Although I can admit several opinions of Crawford, I feel that they are a bit restrictive. Considering his opinion, we can say that an interactive conversation can only be found in a high-level one, for those who are in the professional field. However, I believe that interactivity is also in the moment when we are playing around with our friends. There may not be any liberal consideration, or a use of complicated words, but there are interactivity between the two.
Crawford’s definition sounds as if interactivity conversation cannot exist between unintelligent people. A while ago, I was talking with my friends drinking alcohol. We were kind of drunk, and I know that we were not considering about the what we were saying very much, but later on, I felt that it was quite a valuable moment for me. My friends had set out some keen advice for me, and maybe those cannot be said when we are sober. Maybe it is true that there are only low quality interactivity when we lack the three steps ( listen, think, and speak ) but I believe that there are some kind of response or reaction when talking with anybody.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think one important thing to remember is that saying an experience is low or high interactivity isn't necessarily a value judgement, ie. high isn't necessarily better than low. Perhaps the fact that you're both drunk and not really interacting allows your friend to say things that they wouldn't feel comfortable saying if you actually thought about what they said. Response and reaction are not the same as interaction, so those can happen independently of interaction. They're not somehow "less" important, just different...
Post a Comment