5 ms·

I was hoping this article was going to highlight the emotional issues with responding instantly as opposed to the "lack of time" issue. I don't respond to most

I was hoping this article was going to highlight the emotional issues with responding instantly as opposed to the "lack of time" issue. I don't respond to most texts instantly, not because I'm driving or busy with my life, but because I just don't feel like responding right away. I am not sure why this is. I am not trying to be rude, and most of the time I feel bad about it and think that maybe I have communication issues, such as keeping in touch with people. But I am starting to realize that we shouldn't be expected to respond immediately "just because". We shouldn't have to be occupied to warrant not responding. Unfortunately, it is a stigma, and people will continue to get upset if they don't hear back within a matter of minutes. I wish someone would touch on this issue as I've never really seen it discussed.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Like I've said elsewhere, there's no built-in contact state that effectively communicates whether the person you are trying to reach is in normal work hours or they're with their family and only expect to be contacted in emergencies. It is a huge cultural problem, but the solution is technical: bring back away messages. It worked for AIM.
- teaneedz 11y ago
  It's more than a technical problem. It requires a mindset change. Even if I'm Available, I can still be in the middle of a task and rather respond later - or perhaps think about how I want to respond. Also, by not responding immediately, it trains the sender not to expect instant replies. Contact states always introduce other issues.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    What issues? By "training" the person that contacts you it only affects their relationship with you, and has to be clarified for everyone you're in contact with. Some people will assume the rules that apply to them are the same for everyone else, unless you plan on explicitly defining your preferences to prevent misunderstandings.
    - teaneedz 11y ago
      Issues include: - Privacy/InfoSec - Forgetting to change status - Meaningless status states (Away was never really that accurate or meaningful) - Extra messaging friction I've found that it's usually just a few certain types that expect instant replies. It doesn't require too much time for them to get that I respond when I can. The same rules do apply to everyone, but I'll deliberately delay responses at times so as not to feed the expectation of the reply-needy. With email, I have set times to review and reply.
- reinhardt 11y ago
  Away messages wouldn't hurt but that's not what the GP is talking about. We receive dozens of messages and notifications, we shouldn't have to feel we should be dropping everything we're doing to respond just because it's during "normal work hours". This expectation used to common with email, and maybe still is in some companies, but we've slowly come to accept email as what it is - asynchronous communication. Mobile notifications and chat applications are a step back in this respect.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    If you're a distributed remote company with people who prefer to work early and others who like to work late, all in different time zones, what are "normal work hours?" Also, I work I higher education, where things move slowly. Although we don't have an assumption that after-hours emails will be replied to until the next business day, any delay of a day or more can cascade to far more delay on the other end(s).
  - jerf 11y ago
    "We receive dozens of messages and notifications," I've been "on call" for a while before, and part of the solution is to deal directly with that. Anything app that thinks it has the right to pop up notifications whenever the hell it feels like it (and why is "3am" so often when they feel like it?) better have a setting to undo that easily found, or they're in for a rude uninstalling. Anything else that thinks it gets the priority interrupt had better be prepared to discover it doesn't. Because I need to save that priority interrupt for the actually important "site down" notice. I was getting a visceral twitch whenever I got a text because having the same alert for "CARTHAGE IS BURNING PREPARE TO SPEND HOURS FIXING IT YES I KNOW IT'S 2AM" and "hey whats up dude" was not working for me. I'm not on that call anymore, but I've kept the habit of keeping everything away from that level of interrupt. If it's that important, pick up the phone and call me. Provide social proof of its importance by putting your own attention into the conversation. (Which, of course, can only be done by a real human.) Otherwise, you're not that important and you can deal with a delay.
- jib 11y ago
  I dislike contact states personally. They are mostly noise. People set them, don't set them, forget they set them, had some program set them etc. For me it is fairly simple - usually texts in my company are higher urgency, location agnostic, communication. Only reason I would text is I need someone sooner than they see an email/Lync message, but I don't need them urgent enough to interrupt with a call. "I'm running late from this meeting, can we delay?", "you ok for lunch in 5?" etc. people typically respect that rough, unexpressed, protocol.
- fwn 11y ago
  I never ever wasn't "away" in ICQ and most in my friend list did the same. In my narrow experience its use tends to erode pretty quickly.
kafkaesque 11y ago
I read the article, and it wasn't all that insightful, to be honest. However, this is a topic I'm very interested in because my fiancee is the first person I've ever met that does not reply back soon to a text message and hardly picks up her phone. When we first started dating, this was a little strange. She would sometimes reply back within minutes. Other times she would take up to two hours. I couldn't gauge her interest in me. It turns out due to her age and culture (non-Western), she just simply does not use her phone that much. So she isn't looking at it a lot. We've argued that there must be a middle ground, though, and this is where it gets interesting. This isn't really a technology problem. It is a philosophical one. When we deal with people everyday, there is an unwritten and unspoken social contract we agree on. The case for not replying immediately to a stranger or an acquaintance is easily accepted, I believe. As the article says, you may be driving, you may be in another phone call, busy reading or studying. A stranger or acquaintance takes a longer time to sit higher up in your priority list. This is a basic socialization rule. I accept these things easily, and what's more, I act according to this concept. I basically categorise people's importance in my world. Even if I've read the text message, seen the missed phone call, or read the email. These categories are key, I believe. However, when a loved one, your significant other, spouse, fiancee or fiance, messages you or phones you or emails you, it is a totally different ball game, in my view. Emergency purposes, communicating your whereabouts sooner makes cohabitation much easier, especially when planning your day, unexpected plans, people know your schedule/routine and any changes may cause grief to your loved ones, etc. I do feel like family whom you do not live with is considered a step down in the priority list, but those you live with, specifically a partner, is different. And feeling insulted when they don't respond within 30 minutes at most generally, is pretty natural.
- DanBC 11y ago
  I would find it infuriating if I was expected to reply to every contact within 30 minutes. Sure, if it's important I'll reply. But otherwise? It feels control-freaky.
  - kafkaesque 11y ago
    Yes, to every contact is just really strange. I'd like to clarify that is not what I meant, in case my response read like that.
piyush_soni 11y ago
Most of the people might approve what you saying, but it is also reasonable for people to expect response when you are "in a conversation". For example, would you ever do it when I'm talking to you on the face and asked "So what are the plans for tomorrow?". Do you expect one to stay there staring at your face while you acknowledge that you have received the question but don't "feel like" answering it right away, even though you have time? Technology, in a lot of ways mimics physical life. You have to understand that the other person might have taken time out of his/her busy schedule to have a chat with you. And when you not busy but just don't feel like responding, it's reasonable for them to feel offended as admit it, no one likes to have a quick conversation when every response is after half an hour. The easiest, non-offensive way to do that would just to drop a quick message telling them that you'd get back to them (when you are able to give a few minutes of undivided attention to them). That's all, and no one should mind it then. But if you never feel like having any realtime conversation with anyone at all, then may be there are communication issues :).
- DarkTree 11y ago
  > For example, would you ever do it when I'm talking to you on the face and asked "So what are the plans for tomorrow?". Do you expect one to stay there staring at your face while you acknowledge that you have received the question but don't "feel like" answering it right away, even though you have time? Technology, in a lot of ways mimics physical life. I think it's important to acknowledge that, while technology mimics physical life in a lot of ways, it does not replicate it. The medium of conversation matters and should be considered. For example, no I wouldn't stare at their face until I felt like answering it, but I also wouldn't say, "Dear John, thank you for your question.." as I would only do that in an email. Likewise, I wouldn't speak out loud a lot of common phrases I use in texts, because having a conversation through the medium of a phone is psychologically different than in-person, and I think that's the issue I was getting at. While texting, you have to be more cautious about word choice and sentence structure so that you can convey not only the message, but the tone as well, which will naturally come out in-person. 200 years ago, all instant communication was done in person. This is a relatively new field of psychology that hasn't seem to be explored due to the fact that, especially texting, is an extremely new form of communication.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

