Báo cáo khoa học: "THE COMPUTER AS AN ACTIVE COMMUNICATION MEDIUM" pdf

THE COMPUTER AS AN ACTIVE COMMUNICATION MEDIUM John C.. The first person translates that idea into some symbol system which is transmitted through some medium to the receiver.. Communica

THE COMPUTER AS AN ACTIVE COMMUNICATION MEDIUM John C Thomas IBM T J Watson Research Center

PO Box 218 Yorktown Heights, New York 10598

I THE NATURE OF COMMUNICATION goals r 4 i m e t a c o m m e n t s that direct the c o n v e r s a t i o n [ ~ Communication is often conceived of in basically the

following terms A person has some idea which he or

she wants to communicate to a second person The

first person translates that idea into some symbol

system which is transmitted through some medium to

the receiver The receiver receives the transmission

and translates it into some internal idea Communica-

tion, in this view, is considered good to the extent that

there is an isomorphism between the idea in the head

of the sender before sending the message and the

idea in the receiver's head after recieving the mes-

sage A good medium of communication, in this view,

is one that adds minimal noise to the signal Mes-

sages are considered good partly to the extent that

they are unabmiguous This is, by and large, the view

of many of the people concerned with computers and

communication

For a moment, consider a quite different view of c o m -

munication In this view, communication is basically a

d e s i g n - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process One person has goals

that they believe can be aided by communicating The

person therefore designs a message which is intended

to facillitate those goals In most cases, the goal in-

cludes changing some cognitive structure in one or

more other people's minds Each receiver of a mes-

sage however has his or her own goals in mind and a

model of the world (including a model of the sender)

and interprets the received message in light of that

other world information and relative to the perceived

goals of the sender This view has been articulated

further elsewhere !~]

This view originates primarily from putting the rules of

language and the basic nature of human beings in

perspective The basic nature of human beings is that

we are living organisms and our behavior is goals-

directed The rules of language are convenient but

secondary We can language rules for a purpose

break

Communicating in different media produces different

behaviors and reactions I-2,3! The interesting first

order finding however, is that people ca communicate

using practically any medium that lets any signal

through if motivation is high enough We can, under

some circumstances, c o m m u n i c a t e with people who

use different accents, grammars, or even languages

Yet, in other circumstances, people who are ostensibly

friends working on a common goal and who have

known each other for years end up shouting at each

other: 'You're not listening to me No, you d o n ' t un-

derstand!'

One fundamental aspect of human communication then

is that it is terrifically adaptive, and robust, containing

a number of sophisticated mechanisms such as expla-

nations that simultaneously facillitate social and work

and rules for taking t u r n s 6~

To the extent that these mechanisms can be e m b e d - ded in a computer system that is to dialogue with hu- mans, the dialogue will likely tend to be more suc- cessful However, equally true of human c o m m u n i c a - tion is that it is sometimes quite ineffective Let us examine where, why, and how the c o m p u t e r can help improve communication in those cases

COMMUNICA TION

The view of communication as a d e s i g n - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process suggests that since messages are designed and i n t e r p r e t t e d to achieve goals, the perceived rela- tionship between the goals of the c o m m u n i c a t o r s is likely to be a powerful d e t e r m i n a n t of what happens in communication Common observation as well experi- mental r e s u t t s [ l ! a r e consistent with this notion Peo- ple often view themselves in situations of pure compe- tition or pure cooperation In fact, I suggest that ei- ther perception is due to a limited frame Any two people who view themselves as involved in a zero-sum game are doing so because they have a limited frame

of reference In the widest possible frame of refer- ence, there is at least one state probabilistically influ- enced by their acts (such as the total destruction of human life through nuclear weapons) that both would find undesirable Therefore, when I am playing tennis, poker, or politics with someone and we say we are in pure competition, we are only doing so in a limited framework In a wider framework, it is always in our mutual interest to c o o p e r a t e under certain circum-

stances

This does not mean, however, that people perceive this wider framework Because of the limitations of human working memory, people often forget that there

