"This statement made me say to myself 'Of course the newsletter didn't work. The newsletter is sight dominant. You have to READ it.' "
And elfwreck commented:
"Maybe there's demand for a touch-dominant *blog*, rather than newsletter. ... I'm not so sure--but I know there's a great deal of interest in sensory perception methods online, and a blog might catch more people than a newsletter they don't feel they can interact with."
Two tentative hypotheses are floating around here, and I'm strongly inclined to believe that both of them are valid. I get a lot of requests for reading material about touch dominance -- that's why I finally wrote Try To Feel It My Way, because I couldn't find a book like it to recommend to people -- but the requests don't come from TD people, they come from their non-TD spouses and parents and friends and employers and relatives.
There was, so far as I could tell, literally no interest at all in the TD newsletter from TD people themselves, and because I was tailoring the material specifically for the touch dominant reader it had little appeal for the hearing and sight dominant. When I first began doing the research for the book I was flabbergasted by how hard it was to find non-medical material specifically on touch -- material for the general reader. There were three or four books, a very short list of articles, some hard-to-get-hold-of research studies funded by Johnson & Johnson, one website on nonverbal communication, the work of Tiffany Field, and that was about it. That has since changed dramatically with the boom in haptics and robotics, but still... For the non-specialist who is touch dominant, "You have to READ it" may still be an instant turn-off.
Is there enough interactivity in blogging to get past that barrier? I don't know. Maybe. I'd certainly be pleased if a touch dominance blog existed, and would support it in every way I could. But would it fly? I don't know, again.
One thing I know for sure is that the first priority would have to be a name other than "Touch Dominance Blog." Choosing a name is critically important; once you launch a name, you're stuck with it, and re-naming isn't a practical fix if you've made a bad choice. [Consider "the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense." More than a dozen books into that series, plus audio programs and seminars and whatnots, that name is a millstone round my neck and always has been. Every time I do a medical seminar, the client tells me "You have to leave that word 'gentle' off the seminar handout, and we'll be leaving it out of the announcement. Our people won't attend anything that has 'gentle' in its name." Bad choice; hard to drag around.] The phrase "touch dominance" is fine in context, but by itself it immediately brings up connotations of sexual practices, and that introduces confusion way past the tolerable level.
A name that's more clear, and that would have some appeal, doesn't come leaping to my mind. Think of the set of words associated with the literature on touch: tactile, tactual, kinesthetic, kinesics, haptic, haptics, proprioception... That's a klunky and unwieldy set of words; typically for mainstream American English and culture, the topic of touch is made cumbersome to talk about by its own vocabulary. If I had to suggest something myself, I'd suggest trying to use "felth" in the naming process. Sight, hearing, and felth; good clear sturdy one-syllable English words. Sight people; hearing people; felth people. No Ph.D. required to understand "felth." But I know from experience that's there's a lot of resistance to the word; I've run into plenty of it in responses to posts in this journal.
All of this might matter in ways that aren't readily obvious. It has been suggested [starting with J.W. Prescott and Douglas Wallace, "Developmental Sociobiology and the Origins of Aggressive Behavior," a paper presented at the 21st International Congress of Psychology in July 1976] that the more biased a culture is against touch, the more violent it is likely to be. If that hypothesis is valid, a culture that places a high value on violence is going to do everything possible to maintain and nuture its anti-touch bias and keep down the level of acceptance for everything related to nonviolent touch.
Two articles by J.W. Prescott online: "The Origins of Human Love and Violence," at http://www.violence.de/prescott/pppj/article.html [very long]; and "Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence," at http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html .