Like I've said elsewhere, there's no built-in contact state that effectively communicates whether the person you are trying to reach is in normal work hours or they're with their family and only expect to be contacted in emergencies. It is a huge cultural problem, but the solution is technical: bring back away messages. It worked for AIM.

teaneedz 11y ago
It's more than a technical problem. It requires a mindset change. Even if I'm Available, I can still be in the middle of a task and rather respond later - or perhaps think about how I want to respond. Also, by not responding immediately, it trains the sender not to expect instant replies. Contact states always introduce other issues.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  What issues? By "training" the person that contacts you it only affects their relationship with you, and has to be clarified for everyone you're in contact with. Some people will assume the rules that apply to them are the same for everyone else, unless you plan on explicitly defining your preferences to prevent misunderstandings.
  - teaneedz 11y ago
    Issues include: - Privacy/InfoSec - Forgetting to change status - Meaningless status states (Away was never really that accurate or meaningful) - Extra messaging friction I've found that it's usually just a few certain types that expect instant replies. It doesn't require too much time for them to get that I respond when I can. The same rules do apply to everyone, but I'll deliberately delay responses at times so as not to feed the expectation of the reply-needy. With email, I have set times to review and reply.
reinhardt 11y ago
Away messages wouldn't hurt but that's not what the GP is talking about. We receive dozens of messages and notifications, we shouldn't have to feel we should be dropping everything we're doing to respond just because it's during "normal work hours". This expectation used to common with email, and maybe still is in some companies, but we've slowly come to accept email as what it is - asynchronous communication. Mobile notifications and chat applications are a step back in this respect.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  If you're a distributed remote company with people who prefer to work early and others who like to work late, all in different time zones, what are "normal work hours?" Also, I work I higher education, where things move slowly. Although we don't have an assumption that after-hours emails will be replied to until the next business day, any delay of a day or more can cascade to far more delay on the other end(s).
- jerf 11y ago
  "We receive dozens of messages and notifications," I've been "on call" for a while before, and part of the solution is to deal directly with that. Anything app that thinks it has the right to pop up notifications whenever the hell it feels like it (and why is "3am" so often when they feel like it?) better have a setting to undo that easily found, or they're in for a rude uninstalling. Anything else that thinks it gets the priority interrupt had better be prepared to discover it doesn't. Because I need to save that priority interrupt for the actually important "site down" notice. I was getting a visceral twitch whenever I got a text because having the same alert for "CARTHAGE IS BURNING PREPARE TO SPEND HOURS FIXING IT YES I KNOW IT'S 2AM" and "hey whats up dude" was not working for me. I'm not on that call anymore, but I've kept the habit of keeping everything away from that level of interrupt. If it's that important, pick up the phone and call me. Provide social proof of its importance by putting your own attention into the conversation. (Which, of course, can only be done by a real human.) Otherwise, you're not that important and you can deal with a delay.
jib 11y ago
I dislike contact states personally. They are mostly noise. People set them, don't set them, forget they set them, had some program set them etc. For me it is fairly simple - usually texts in my company are higher urgency, location agnostic, communication. Only reason I would text is I need someone sooner than they see an email/Lync message, but I don't need them urgent enough to interrupt with a call. "I'm running late from this meeting, can we delay?", "you ok for lunch in 5?" etc. people typically respect that rough, unexpressed, protocol.
fwn 11y ago
I never ever wasn't "away" in ICQ and most in my friend list did the same. In my narrow experience its use tends to erode pretty quickly.