is a f r a m e w o r k in which they can cooperate Indeed, this describes one of the chief situations in which a so-called breakdown of communications occurs If we are truly in a zero-sum game, communication is only useful to the extent that we mislead, threaten, etc Conversely, people are only in pure c o o p e r a t i o n by limiting their framework I suggest that it is highly likely, given any two individuals, that they would put a different preference ordering on the set of all possible states of the world which their actions could p r o b a b i l - istically affect This gives rise to a second type of breakdown in communication People appear to be desiring to c o o p e r a t e but they are only c o o p e r a t i n g with respect to some limited framework X They are competing with respect to some larger f r a m e w o r k X plus Y The most common X plus Y is X, the f r a m e - work of cooperation plus Y, a consideration of whose habits must change for mutually beneficial action in the framework X

For instance, two tennis partners obviously both want

to win the game Yet one is used to playing with both

partners a t t e m p t i n g to take the net The o t h e r is used

to the 'one-up, o n e - b a c k ' strategy They can get into

a real argument What they are c o m p e t i n g about is

basically who is going to change, whose opinion is

wrong, and similar issues This then, in a sense, is a

second type of breakdown of communication

A third case exists even within the f r a m e w o r k of c o o p -

eration This case of difficult c o m m u n i c a t i o n exists

when the presupposed conceptual f r a m e w o r k s of the

communicators is vitally discrepant A c o m p u t e r pro-

g r a m m e r really wants to help a business person a u t o -

mate his or her invoicing application and the business

person really wants this to happen However, each

party e r r o n e o u s l y presumes m o r e shared k n o w l e d g e

and v i e w p o i n t than in fact exists

A puzzle still remains however If people have such

sophisticated, graceful, robust c o m m u n i c a t i o n mecha-

nisms, why do they not quite readily and s p o n t a n e o u s -

ly o v e r c o m e these c o m m u n i c a t i o n blocks?

WIDESPREAD ANTI-PRODUCTIVE BELIEFS

The biggest stumbling blocks to effective c o m m u n i c a -

tion are the individual c o m m u n i c a t o r ' s beliefs People

typ~c,,lly hold beliefs which are not empirically based To

some extent, it is impossible not to In o r d e r to sim-

plify the world sufficiently to deal with it, we make

generalizations If it turns out on closer inspection

that these genralizations are correct, we call it insight

while if it turns out that they are incorrect, we call it

overgeneralization

There are, however, a number of specific non-

empirically based beliefs that people are particularly

likely to believe which are a n t i - p r o d u c t i v e to c o m m u -

nication Among these are the following: 1 I must be

understood; 2 If the o t h e r person disagrees with me,

they d o n ' t understand me; 3 My worth is equal to my

performance; 4 Things should be easy; 5 The world

must be fair; 6 If I have the feeling of knowing s o m e -

thing is true, it must be true; 7 If the o t h e r person

thinks my idea is wrong, the person thinks little of me;

8 If this person's idea is wrong, the person is w o r t h -

less; 9 I d o n ' t need to change - - they do; 10 Since I

already know I'm right, it is a waste of time to really

try to see things from the o t h e r person's perspective

11 If I c o m p r e h e n d something, in the sense that I can

rephrase it in a syntactically different way, that means

I have processed deeply enough what the o t h e r person

is saving 12 I must tell the truth at all times no m a t -

ter what 13 If they cannot put it in the form of an

equation (or c o m p u t e r program, or c o m p l e t e sen-

tences, or English), they d o n ' t really Know what they

are talking about and so it is not possibly in my i n t e r -

est to listen

Each of the above statements, has a correlated, less

rigid, less extreme s t a t e m e n t that is empirically based

For instance, if we really thought 'When I am wrong,

some people will t e m p o r a r i l y value me less', that is

valid generalization In contrast, the thought 'When

am wrong, people will value me less' is an o v e r g e n e r - alization

Similarly, it is quite r e a s o n a b l e to believe t h a t ex- pressing s o m e t h i n g m a t h e m a t i c a l l y has a d v a n t a g e s and that if it is not expressed m a t h e m a t i c a l l y it may

be more difficult for me to use the ideas; it may even

be so difficult that I choose not to bother It is not empirically based to believe that it is never worth you while to a t t e m p t to understand things not expressed in equations

