hall at work, and you move slightly to the right to avoid walking into another person. At dinner, two people might try to pass condiments to the same person, and one will have to stop and wait for the other. Often this is a perfectly smooth exchange where no communication is necessary. One person gives right-of-way to the other, or both people take measures to avoid collision. Other times, two people might both move in the same direction, maintaining their course of collision with reference to each other, and then some kind of communication must occur (usually a glance and some laughter). It is subtle, but the information communicated in the glance will usually make it clear who is going to do what to avoid the impending collision.
Perhaps one of the most common daily uses of collision avoidance occurs while driving cars. In general, if we follow all traffic laws, we will avoid collisions, but there are some cases where this is not true. The most notable one is where two people approach a 4-way intersection from opposite sides, and stop simultaneously. If they do not stop at the same time, the law says the rule is first-come-first-served. If they are not opposite from each other, the law says the guy to the right gets to go first. In a situation where there is complete symmetry, however, there is no rule sufficient to prevent collision. In fact, there is not even a way of distinguishing which car is which (even if you say ,"the bigger vehicle goes first," what if they are the same make, model, year, color, etc...). This is one case where communication is necessary for collision avoidance. Sometimes one car will communicate its intent to go first by inching forward. This does not always work, as both may try this tactic, but it often does. By far, the most common communication I have seen is the wave. One car will wave the other to go first. Whoever waves first goes last. For this situation, this form of collision avoidance is pretty good. The wave is a common collision avoidance communication for almost all instances where collision avoidance is necessary in traffic.
Now, here is what I actually want to talk about: the misuse of collision avoidance. Sadly, this is almost as common as using collision avoidance legitimately in traffic, but instead it actually increases the risk of collision. Sometimes, at an intersection, one car will clearly stop before the other (in fact, I deliberately regulate my speed when approaching intersections to make sure it is clear who stopped first). When this happens, the law states that the first car to stop goes first. Sometimes though, the guy who stopped first will "be polite" and wave the other driver on. This results in a dilemma. The waver has essentially signaled that he is forfeiting his right-of-way. Unfortunately, the law does not recognize this, and it still states that the first to stop is the first to go. Now, assuming there are no extenuating circumstances (maybe the waver's car just stalled, and he cannot get it to start again), the second driver has to decide to either break the law or wait until the other driver gives up and goes. This can, and has, caused accidents, as both drivers give up waiting at the same time and crash right into each other. The worst part is that the fault is legally attributed to the second driver, even though the first told her to go!
Far from polite, waving someone on when it is not their turn is rude and dangerous, not to mention invalid. If you have the right-of-way take it. If there is some reason you cannot, then you should probably turn your hazard lights on. The only time collision avoidance is valid is when there is enough ambiguity that there is an actual risk of a collision. If you really do not want to go first, the start slowing down sooner, so you do not stop first. Do not tell people to break the law. Do not waste other people's time by waiting for them to go when you clearly have the right-of-way. Certainly do not endanger other people's well being in a lame attempt to be polite.
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
16 January 2015
10 December 2014
Tech for Teens
We will not be buying smart phones for our children. We will also not be allowing them unsupervised use of technology. In addition, we are teaching them good manners and responsibility.
The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half. Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices. Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization. The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value. They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety. Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.
Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students). This has become very common. Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects. This is a huge problem. In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult. Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.
Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone. I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it. The problem, however, is not the teens themselves. The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility. Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone. Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight. Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child. If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision. When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence. The default should not be permission. The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone. Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility. If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.
Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology. Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised. Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly. Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs. Is this an invasion of privacy? No! Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children. Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves. So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing. Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends. This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused. In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so. Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices. Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.
Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion: Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes). They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills. Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it. There are, however, alternatives. "Stupid phones" are still readily available. Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children. When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age). When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent. If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded. This will not be a social phone. It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible). The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all. If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device. Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive. Perhaps it is. As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job. If you are a parent, this is your job as well.
This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents. I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others. A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent. I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.
