3 ms·

Implicit in what you're saying is that one of the reasons you're cool with having a "subpar" conversation with someone half-way around the world, is this idea t

by ksk 11y ago

Implicit in what you're saying is that one of the reasons you're cool with having a "subpar" conversation with someone half-way around the world, is this idea that you're unable to find anyone in your immediate vicinity. Otherwise (if you agree that text is subpar) you would always prefer just calling up someone who is across the street. So because we don't know (or feel immediately comfortable) talking to 99.999% of humans that surround us, the "removal of the human element" makes it more comfortable to talk to someone halfway around the world. Sure, I'd like the OPTION of having to talk to someone half-way around the world. But I don't think that its necessarily the best option or that we should think that the only people that you can talk to on any given topic are necessarily not people who are sitting right next to you - on the bus/train/plane/park bench/etc. >Maybe because for most of our conversations, not having to involve the messy things like body language and posture and cleaning yourself up from whatever you ate for breakfast are actually beneficial? Or to turn it around, it would be so much better to live in a society where you could just strike up conversations with strangers and not be judged for superficial BS like crumbs on your face.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Implicit in what you're saying is that one of the reasons you're cool with having a "subpar" conversation with someone half-way around the world, is this idea that you're unable to find anyone in your immediate vicinity. Otherwise (if you agree that text is subpar) you would always prefer just calling up someone who is across the street. Yes and no. I used "subpar" in scare quotes to refer to what I think was implicit sentiment in your comment above. Personally, I don't find text subpar, just different - trading off additional information for more control and efficiency, as well as range. As for being unable to find someone in my immediate vicinity, there are two issues here, both of which involves self-selection. First of all, people in my vicinity often are preoccupied with something else, whereas whoever signals his availability for conversation on-line is probably a safe bet to talk to. Secondly, when you look for people in your vicinity, you sample the general population. When you interact on a forum like this one, you sample through a much smaller population of people particularly tuned to that forum's topic and style of discussion. I don't mean to say here that people around me are inferior to those I meet online; on the contrary, there are conversations I prefer having with those next to me (often, not surprisingly, about topics related to local context). I find off-line and on-line forms to be different enough not to substitute for one another. > But I don't think that its necessarily the best option or that we should think that the only people that you can talk to on any given topic are necessarily not people who are sitting right next to you - on the bus/train/plane/park bench/etc. I agree. Though again, self-selection. I'm equally fine with talking about things with people on the bus or on the other side of the planet. But I'm having this conversation here with you, on HN, and not with my friends over beer, because it's Sunday night over here in my timezone; most of face-to-face conversations I could have have selected themselves out by going to sleep :). > Or to turn it around, it would be so much better to live in a society where you could just strike up conversations with strangers and not be judged for superficial BS like crumbs on your face. Oh I would so love to live in such a world! But that will require serious rewiring of both our societies and our own insecurities, which would be a change of much more profound (whether good or bad) consequences than mere smartphones.
- ksk 11y ago
  Well the thing is, if you think about trade-offs, the current way of thinking is - I'm willing to have a text only conversation, if I could only get in touch with other like minded individuals. If we reverse it - I don't want to compromise on a richer interaction, so how can I change my own life/address/etc so that there is a higher chance of meeting like-minded individuals. For e.g. what if, it became extremely easy to move. Like, you could move your entire house in 30 minutes and go live somewhere else. All the hassles of changing addresses, packing, unpacking, etc didn't exist. In that scenario you could just spontaneously move around and be among whichever group of people you choose to. It sounds weird in my head as well, but that's just because we're conditioned to feel that way. One other related issue is this notion of wanting to always be with 'like minded' individuals. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster if you ask me. It's probably good to have people around who challenge you or disagree with you or don't like you all the time, etc. Anyway, I think we're probably close enough in agreement on the main point.

by ksk 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> Implicit in what you're saying is that one of the reasons you're cool with having a "subpar" conversation with someone half-way around the world, is this idea that you're unable to find anyone in your immediate vicinity. Otherwise (if you agree that text is subpar) you would always prefer just calling up someone who is across the street. Yes and no. I used "subpar" in scare quotes to refer to what I think was implicit sentiment in your comment above. Personally, I don't find text subpar, just different - trading off additional information for more control and efficiency, as well as range. As for being unable to find someone in my immediate vicinity, there are two issues here, both of which involves self-selection. First of all, people in my vicinity often are preoccupied with something else, whereas whoever signals his availability for conversation on-line is probably a safe bet to talk to. Secondly, when you look for people in your vicinity, you sample the general population. When you interact on a forum like this one, you sample through a much smaller population of people particularly tuned to that forum's topic and style of discussion. I don't mean to say here that people around me are inferior to those I meet online; on the contrary, there are conversations I prefer having with those next to me (often, not surprisingly, about topics related to local context). I find off-line and on-line forms to be different enough not to substitute for one another. > But I don't think that its necessarily the best option or that we should think that the only people that you can talk to on any given topic are necessarily not people who are sitting right next to you - on the bus/train/plane/park bench/etc. I agree. Though again, self-selection. I'm equally fine with talking about things with people on the bus or on the other side of the planet. But I'm having this conversation here with you, on HN, and not with my friends over beer, because it's Sunday night over here in my timezone; most of face-to-face conversations I could have have selected themselves out by going to sleep :). > Or to turn it around, it would be so much better to live in a society where you could just strike up conversations with strangers and not be judged for superficial BS like crumbs on your face. Oh I would so love to live in such a world! But that will require serious rewiring of both our societies and our own insecurities, which would be a change of much more profound (whether good or bad) consequences than mere smartphones.

ksk 11y ago
Well the thing is, if you think about trade-offs, the current way of thinking is - I'm willing to have a text only conversation, if I could only get in touch with other like minded individuals. If we reverse it - I don't want to compromise on a richer interaction, so how can I change my own life/address/etc so that there is a higher chance of meeting like-minded individuals. For e.g. what if, it became extremely easy to move. Like, you could move your entire house in 30 minutes and go live somewhere else. All the hassles of changing addresses, packing, unpacking, etc didn't exist. In that scenario you could just spontaneously move around and be among whichever group of people you choose to. It sounds weird in my head as well, but that's just because we're conditioned to feel that way. One other related issue is this notion of wanting to always be with 'like minded' individuals. That's pretty much a recipe for disaster if you ask me. It's probably good to have people around who challenge you or disagree with you or don't like you all the time, etc. Anyway, I think we're probably close enough in agreement on the main point.