kafkaesque 11y ago

I read the article, and it wasn't all that insightful, to be honest. However, this is a topic I'm very interested in because my fiancee is the first person I've ever met that does not reply back soon to a text message and hardly picks up her phone. When we first started dating, this was a little strange. She would sometimes reply back within minutes. Other times she would take up to two hours. I couldn't gauge her interest in me. It turns out due to her age and culture (non-Western), she just simply does not use her phone that much. So she isn't looking at it a lot. We've argued that there must be a middle ground, though, and this is where it gets interesting. This isn't really a technology problem. It is a philosophical one. When we deal with people everyday, there is an unwritten and unspoken social contract we agree on. The case for not replying immediately to a stranger or an acquaintance is easily accepted, I believe. As the article says, you may be driving, you may be in another phone call, busy reading or studying. A stranger or acquaintance takes a longer time to sit higher up in your priority list. This is a basic socialization rule. I accept these things easily, and what's more, I act according to this concept. I basically categorise people's importance in my world. Even if I've read the text message, seen the missed phone call, or read the email. These categories are key, I believe. However, when a loved one, your significant other, spouse, fiancee or fiance, messages you or phones you or emails you, it is a totally different ball game, in my view. Emergency purposes, communicating your whereabouts sooner makes cohabitation much easier, especially when planning your day, unexpected plans, people know your schedule/routine and any changes may cause grief to your loved ones, etc. I do feel like family whom you do not live with is considered a step down in the priority list, but those you live with, specifically a partner, is different. And feeling insulted when they don't respond within 30 minutes at most generally, is pretty natural.

DanBC 11y ago
I would find it infuriating if I was expected to reply to every contact within 30 minutes. Sure, if it's important I'll reply. But otherwise? It feels control-freaky.
- kafkaesque 11y ago
  Yes, to every contact is just really strange. I'd like to clarify that is not what I meant, in case my response read like that.

piyush_soni 11y ago

Most of the people might approve what you saying, but it is also reasonable for people to expect response when you are "in a conversation". For example, would you ever do it when I'm talking to you on the face and asked "So what are the plans for tomorrow?". Do you expect one to stay there staring at your face while you acknowledge that you have received the question but don't "feel like" answering it right away, even though you have time? Technology, in a lot of ways mimics physical life. You have to understand that the other person might have taken time out of his/her busy schedule to have a chat with you. And when you not busy but just don't feel like responding, it's reasonable for them to feel offended as admit it, no one likes to have a quick conversation when every response is after half an hour. The easiest, non-offensive way to do that would just to drop a quick message telling them that you'd get back to them (when you are able to give a few minutes of undivided attention to them). That's all, and no one should mind it then. But if you never feel like having any realtime conversation with anyone at all, then may be there are communication issues :).

DarkTree 11y ago
> For example, would you ever do it when I'm talking to you on the face and asked "So what are the plans for tomorrow?". Do you expect one to stay there staring at your face while you acknowledge that you have received the question but don't "feel like" answering it right away, even though you have time? Technology, in a lot of ways mimics physical life. I think it's important to acknowledge that, while technology mimics physical life in a lot of ways, it does not replicate it. The medium of conversation matters and should be considered. For example, no I wouldn't stare at their face until I felt like answering it, but I also wouldn't say, "Dear John, thank you for your question.." as I would only do that in an email. Likewise, I wouldn't speak out loud a lot of common phrases I use in texts, because having a conversation through the medium of a phone is psychologically different than in-person, and I think that's the issue I was getting at. While texting, you have to be more cautious about word choice and sentence structure so that you can convey not only the message, but the tone as well, which will naturally come out in-person. 200 years ago, all instant communication was done in person. This is a relatively new field of psychology that hasn't seem to be explored due to the fact that, especially texting, is an extremely new form of communication.