What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right. The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages. I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones. Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents. Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.
(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices. And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that. I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)
The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half. Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices. Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization. The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value. They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety. Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.
Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students). This has become very common. Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects. This is a huge problem. In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult. Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.
Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone. I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it. The problem, however, is not the teens themselves. The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility. Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone. Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight. Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child. If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision. When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence. The default should not be permission. The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone. Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility. If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.
Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology. Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised. Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly. Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs. Is this an invasion of privacy? No! Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children. Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves. So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing. Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends. This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused. In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so. Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices. Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.
Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion: Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes). They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills. Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it. There are, however, alternatives. "Stupid phones" are still readily available. Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children. When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age). When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent. If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded. This will not be a social phone. It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible). The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all. If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device. Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive. Perhaps it is. As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job. If you are a parent, this is your job as well.
This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents. I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others. A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent. I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.
What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right. The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages. I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones. Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents. Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.
(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices. And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that. I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)
03 October 2014
Failing Education
I regularly come across evidence that our education system is failing. I am not just talking about test scores or students who have to retake classes. I am also not just talking about public education. I am talking about education across the board. The particular evidence I want to look at today is written language skills. Written language is an extremely important part of communication, and researchers are finding that its importance is increasing as more and more communication takes place in the form of emails, text messages, and written posts on various forms of social media. Originally, it was predicted that audio technology would obsolete written communication except in legal and scientific fields, but now they are finding this is wrong. Text messaging is wildly more popular than voice calls, and many people use their smart phones for reading and writing on social media than they do for voice phone calls. Writing skills are becoming more important than nearly any other communication skill.
Today I came across a posting for a product being sold online. The product was some kind of partially prepared meat. Specifically it was pork. The product description included the following text (original formatting is preserved):
Besides the fact that the complete sentence was a fragment, not a complete sentence (this is sometimes permissible in less formal writing, like advertisements), the use of bold type is not exactly appropriate here. In advertisement though, bold type is often used for emphasis, because it draws the eye better (in most formal writing, italics are used for emphasis, while bold type is very rarely used because it breaks visual continuity). My problem with this is the inappropriate use of quotation marks. Quotation marks applied in that way around an adjective typically indicate that something is not what it claims, at least in informal writing (which advertising is). So, this "All Natural" pork (yes, capitalizing "pork" is also not correct writing) must not be all pork, otherwise they would have called it All Natural pork, right? Sadly, this is probably not true. Whoever wrote that text probably thought that the quotation marks somehow emphasize or even strengthen the claim of all-naturalness. Really, they imply that the person saying the words is smiling and winking as they say them, indicating that they want someone else to think the pork is all natural, when it really is not (sometimes people even make a quote mark gesture with hands to further indicate that there is innuendo involved). This is not the most common mistake I see, but it does seem to come up frequently.
Perhaps the most common mistakes are grammatical errors. Most (though not all) advertisements use correct spellings. The most common misspellings are homophones, where the misspelling is actually a word that sounds the same but is not the intended word. Spell checkers do not catch these words, but a good editor or proofreader would have. (The worst spelling error I have seen on an ad was in Utah, where some real-estate company thought "available" was spelled "availble." Even a pretty lame spell checker would have caught that one.) Grammatical errors, however, indicate that the writer did not even bother to reread the text. In most cases, grammatical errors stick out when the writing is read out loud, and any English teacher will suggest that students read their work out loud to make sure it sounds how they intended. Right next to run of the mill grammatical errors is incomplete sentences. These drive me nuts, because I can see that the sentence is trying to say something, but when it ends prematurely, it leaves me wondering (imagine if this sentence stopped here; what the heck does it leave me wondering; I'll be kind) where it was going.
This epidemic of poor writing skills leads to two conclusions: Either most people are too stupid to remember anything they learned in school long enough to use it, or the schools are doing a horrible job of teaching it in the first place. Given the state of our education system, I think the evidence favors the second conclusion. I'll admit that many people do not realize the importance of communication skills and choose not to put any effort into maintaining them, but that is a huge amount of people to accuse of stupidity or laziness, and I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.
