37 ms·
I agree that it's frustrating, but your "solution" is extremely self-centered. I might not be getting much out of the conversation or even want to be a part of
by franga2000 4y ago
I agree that it's frustrating, but your "solution" is extremely self-centered. I might not be getting much out of the conversation or even want to be a part of it in the forst place. In that case, if responding slowly works better for me, you forcing me to give you my attention adds a huge cost to my side of the equation.
To use an example: if you're texting me to help you fix your printer while I'm working, I might give you a small bit of my attention out of "generosity" (not the right term but close enough). I'm not getting anything out of this, but I'm not losing much either. But if you want to completely interrupt my flow and force me to give you all or none of my attention, fuck your printer. I have better things to do.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wolverine876 4y agoYou can always say, 'let me call you after work ...'.
- fleddr 4y agoThe situation is exactly opposite, allow me to clarify. I didn't start the conversation, so I'm the one being "intruded". Yet I reply. And we keep replying to each other in near real-time: Peter: Hey Me: Hey Peter: Sally called, we need to do that thing. Me: What thing? Peter: It's in the document. Me: Which one? Peter: In your mail Me: Found it. Question about document Peter: Partial answer Me: What about rest of answer Peter: Don't know Now imagine that dear Peter takes 2 minutes between every single reply. Demanding my full attention for an enormous stretch of time as he himself (that wants something from me) for whichever reason is slow, distracted. It's Peter being rude here. The equivalent would be calling somebody and then leaving them waiting. You're the one that called. If you want my attention, put in your attention. Fuck your printer too.