BurnedOut
Beloved Antichrist
I find chatting a very fascinating phenomenon not because it is a relatively new mode of communication but also because it defies the usual constraints of scientific reasoning about its implications.
Chatting is a language of its own. It is constantly evolving but the idea of it disappearing in a few decades is getting more and more prevalent now due to growing share of video and audio content, I think it is far from being the case. I think that chatting is very similar to natural human speech. Perhaps, any writing mode has been for the first time has become as intuitive as human speech.
The semantics are entirely different, so is the vocabulary, however, I think the predominance of infusions of mother tongues and other spoken languages in their spoken forms lead to a dialect of those language which amazingly turns out to be wide-domain. For example, if there are several dialect of my mother tongue, it is usually difficult for me to accurately understand a variation of my own mother tongue, however, that will not be the case with chatting as people are able to somehow morph the semantics into being more global in exuding the correct meanings. I also believe that chatting has a body language of its own. I think you can quite accurately read between the lines by noticing the amount of pauses a person takes, the relative amount of mistakes, the placement of dots, etc. All this is already being researched on. In my opinion, this is mainly the result of chatting involving near-instant feedback. I theorize that the near-instant feedback causes pseudo-dialoguing. I also think that chatting evokes someone's visual and aural imaginations. It feels amazingly real to chat with someone in real time. Not the best alternative to face to face conversations and any kind of audiovisual feedback but chatting does the job of quenching the thirst of socialization to a great extent. It looks like anything that provides instant feedback in varied manners within the context of input is regarded as sentient and hence an attachment follows.
If chatting indeed is a second form of intuitive human communication, then indeed, it needs to be taken much more seriously than it is usually taken. I think there is not much psychometric research on chatting.
Chatting is a language of its own. It is constantly evolving but the idea of it disappearing in a few decades is getting more and more prevalent now due to growing share of video and audio content, I think it is far from being the case. I think that chatting is very similar to natural human speech. Perhaps, any writing mode has been for the first time has become as intuitive as human speech.
The semantics are entirely different, so is the vocabulary, however, I think the predominance of infusions of mother tongues and other spoken languages in their spoken forms lead to a dialect of those language which amazingly turns out to be wide-domain. For example, if there are several dialect of my mother tongue, it is usually difficult for me to accurately understand a variation of my own mother tongue, however, that will not be the case with chatting as people are able to somehow morph the semantics into being more global in exuding the correct meanings. I also believe that chatting has a body language of its own. I think you can quite accurately read between the lines by noticing the amount of pauses a person takes, the relative amount of mistakes, the placement of dots, etc. All this is already being researched on. In my opinion, this is mainly the result of chatting involving near-instant feedback. I theorize that the near-instant feedback causes pseudo-dialoguing. I also think that chatting evokes someone's visual and aural imaginations. It feels amazingly real to chat with someone in real time. Not the best alternative to face to face conversations and any kind of audiovisual feedback but chatting does the job of quenching the thirst of socialization to a great extent. It looks like anything that provides instant feedback in varied manners within the context of input is regarded as sentient and hence an attachment follows.
If chatting indeed is a second form of intuitive human communication, then indeed, it needs to be taken much more seriously than it is usually taken. I think there is not much psychometric research on chatting.