3 ms·

The flipside, imho, is that it's simply less of a big deal to be late, precisely because technology makes it less problematic. 20 years ago, if someone was late

The flipside, imho, is that it's simply less of a big deal to be late, precisely because technology makes it less problematic. 20 years ago, if someone was late for, say, a dinner date, you'd be faced with the unpleasant choice of having to leave and reschedule, or wait, not knowing if they'll ever show. Now you can simply text each other. The decision point comes earlier. YMMV, but my circle seems to simply be generally more flexible about time. That may be considered rude to some, and rude by standards of 20 years ago, but as long as everyone is generally on board, it's not a problem. In fact, it's more flexible and arguably efficient (I'm thinking of just in time inventory). I'm wondering if we're simply witnessing a generational shift here. (Full disclosure, I'm in my 40's).

_delirium 16y ago
This is definitely true for me, though it varies based on the situation. I do find it somewhat rude/annoying to wait for people when meeting at a restaurant, mostly because it's somewhat awkward to wait. But if we're meeting at a coffee shop, I don't really care if they come on time or 30 mins late; I have plenty of stuff I can do in the meantime.
pasbesoin 16y ago
This comment mirrors my own initial thoughts: Rather than (just) a complaint, I'd be interested in an analysis of just what is going on, these days. There's so much tardiness, yet society and relationships are not flying apart (or maybe they are?). So, at a society level, it seems to be working. What does that look like, deconstructed? (Presumably, some part of the system/society is gaining advantages from it; we're not just all and entirely one-sidedly enduring a bad habit.) Now, to rectify my own bad behavior: Commenting before I've read the article. Edit: Read the article. I remain with the same question. I speculate the answer might intersect with recent commentary on the inhibiting effects of a surfeit of choice -- or, at a more basic level, mental stimulation. Too many things vying for our attention. There have been articles describing the deleterious effect upon the individual of encountering this in the form of too many products to choose from, when shopping. One effect being that you never make the purchase. Or you draw out the consideration to a crisis point, whereupon you snap up the item closest at hand, which may actually be a sub-optimal choice in terms of quality and features. In the modern, (U.S.) consumer landscape, more and more of the different brands are being manufactured by the same few conglomerates. Is there an analogy in the time management landscape? How many of those TV program choices are from the same conglomerates? How many of the conflicting demands upon your time come, actually, ultimately from the same employer? Is tackling the problem in part aided by recognizing the commonality of much of this distraction, and seeing it for that: One and the same? (So, make your choice and execute, and choose further to tune out -- at least while doing this -- the rest?) I feel I'm really going out on a limb, posting this rambling. But I wonder how others see this working, not just the impression that it's bad.

_delirium 16y ago

This is definitely true for me, though it varies based on the situation. I do find it somewhat rude/annoying to wait for people when meeting at a restaurant, mostly because it's somewhat awkward to wait. But if we're meeting at a coffee shop, I don't really care if they come on time or 30 mins late; I have plenty of stuff I can do in the meantime.

pasbesoin 16y ago

This comment mirrors my own initial thoughts: Rather than (just) a complaint, I'd be interested in an analysis of just what is going on, these days. There's so much tardiness, yet society and relationships are not flying apart (or maybe they are?). So, at a society level, it seems to be working. What does that look like, deconstructed? (Presumably, some part of the system/society is gaining advantages from it; we're not just all and entirely one-sidedly enduring a bad habit.) Now, to rectify my own bad behavior: Commenting before I've read the article. Edit: Read the article. I remain with the same question. I speculate the answer might intersect with recent commentary on the inhibiting effects of a surfeit of choice -- or, at a more basic level, mental stimulation. Too many things vying for our attention. There have been articles describing the deleterious effect upon the individual of encountering this in the form of too many products to choose from, when shopping. One effect being that you never make the purchase. Or you draw out the consideration to a crisis point, whereupon you snap up the item closest at hand, which may actually be a sub-optimal choice in terms of quality and features. In the modern, (U.S.) consumer landscape, more and more of the different brands are being manufactured by the same few conglomerates. Is there an analogy in the time management landscape? How many of those TV program choices are from the same conglomerates? How many of the conflicting demands upon your time come, actually, ultimately from the same employer? Is tackling the problem in part aided by recognizing the commonality of much of this distraction, and seeing it for that: One and the same? (So, make your choice and execute, and choose further to tune out -- at least while doing this -- the rest?) I feel I'm really going out on a limb, posting this rambling. But I wonder how others see this working, not just the impression that it's bad.