Nearly e v e r y o n e , even quite psychotic p e o p l e hold rational as well as irrational beliefs Very few people when asked whether they have to be perfect in e v e r y - thing will say yes However, very many people reject

so c o m p l e t e l y evidence that they may be fundamental

ly wrong, that they act as though they must be per- fect It is b i t t e r irony that most people can think and feel much more clearly about the things that are less

i m p o r t a n t to them such as a crossword puzzle than they can about things that are much more i m p o r t a n t such as their m a j o r decisions in work and love

Now let us imagine s o m e o n e who has done a certain office p r o c e d u r e a certain way for many years Then

s o m e o n e begins to explain a new p r o c e d u r e t h a t is claimed to work better There are a number of wholly rational reasons why the e x p e r i e n c e d office w o r k e r can be skeptical But it is probably quite w o r t h w h i l e

to at least a t t e m p t to really u n d e r s t a n d the o t h e r person's ideas b e f o r e criticizing them There are many n o n - e m p i r i c a l l y based beliefs that may interfer

in the c o m m u n i c a t i o n process The experienced office

w o r k e r may, for instance, notice the y o u n g age of the systems analyst and believe t h a t n o - o n e so y o u n g could really understand what is going on They may believe that if t h e r e is a b e t t e r way, they should have seen it themselves years ago and if they d i d n ' t t h e y must be an idiot Since they d i d n ' t see it and they can't be an idiot, t h e r e must not be a b e t t e r way They may just think to t h e m s e l v e s it will be t o o hard

to learn a new way Very effective individual t h e r a p y

~ ] i s based on t r y i n g to identify and change an individual's irrational beliefs The focus of this paper

h o w e v e r is on how a c o m p u t e r system could aid c o m - munication by o v e r c o m i n g or circumventing such irra-

t i o n a l beliefs in those cases where c o m m u n i c a t i o n appears to break down

We know that people are capable of changing from a narrow c o m p e t i t i o n f r a m e w o r k to a wider c o o p e r a t i v e

f r a m e w o r k in o r d e r to communicate People can re- solve differences a b o u t whose b e h a v i o r needs to change Normal c o m m u n i c a t i o n has the mechanisms to

do these things; when they fail to happen it is often because of i r r a t i o n a l beliefs which p r e v e n t p e o p l e from a t t e m p t i n g to see things from the o t h e r person's perspective

The t~nnis partner's disagreeing about what strategy

to use will tend to resolve the d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h o u t

d e t r i m e n t to their mutual goal of winning the game, provided their thinking stays fairly close to the e m p i r i - cal level If, however, one of the participants finds a

flaw in the o t h e r ' s thinking and then o v e r g e n e r a l i z e s

and thinks 'What an idiot That d o e s n ' t logically f o l -

low How can a n y o n e be so dumb.' But by the t o k e n

'dumb', the angry person p r o b a b l y means ' a l l - a r o u n d

bad.' Now this is an e x t r e m e m l y c o u n t e r - p r o d u c t i v e

o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n which will t e n d to c o l o r the

person's thinking on o t h e r issues of the game which

are not even within the scope of the a r g u m e n t a b o u t

what strategy to use, In extremely i r r a t i o n a l but not

so u n c o m m o n cases, the person may even express to

the o t h e r person v e r b a l l y or n o n - v e r b a l l y t h a t t h e y

have a generally low opinion of their partner If e i t h e r

party becomes angry, t h e y are also likely to mix up

t h e i r messages a b o u t t h e i r own internal state with

messages a b o u t the c o n t e n t of the game Thus, '1 am

angry,' gets mixed with 'A serve to t h a t p e r s o n ' s

backhand will p r o b a b l y produce a w e a k e r return.' The

result may be a s t a t e m e n t like 'Why c a n ' t you serve to

his backhand for a change.' Such a s t a t e m e n t is likely

to increase the p r o b a b i l i t y of serves to the f o r e h a n d

or double faults to the backhand

Once each person b e c o m e s angry with the other, t h e y

are a l m o s t certainly o v e r g e n e r a l i z i n g to the e x t e n t t h a t