Some people might wonder why this matters. Even with rampant misspellings and grammatical errors, it is still easy to tell what most advertisements want (I'll give you a hint, they want you to give someone else your money in exchange for products of dubious value). Communication is about getting your point across, and if they do that, does it really matter how badly they are written? Well, yes. Do you want to by "All Natural" pork, or would you rather buy All Natural pork (or even "All Natural pork" or All Natural "pork" where it could be a veiled reference to pork flavored cat or dog meat)? These are two different things. Even if the company does actually mean that it is all natural (and not fake all natural), if they cannot communicate that effectively, what else are they mis-communicating that is not so obvious? That real-estate company certainly does not impress me with their proficiency in their job. Maybe they only forgot an "a" in that sign. What happens if they forget a "0" when they are selling my house (or add one when I am buying it)? On that sign, one missing letter only makes them look inept. On a contract, one missing letter (or digit) could be disastrous. Misspelling and grammatical errors can change the meaning of a word or phrase. You might notice five or ten errors in a company's advertisements over a year or two. Consider though, how many did you miss? How many errors were there that did not turn the text into nonsense but still managed to change the meaning significantly? In fact, if you pay close attention, you may notice that many national retail chains post ad retractions or errata on their doors several times a year. Most often this is because they either mis-advertised a sale price, or they mismatched a sale price with the wrong product. Incidentally, a video game store in Utah once mis-advertised a price, and when I went to buy it, they refused to honor their advertisement, even though they had not posted any retraction. I never bought anything there again. Writing skills are worth customers. When I see an ad with an obvious writing error, it makes me less willing to buy products from that company, because it makes it clear that they do not care about quality.
I may have discussed this before, but this applies outside of advertisement. Good writing skills are also important on resumes. I have heard arguments that throwing out poorly written resumes might lose opportunities to hire good employees. I think this is wrong, at least in most cases. Most businesses get far more applications than they can read. They use fast filter techniques to reduce the pile to a manageable size. These techniques involve things like looking for writing errors and checking qualifications. If they fail one of these tests, they go in the garbage. Now, I cannot claim that tossing resumes with writing errors will not eliminate qualified candidates that might do a good job. I can claim, however, that it will not sacrifice opportunities for the business to hire good employees. Unless the business needs almost as many employees as there are applications, filtering will leave, on average, a much more qualified selection of employees to choose from. If someone thinks that the company lost a really good opportunity when they threw out his or her resume, that person needs an ego check, and really, the other employees would probably have hated that person's self centered, big headed attitude anyway. In today's economy, there is always someone else who could fill the position just as well. And, if that person has better written communication skills, they can probably even fill it better.
Poor writing skills signal several things. First, they signal that you are too lazy to do a good job. Second, they signal that you really do not care about whatever you are writing for. Third, they signal a lack of precision and attention to detail. Forth, they signal a lack of good education (a college degree does not necessarily mean you still know anything from the classes you took, and poor writing skills is evidence that you have allowed yourself to forget at least one important subject you took classes in). Fifth, they signal a lack of caring about quality. When a person looks at an advertisement or a resume and sees writing errors, that person gets an impression of laziness, lack of motivation, lack of attention to detail, lack of education, and lack of quality about the person or company responsible. That is why it matters. Writing errors will cause people to look for a company with a better reputation or hire a person who's resume looks like he or see cares, even if technical qualifications are not quite as good. A person or company who puts the effort into avoiding mistakes in writing can probably put the effort into becoming more proficient and more qualified. Poor writing provides no such evidence.
I do not think this is purely an educational problem. I am sure there are people who write poorly because they are lazy and because they are not motivated and because they do not care about attention to detail and so on, but I do think education is the root of the problem. I have friends and family members that ask me to proofread their writing because they do care about attention to detail, but they do not have the quality English education to do a good job of it themselves. This is not their fault. Their lack of English education is the fault of public schools and even private universities who neglect their responsibility to properly educate their students. (In fact, my good English education is largely the result of studying far beyond what was required in school and college and then studiously applying it until I developed strong skills. The schools themselves just provided me with a small amount of resources to build on.)
