I'll qualify that the vast majority of my electronic correspondence is business-related. I just don't really do "personal" electronic communication (text messages, email, video chat) too much. Most of my thoughts are coming from a business perspective, though I do really value having my old personal correspondence too.
I'm not using my persistent records to "correct" anybody, per se. For very specific "offensive" scenarios, like taking a vendor to task for failing to meet requirements, for example, I'm glad of having the details in black-and-white. Good business dealings are done in writing, in my experience. It keeps all parties accountable and.
Aside from that "offensive" scenario my old communication records are there to augment my memory. They helps me assure I'm living up to expectations and promises, and they give me super-human ability to recall minute details.
If referring back to old communication suggested a pattern of inaccuracy or out-right lying on somebody's part I'd certainly use that to inform my future dealings with them. I think it'd be gauche to speak about it overtly to anybody (except maybe immediate family) but it would color my interactions.
Ah, yes, for business dealings I'd certainly want a record. I was talking more about personal relationships, where I generally want things deleted after a while.
> If you only do it to prove you were right, stop doing that, it's not a good look.
It seems fine to me if someone makes an error in recollection to correct them (if it's about something material). I mean there are more and less nice ways to do it, and you don't necessarily want to do it about everything, but it seems like a very odd rule of thumb to me to say "it's not a good look". Maybe you have a particular personality archetype/pathological behaviour in mind that I'm not familiar with?
Is it about the awkward relational-imbalance that might be created between people who check records and people who can't be bothered? (the former able to use their spare time to reduce the status of the other party within the relationship, who lack the time/stamina/desire to reciprocate).
I know some super-pedantic people, who might engage in such correction pathologically. With those friends I actively resist ever making any distinction/categorisation that might be used against me in the future. It's a real arms race!
> It seems fine to me if someone makes an error in recollection to correct them (if it's about something material).
What sort of error? The GP said "where other parties recall a verbal conversation differently than me", and what's the benefit there? You have two differing views of a conversation, you can say "oh well I meant X" and move on. There's no benefit in figuring out who got it wrong just to apportion blame. Just leave it ambiguous and clarify the intention when you realize there was a misunderstanding.
> Maybe you have a particular personality archetype/pathological behaviour in mind that I'm not familiar with?
It's nothing pathological, some people just tend to want to go back to prove they were right, but proving the other person wrong doesn't tend to be productive.
> The GP said "where other parties recall a verbal conversation differently than me", and what's the benefit there? You have two differing views of a conversation, you can say "oh well I meant X" and move on.
I recognize that two people may interpret a conversation differently. The ground truth of what was said has value, though.
If I know what was said I can work to tailor future my interactions with that party in an effort to prevent misunderstandings. I will certainly also try to suss-out if the other party has a pattern of apparently choosing to recollect conversations differently for their own ends (or maybe just has memory issues). It's going to color my interaction with that person. I don't "blame" them but I'm also not going to ignore information that could help me in future interactions. I'm not going to speak about it (because I think that would be in poor taste) but I'm certainly going to use that information to my benefit too.
If I find out that, though reviewing old communication, that my recollection is faulty I'm going to make things right, make amends as necessary. I'm also going to try to prevent it from happening in the future, too. I genuinely don't want to be a person who choose to recollect conversations differently for my own ends. That's impolite and not something I would ever want to do.
Hmm, that's reasonable as well, though I generally find that misunderstandings are more about "I said X and I thought it was only interpretable one way but apparently there was also another interpretation and that's what the listener got". It's not that common (at least in my group) that this is done out of malice, and I'd probably notice if someone had a pattern of "misremembering" conversations for benefit.
I see your point, though I still think that deleting them is a better default, as I prefer my everyday chats to be ephemeral. Certainly I wouldn't want them lasting for years.
> ... I generally find that misunderstandings are more about "I said X and I thought it was only interpretable one way but apparently there was also another interpretation and that's what the listener got".
I relish knowing about those, too. That's a learning moment for me.
> It's not that common (at least in my group) that this is done out of malice ...
I don't see that in my personal interactions either. I've seen it in business interactions enough to look out for it. I've worked for and along side ethically-challenged individuals who consider agreements subject to interpretation, to their advantage, indefinitely.
(An aside - Thanks for the continued interaction here. I am enjoying it, though I should get back to work. >smile<)
If you only do it to prove you were right, stop doing that, it's not a good look.