they are believing t h a t the onty way to i m p r o v e the

situation is for the o t h e r person to change t h e i r b e -

h a v i o r in some way 'He should a p o l o g i z e to me for

being such an idiot.' No active p r o b l e m solving b e h a v -

ior remains directed w h e r e it belongs: ' H o w c a n I im-

p r o v e the situation myself? How can I c o m m u n i c a t e

better?' This is c o m m u n i c a t i o n b r e a k d o w n

4 THE POSSIBLE USES OF AN ACTIVE COMMU-

NICATION CHANNEL

Now, let's just for the sake of a r g u e m e n t , =,surae or if

you like pretend t h a t what I have said so far is a useful

p e r s p e c t i v e What a b o u t the computer? In particular,

what a b o u t using the p o w e r of the c o m p u t e r as a n o n -

t r a n s p a r e n t ACTIVE medium of c o m m u n i c a t i o n ? The

c o m p u t e r has been v e r y successfully used as a way

f o r p e o p l e to c o m m u n i c a t e which a l l o w s

s p e e d / r e p e t i t i o n and d e m a n d s precision Is t h e r e also

a way for the c o m p u t e r to be used to enhance p a r t y -

t o - p a r t y c o m m u n i c a t i o n in a way t h a t helps d e f e a t or

get around the s e l f - d e f e a t i n g beliefs that get in the

way of e f f e c t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n in s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e

participants have similar goals but are w o r k i n g in dif-

f e r e n t frameworks? Can the c o m p u t e r aid in situations

w h e r e participants have p a r t i a l l y similar goals but are

c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the d i f f e r e n c e s o r are unable to

a r r i v e at conclusions t h a t are in both parties self-

interest because of i n t e r f e r r e n c e from a set of sepa-

rate issues where they are in f u n d a m e n t a l conflict?

An entire t e c h n o l o g y equal to the one t h a t has ad-

dressed the s p e e d / r e p e t i o n precision issues could be

built around this task Clearly I c a n n o t p r o v i d e this

t e c h n o l o g y myself in fifteen minutes or fifteen years

But let me p r o v i d e one e x a m p l e of the k~nd of thing I

mean Suppose that one two p e o p l e were disagreeing

and c o m m u n i c a t i n g via Visual Display Terminals con-

nected to a c o m p u t e r network Let us suppose t h a t

the c o m p u t e r n e t w o r k i m p o s e d a f o r m a l i s m on the

c o m m u n i c a t i o n Suppose, for e x a m p l e t h a t strength

and d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of current e m o t i o n a l state were e n -

c o d e d on a s p a t i a l l y s e p a r a t e channel f r o m c o n t e n t messages Imagine that the designer of the message had to choose w h a t e m o t i o n or e m o t i o n s t h e y f e l t and

a t t e m p t to honestly q u a n t i f y these This i n f o r m a t i o n would be p r e s e n t e d t o the o t h e r person s e p a r a t e l y from the c o n t e n t statements One u n f o r t u n a t e human weakness would be o v e r c o m e ; viz., the t e n d e n c y to let the e m o t i o n a l s t a t e m e n t - - '1 am angry' intrude into the c o n t e n t of what is said

Now, suppose the c o m p u t e r n e t w o r k p r e s e n t e d to the

i n t e r p r e t t e r of this message a set of signals labelled

as follows: 'The person sending this message to you is

c u r r e n t l y producing the f o l l o w i n g e m o t i o n a l states in themselves: A n g e r + 7 , A n x i e t y + 4 , Hurt + 3 , D e p r e s - sion + 2 , Gladness - 6 ' Note t h a t the a t t r i b u t i o n has also been shifted squarely to w h e r e it belongs - - on the person with the e m o t i o n a l state