I just want to add that I am not perfect. I do make writing mistakes, though not typically very often. I reread this article twice (once out loud), correcting errors along the way, before I published it, but there are probably a few still lurking in here somewhere. I sincerely hope they are not obvious, but if they are, I take full responsibility for missing them. If this were a professional publication, I would ask some of my friends to review it before publishing, and I would reread it at least two more times. If it were a resume, I would probably reread it four more times. As an informal opinion piece that I am posting on my blog (that has a fairly small readership) though, I just do not have the time to put that much effort into it.
Today I came across a posting for a product being sold online. The product was some kind of partially prepared meat. Specifically it was pork. The product description included the following text (original formatting is preserved):
The finest cuts of "All Natural" Pork...
Besides the fact that the complete sentence was a fragment, not a complete sentence (this is sometimes permissible in less formal writing, like advertisements), the use of bold type is not exactly appropriate here. In advertisement though, bold type is often used for emphasis, because it draws the eye better (in most formal writing, italics are used for emphasis, while bold type is very rarely used because it breaks visual continuity). My problem with this is the inappropriate use of quotation marks. Quotation marks applied in that way around an adjective typically indicate that something is not what it claims, at least in informal writing (which advertising is). So, this "All Natural" pork (yes, capitalizing "pork" is also not correct writing) must not be all pork, otherwise they would have called it All Natural pork, right? Sadly, this is probably not true. Whoever wrote that text probably thought that the quotation marks somehow emphasize or even strengthen the claim of all-naturalness. Really, they imply that the person saying the words is smiling and winking as they say them, indicating that they want someone else to think the pork is all natural, when it really is not (sometimes people even make a quote mark gesture with hands to further indicate that there is innuendo involved). This is not the most common mistake I see, but it does seem to come up frequently.
Perhaps the most common mistakes are grammatical errors. Most (though not all) advertisements use correct spellings. The most common misspellings are homophones, where the misspelling is actually a word that sounds the same but is not the intended word. Spell checkers do not catch these words, but a good editor or proofreader would have. (The worst spelling error I have seen on an ad was in Utah, where some real-estate company thought "available" was spelled "availble." Even a pretty lame spell checker would have caught that one.) Grammatical errors, however, indicate that the writer did not even bother to reread the text. In most cases, grammatical errors stick out when the writing is read out loud, and any English teacher will suggest that students read their work out loud to make sure it sounds how they intended. Right next to run of the mill grammatical errors is incomplete sentences. These drive me nuts, because I can see that the sentence is trying to say something, but when it ends prematurely, it leaves me wondering (imagine if this sentence stopped here; what the heck does it leave me wondering; I'll be kind) where it was going.
This epidemic of poor writing skills leads to two conclusions: Either most people are too stupid to remember anything they learned in school long enough to use it, or the schools are doing a horrible job of teaching it in the first place. Given the state of our education system, I think the evidence favors the second conclusion. I'll admit that many people do not realize the importance of communication skills and choose not to put any effort into maintaining them, but that is a huge amount of people to accuse of stupidity or laziness, and I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.
