Is "text only communication" dangerous?
Why do friends argue?
A simple question but for me an intriguing one.
¿Por qué argumentan los amigos?
Una pregunta simple, pero para mí intrigante.
7 Answers
When I was at Uni studying for a Foundation Degree in Early years Care and education we looked at Communication skills and considered the key aspects that comprised /made up communication!
There are 3 aspects/elements: 1Body language = comprising about 57 % of the total picture- facial expressions, eg eye movement, gestures eg: hand movements, posture; eg arms crossed over body in defensive position
2.Tone of voice comprising about 36 %
3 the words comprising about 7%
The major problem I see with "text only" communication is that you are excluding the greater and most significant part of communication skills which gives us the most helpful information about : 1 what the speaker is really trying to communicate and what the message really means,2. whether the person is telling the truth or lying, 3 How the speaker is feeling.
So, with only a small part of the jigsaw puzzle in place ...how can we possibly make accurate sense of the message ?!!!
When inexperienced people learning languages post sentences here that they have received in a text, often with an urgent request to help translate what has been written/sent to them, they often leave out vital contextual clues they post only some of the message they received and expect others to 'read between the lines' or literally 'mind read'! This is like witnesses giving detectives investigating a crime only some of the information and leter adding it and saying that they didn't think it was important /relevant it is better to include all the information and let the experienced detectives or in our case, the linguists decide what is rimportant relevant!
In my view, any form of communication that is incomplete and /or ambiguous could be potentially dangerous if it easily leads an otherwise, balanced, and sane individual ( whether hearer or reader) to jump to wrong conclusions because the message is misleading! 
Porque a veces amigos tienen opiniones diferente y cada piensan que la opinion del otra persona no es correcto.Es la naturaleza de la humanidad....y al otra veces, es solamente para stimular la conversación.
Because sometimes friends have views different and each think that the opinion of the other person is not correct.It is the nature of humanity....and at other times, it's only to stimulate the conversation.
Quizá no tenga razón, pero a mi ver, es imposible redactar o revisar lo que uno ha dicho. Cuando escribo puedo pensar mucho en lo que voy a decir, y después hacer revisiones si es necesario.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it, it's impossible to "edit" what one has said. When I write I can think hard about what I'm going to say then afterward make edits or revisions if it's necessary.
It is said "¿Por qué discuten* los amigos?" argumentar has a different meaning.
El amor es el modo usted son tratado a medida que creces arriba. Esta es el modo nosotros tratar nuestro amigos.
Love is the way you are treated as you grow up. This is the way we treat our friends.
As to the title question, text (email, instant messaging) makes one feel more confident. I find that people tend to be bolder when writing than in person. There's space between you. People will often say things in writing that they would not say face to face.
As to the other question, I believe that as friends become closer, they become more comfortable with offering criticism. However, people don't like to be criticized so they fight back, hence the arguments. The good thing about GOOD friends is that they can survive the arguments.
Para mí es porque estoy enojado. ¿Por qué estoy enojado? Imperfección humana. ¿De quién? De nos dos.
For me it's because I'm angry. Why am I angry? Human imperfections. Whose? Both of ours.
Haz el amor y no la guerra (pues de cualquier manera que tengas).
