3 ms·

> It's like being in a professor's office and we discuss something and it prompts the professor to get up from his chair and pull a specific book from the shelf

> It's like being in a professor's office and we discuss something and it prompts the professor to get up from his chair and pull a specific book from the shelf and page through it to clarify a fact. As a former professor, visiting a professor during, say, office hours, is not quite the same as spending time with a loved one (whether that be a parent, sibling, spouse, friend, what-have-you). The context for such a meeting is to share knowledge and information, which discursive domain provides the reason for meeting in the first place. In many interpersonal meetings between loved ones, knowledge and information are a secondary or even more remote consideration to the basis of the meeting. In such cases, looking up trivial information is not necessarily a form of care but a form of distraction. It takes judgement to know when looking up a piece of information is germane to the interpersonal context or whether doing so is incidental. EDIT: Furnish missing object "care".

jasode 7y ago
> The context for such a meeting is to share knowledge and information, which discursive domain provides the reason for meeting in the first place. Yes, that underlying context is true but you're missing the point of my example. The professor example was not about "information" vs "friendship". It was meant to illustrate "engaged" vs "disengaged" in the conversation which is orthogonal to whether the context is teacher/student or friend/friend. For example, professor X sits there with arms folded across the chest thinking the student doesn't really care about his class and is only there to lobby for a good grade. Therefore the professor just answers, "Uhm, yes, I see. Well, I don't know what to say other than make sure you get your final paper in by next week". On the other hand, professor Y was genuinely intrigued by something the student said and it spurs him to search his bookshelf and clarify something. He didn't have to physically get up to get a book but the conversation was engaging enough to do so. When the professor temporarily turns his back to the student to fetch a relevant book, that doesn't mean he's less disconnected from the conversation; he's actually more connected. That's what I'm trying to convey: maybe measuring how much time your friend's eyes are glued to your face isn't the best way to measure connectedness. E.g. The professor X with the unbroken stare towards to the student was actually less engaged than professor Y that paused the conversation to find a relevant book. Like I said previously, I can't argue with others' feelings. This thread shows me that everybody seems to have different thresholds of annoyance for others using their smartphone to look up something. Personally, I'm never slighted or offended by it. I actually feel complimented if our conversation prompted their fingers to type out a search request because of something I said. Just last week, I was talking with a friend about iron supplements and as we were talking, she typed in a search query for the most iron-rich foods. It was great as the conversation then flowed into spinach, tofu, etc.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  Thanks for expanding on your initial thoughts and for relating those expansions to my response. (First rate engagement. A+++ would read again.) I agree engagement and relational context are orthogonal, and I think your elaboration captures very clearly what I mean by using > judgement to know when looking up a piece of information is germane to the interpersonal context or whether doing so is incidental Professor Y clearly cares and that care is expressed by looking up information. My main point to your first comment was that sometimes the nature of a relationship and a meeting will make most citations of fact irrelevant. For sure, sometimes meetings between close relations will benefit from citations of fact. Reading above, I don't think we're in disagreement, though we may be focusing more tightly on different scenarios. Thanks for engaging!

jasode 7y ago

> The context for such a meeting is to share knowledge and information, which discursive domain provides the reason for meeting in the first place. Yes, that underlying context is true but you're missing the point of my example. The professor example was not about "information" vs "friendship". It was meant to illustrate "engaged" vs "disengaged" in the conversation which is orthogonal to whether the context is teacher/student or friend/friend. For example, professor X sits there with arms folded across the chest thinking the student doesn't really care about his class and is only there to lobby for a good grade. Therefore the professor just answers, "Uhm, yes, I see. Well, I don't know what to say other than make sure you get your final paper in by next week". On the other hand, professor Y was genuinely intrigued by something the student said and it spurs him to search his bookshelf and clarify something. He didn't have to physically get up to get a book but the conversation was engaging enough to do so. When the professor temporarily turns his back to the student to fetch a relevant book, that doesn't mean he's less disconnected from the conversation; he's actually more connected. That's what I'm trying to convey: maybe measuring how much time your friend's eyes are glued to your face isn't the best way to measure connectedness. E.g. The professor X with the unbroken stare towards to the student was actually less engaged than professor Y that paused the conversation to find a relevant book. Like I said previously, I can't argue with others' feelings. This thread shows me that everybody seems to have different thresholds of annoyance for others using their smartphone to look up something. Personally, I'm never slighted or offended by it. I actually feel complimented if our conversation prompted their fingers to type out a search request because of something I said. Just last week, I was talking with a friend about iron supplements and as we were talking, she typed in a search query for the most iron-rich foods. It was great as the conversation then flowed into spinach, tofu, etc.

mistersquid 7y ago
Thanks for expanding on your initial thoughts and for relating those expansions to my response. (First rate engagement. A+++ would read again.) I agree engagement and relational context are orthogonal, and I think your elaboration captures very clearly what I mean by using > judgement to know when looking up a piece of information is germane to the interpersonal context or whether doing so is incidental Professor Y clearly cares and that care is expressed by looking up information. My main point to your first comment was that sometimes the nature of a relationship and a meeting will make most citations of fact irrelevant. For sure, sometimes meetings between close relations will benefit from citations of fact. Reading above, I don't think we're in disagreement, though we may be focusing more tightly on different scenarios. Thanks for engaging!