Some people might wonder why this matters. Even with rampant misspellings and grammatical errors, it is still easy to tell what most advertisements want (I'll give you a hint, they want you to give someone else your money in exchange for products of dubious value). Communication is about getting your point across, and if they do that, does it really matter how badly they are written? Well, yes. Do you want to by "All Natural" pork, or would you rather buy All Natural pork (or even "All Natural pork" or All Natural "pork" where it could be a veiled reference to pork flavored cat or dog meat)? These are two different things. Even if the company does actually mean that it is all natural (and not fake all natural), if they cannot communicate that effectively, what else are they mis-communicating that is not so obvious? That real-estate company certainly does not impress me with their proficiency in their job. Maybe they only forgot an "a" in that sign. What happens if they forget a "0" when they are selling my house (or add one when I am buying it)? On that sign, one missing letter only makes them look inept. On a contract, one missing letter (or digit) could be disastrous. Misspelling and grammatical errors can change the meaning of a word or phrase. You might notice five or ten errors in a company's advertisements over a year or two. Consider though, how many did you miss? How many errors were there that did not turn the text into nonsense but still managed to change the meaning significantly? In fact, if you pay close attention, you may notice that many national retail chains post ad retractions or errata on their doors several times a year. Most often this is because they either mis-advertised a sale price, or they mismatched a sale price with the wrong product. Incidentally, a video game store in Utah once mis-advertised a price, and when I went to buy it, they refused to honor their advertisement, even though they had not posted any retraction. I never bought anything there again. Writing skills are worth customers. When I see an ad with an obvious writing error, it makes me less willing to buy products from that company, because it makes it clear that they do not care about quality.
I may have discussed this before, but this applies outside of advertisement. Good writing skills are also important on resumes. I have heard arguments that throwing out poorly written resumes might lose opportunities to hire good employees. I think this is wrong, at least in most cases. Most businesses get far more applications than they can read. They use fast filter techniques to reduce the pile to a manageable size. These techniques involve things like looking for writing errors and checking qualifications. If they fail one of these tests, they go in the garbage. Now, I cannot claim that tossing resumes with writing errors will not eliminate qualified candidates that might do a good job. I can claim, however, that it will not sacrifice opportunities for the business to hire good employees. Unless the business needs almost as many employees as there are applications, filtering will leave, on average, a much more qualified selection of employees to choose from. If someone thinks that the company lost a really good opportunity when they threw out his or her resume, that person needs an ego check, and really, the other employees would probably have hated that person's self centered, big headed attitude anyway. In today's economy, there is always someone else who could fill the position just as well. And, if that person has better written communication skills, they can probably even fill it better.
Poor writing skills signal several things. First, they signal that you are too lazy to do a good job. Second, they signal that you really do not care about whatever you are writing for. Third, they signal a lack of precision and attention to detail. Forth, they signal a lack of good education (a college degree does not necessarily mean you still know anything from the classes you took, and poor writing skills is evidence that you have allowed yourself to forget at least one important subject you took classes in). Fifth, they signal a lack of caring about quality. When a person looks at an advertisement or a resume and sees writing errors, that person gets an impression of laziness, lack of motivation, lack of attention to detail, lack of education, and lack of quality about the person or company responsible. That is why it matters. Writing errors will cause people to look for a company with a better reputation or hire a person who's resume looks like he or see cares, even if technical qualifications are not quite as good. A person or company who puts the effort into avoiding mistakes in writing can probably put the effort into becoming more proficient and more qualified. Poor writing provides no such evidence.
I do not think this is purely an educational problem. I am sure there are people who write poorly because they are lazy and because they are not motivated and because they do not care about attention to detail and so on, but I do think education is the root of the problem. I have friends and family members that ask me to proofread their writing because they do care about attention to detail, but they do not have the quality English education to do a good job of it themselves. This is not their fault. Their lack of English education is the fault of public schools and even private universities who neglect their responsibility to properly educate their students. (In fact, my good English education is largely the result of studying far beyond what was required in school and college and then studiously applying it until I developed strong skills. The schools themselves just provided me with a small amount of resources to build on.)
I just want to add that I am not perfect. I do make writing mistakes, though not typically very often. I reread this article twice (once out loud), correcting errors along the way, before I published it, but there are probably a few still lurking in here somewhere. I sincerely hope they are not obvious, but if they are, I take full responsibility for missing them. If this were a professional publication, I would ask some of my friends to review it before publishing, and I would reread it at least two more times. If it were a resume, I would probably reread it four more times. As an informal opinion piece that I am posting on my blog (that has a fairly small readership) though, I just do not have the time to put that much effort into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)