Now suppose f u r t h e r t h a t when a person s t a t e d t h e i r position, certain key w o r d s t r i g g e r e d a request by the system for r e s t a t e m e n t For instance, suppose a p e r - son t y p e d in 'You always get what you w a n t ' The sys- tem may respond with: 'Regarding the word ' a l w a y s ' , could you be more q u a n t i t a t i v e First, in how many instances during the last two weeks would you esti- mate t h a t t h e r e have been occassions when t h a t p e r - son would like to have g o t t e n s o m e t h i n g but could not get t h a t thing?'

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , asked just such a question, an angry person would p r o b a b l y b e c o m e angrier and d i r e c t some anger t o w a r d the active channel itself A m a r - riage c o u n s e l o r is o f t e n c a u g h t in just this sort of bind, but can usually a v o i d escalating anger via e m p a - thy and o t h e r natural mechanisms How a c o m p u t e r - ized system could a v o i d i n c r e a s i n g a n g e r remains a challenge

A n o t h e r possibility would be for the channel to e n f o r c e the p r o t o c o l for conflict resolution suggested by Rap-

p a p o r t and others For instance, b e f o r e stating y o u r position, you would have to restate y o u r o p p o n e n t ' s position to t h e i r satisfaction

Needless to say, p a r t i c i p a n t s using such an a c t i v e interface would be apprized of the fact and v o l u n t a r i l y choose to use such an interface for their a n t i c i p a t e d mutual benefit in the same way t h a t labor and m a n -

a g e m e n t often agree to use a m e d i a t o r or a r b i t r a t o r to held them reach an e q u i t a b l e solution U n f o r t u n a t e l y , such a choice requires t h a t both the p e o p l e i n v o l v e d recognize that they are not perfect - - t h a t t h e i r c o m -

m u n i c a t i o n ability could use an active channel This in itself p r e s u p p o s e s some dismissal of the e r r o n e o u s

b e l i e f t h a t t h e i r w o r t h EQUALS t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e Most p e o p l e are c a p a b l e of d o i n g this b e f o r e t h e y

b e c o m e e m o t i o n a l l y upset and hence might well agree ahead of time to using such a channel

5 SUMMARY

In this paper, I r e i t e r a t e the v i e w that for many pur- poses, c o m m u n i c a t i o n is best c o n c e i v e d of as a

design-interpretation process rather than a sender- receiver process Fundamental difficulties in two- person communication occur in certain common situa- tions The incidence, exacerbation, and failure to solve such communication problems by the parties themselves can largely be traced to the high frequency

of strongly held anti-empirical belief systems Finally,

it is suggested that the computer is a medium for hu- mans to communicate with each other VIA Viewed in this way, possibilities exist for the computer to be- come an acti~ and aelecti~ rather than a p ~ s ~ , tn=nJparent

medium This could aid humans in overcoming or circumventing communication blocking irrational be- liefs in order to facillitate cooperative problem solving

6 R E F E R E N C E S

[1]Thomas, J A Design-lnterpretion Analysis of Natural English International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1978,

10, 651-668

[2]Carey, J A Primer on Interactive Television, Journal of the University Film Aa$ociation, 1978, XXX (2), 35-39

IJ]Chapanis, A Interactive Human Communication: Some Lessons Learned from Laboratory Experiments Paper presented at NATO Advanced Study Institute on 'Man- Computer Interaction', Mati, Greece, 1976

[~]Wynn, E Office Conversation as an Informatior~Medium (In preparation)

Is~Thomas, J A Method for Studying Natural Lamguage Dialogue, / a M Re~=rch Rc, o 1976, R C - 5 8 8 2

[6]Sacks, H., Schlegloff, F_, and Jefferson, G A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-ta~ng for Conversation, L~ua~re 1974, 50 (4), 696-735

['1iEIlis, A Reason oJtd Emotion in Psychothemoy New York: Lyle Stuart, (196Z)