Repeated studies have demonstrated that people tend to be ruder and much quicker to take offense when writing back and forth than when speaking to one another face to face. This is because an enormous amount of communication between people is ‘non-verbal’ in the form of facial expressions and body movements. And because we can cue off of vocal inflections and other signs to detect humor or a question or when someone is getting offended and modify our own communication accordingly.

All of those non-verbal cues disappear with the written word (or at least are difficult to translate). Emoticons and other tools help, but only so much. That makes it much easier to misinterpret statements leading to arguments that wouldn’t happen otherwise. It also makes statements much blunter.

A good exercise to see the difference is to read a speech, then listen to the same speech and see how different your reaction to it is. The same goes for plays and song lyrics. Harsh or combative language can come across far different when spoken.

People also tend to right more direct and blunt when writing than when speaking. It’s far easier to insult someone when typing than when looking at their face.

I read a paper back in college that stated one of the reasons we’ve seen more 5-4 splits in Supreme Court decisions is not because the Justices our more ideologically diverse but because Rehnquist insisted that the Justices communicate via briefs when discussing their votes. He did not hold open forums where the members debated back and forth in person. Such forums led to more cooperative decision making and less acrimony on the court and more 6-3, 7-2 and even unanimous decisions.

The ideological differences were still there but when working in the same room Justices tended to work out those differences and find common ground rather than magnifying them as the written word often does. You’ll also note an increase in the number of ‘con-current’ decisions even within the majorities indicating the Justices are having a hard time finding common ground even among ideological allies.

The written word tends to be colder than face to face communication. Everyone can probably recount a story about two friends getting into a total flame war in e-mail and having that carry over into the real world. That’s one of the reasons why I prefer to get out of my desk and talk to people face to face when I am at work, particularly about sensitive or complex issues.

You don’t see the same level of hostility at gaming conventions when the players are all in the same room that you see in back and forth chats when players are on-line.

The ad was stupid. It allowed the right to make this entire debate about “military good or bad” rather than about the testimony. On CNN Wolf Blitzer asked every Democrat whether they will give back MoveOn money and if they supported the troops or MoveOn’s message. Interviews on the MSN focus on the idea that the left hates the military.

Bad stupid idiotic tactics on MoveOn’s part to hand the right a perfect wedge issue to distract everybody from the real debate that should be taking place.

They didn’t have to do the ‘Betray US’ thing. They could have just made an ad that pointed out all the lies Patreaus has told over the last few months.

But they had to try and be cute and in the process have managed to hand the right a weapon.

Nice going fellas. Keep up the good work.

For Republicans to characterize the left (or at this point the majority of the country) as ‘anti-military.’ Yes the Republicans will load up their shotguns to attack anyone contradicting Patreaus but we don’t have to give them the ammunition.

The ad could simply have focused on all the false and misleading statements Patreaus has made so far. Say list his statements about how well all the training of Iraqi security forces is going under his leadership made in 2006 and then quote recent reports showing those same security forces are ripe with corruption and completely inactive and should be disbanded.

By playing it straight they could have gotten at least some of the MSM focused on the message. Granted it would have been a small number. But noise machine would have had to work at overcoming the truth.

But the ‘Betray US’ comment means nobody even has to bother trying to refute what they say. The right wing simply has to say they’re calling Patreaus a traitor and stop. As far as the MSM is concerned the argument begins and ends there. It’s not about whether or not Patreaus is telling the truth anymore and stilting his testimony, it’s about his ‘Patriotism.’

True or not, its bad tactics and makes it easier for the rights smear machine.