5 ms·

There are parts of this that make sense to me, and parts that seem very strange. The pervasive interruptions is true, but tying it to online vs. non-online conv

by mjn 15y ago

There are parts of this that make sense to me, and parts that seem very strange. The pervasive interruptions is true, but tying it to online vs. non-online conversation I'm more skeptical of, and seems to be some kind of nostalgia for an idealized era of intellectual discussion in the cafe that few people ever really experienced. The article has an assumption sort of carried throughout, which I thought we had pretty much ditched in the 1990s, that online=shallow and IRL=deep, for various pop-linguistics reasons involving the supposed inability of textual conversation to carry nuance or emotion. I don't think studies have borne that out; among people who are "text fluent", i.e. regularly use real-time text chat for in-depth conversations, you find the usual range of linguistic features, including non-explicit conveyance of information, emotion, etc. There seems to be a persistent myth that text chat is equivalent to sending telegrams back and forth or something, which is only approximately true for people who have never developed any real experience or fluency with the medium (it does feel like that when I'm chatting online with my parents, who aren't really internet people, so I prefer to call/Skype them instead). I haven't found a clear online vs. offline dividing line in terms of which supports "real" conversations in my own friendships. With some people it's more one, with others more of the other. My closest friends are people I talk to extensively via both modalities, and you tend to get different sides of people through each. If anything, though, I would say I have somewhat more "real" conversations online. Maybe it's just who I end up being close friends with, but I find people are a little less guarded online, and actually worse at faking/masking emotion. Two of my friends in particular are very good at putting on an official face in person, such that even if you know them well it's hard to figure out what exactly they're thinking if they don't want you to. But online, when I talk to them regularly, it's nearly instantly obvious when they're in a bad mood or something is bugging them, by the way the cadence and subtleties of the conversation change, or change when specific things are mentioned. The changes are as much in what's omitted or different from usual as what's explicitly present in the text. But supposedly all those nuances don't exist!

j_baker 15y ago
Email definitely does have disadvantages over face-to-face conversation, and studies have borne this out: http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/09/emails-dark-side-10-psychology-studies.php http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/09/emails-dark-side-10-psychol... Anecdotally, I've had the same experience. I can't count the number of times I've gotten into a heated argument with someone over email, and resolved it within 2 minutes simply by talking it over face-to-face with them. To be clear, I'm not against email or anything like that. I just think it's important to realize that any medium of communication has inherent pros and cons.
- mjn 15y ago
  Email I agree is considerably different. I think of it as fitting a different niche, but I'm admittedly not sure how most people use it. I don't consider it to be "conversation" in the same way as IM, IRC, or talking on the phone are conversation, though I guess you could use it that way. I try to use it more for intellectual exchange than personal conversation, in bigger, less frequent chunks. Same with HN comments or blog posts, for that matter, or even old-style letter-writing or office-memo circulation.
- dalore 15y ago
  It's definitely easier to get angry at someone and express it via email and say stuff you wouldn't normally say face to face or via the phone. This is just my anecdote however, no studies to back it up.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    A corollary I've found is that it's easier to go along with things you don't really agree with in person, when in email you'd disagree. Especially for conflict-averse people. Pros and cons, I guess. If I know someone is conflict-averse I sometimes actively seek out their view by email after a meeting, to make sure I know what they really think.
WiseWeasel 15y ago
Would you ask a girl or guy [with whom you have an established non-sexual relationship] out for the first time over text message? Or ask someone to marry you? Would you break up with them over SMS? For the sake of your happiness, I'd hope the answer is "No." The potential for miscommunication is much higher once you add delay and limit expression to words and emoticons. Now think of how such an approach to communication might harm your prospects of establishing connections and managing relationships with potential business partners.
- mjn 15y ago
  Over AIM, sure, though not with a random name I pulled out of a hat or something. I think I've had most of my "heavy" conversations over IM, even with people I regularly speak to in person. It just lends itself better to that, imo, and greatly increases real conversation while reducing the risk of miscommunication. I'm not sure what the strange condescension is in the "for your sake", there. It's a kind of conversation. Perhaps it doesn't work for you, or you aren't very fluent in it. But between pairs of people who're used to it and who both "get it", it has plenty of nuances; it's not some strange caricature of exchanging telegrams with smileys in them. There are definitely people where it does feel like that, and I don't have real conversations with those people over IM, because it's just not their thing. Same with a phone really; with some people phone conversations work well, and with others they work very poorly. I personally rank IM above phone in the nuance and avoidance of miscommunication department, so I would never want to have serious discussions with a risk of miscommunication over a phone. They're in a weird uncanny-valley place imo, but they do work for other people from what I can tell. I don't use text/SMS a lot, so don't have a strong opinion on how that works. For people who have smartphone interfaces to SMS it seems it would be similar to a text chat, but I wouldn't want to venture a conclusion without knowing more.
  - WiseWeasel 15y ago
    What I'm saying is that it is intuitive for most people that for the situations in our lives that really matter most to us and the relationships we form, we know to be present in person, and fully engaged with our undivided attention. Then, it's not too far of a logical stretch to realize how such an approach is not unique to romantic relationships, allowing you to have a more effective impact on your business relationships as well.
Swizec 15y ago
I can't upvote this enough. Once you become familiar with a person idiolect text is actually better for discovering the nuances in their emotion. If for nothing more than having ample time to perceive the differences. In face-to-face conversation you are expected to react quicker. To keep the conversation flowing, make sure thare are no awkward pauses. You can't just take a minute to consider what's being asked and answer then, like you can in IM chat. Face-to-face a minute of thought is an eternal awkward silence. Online, a minute of thought isn't even noticed.

by mjn 15y ago

j_baker 15y ago

Email definitely does have disadvantages over face-to-face conversation, and studies have borne this out: http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/09/emails-dark-side-10-psychology-studies.php http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/09/emails-dark-side-10-psychol... Anecdotally, I've had the same experience. I can't count the number of times I've gotten into a heated argument with someone over email, and resolved it within 2 minutes simply by talking it over face-to-face with them. To be clear, I'm not against email or anything like that. I just think it's important to realize that any medium of communication has inherent pros and cons.

mjn 15y ago
Email I agree is considerably different. I think of it as fitting a different niche, but I'm admittedly not sure how most people use it. I don't consider it to be "conversation" in the same way as IM, IRC, or talking on the phone are conversation, though I guess you could use it that way. I try to use it more for intellectual exchange than personal conversation, in bigger, less frequent chunks. Same with HN comments or blog posts, for that matter, or even old-style letter-writing or office-memo circulation.
dalore 15y ago
It's definitely easier to get angry at someone and express it via email and say stuff you wouldn't normally say face to face or via the phone. This is just my anecdote however, no studies to back it up.
- _delirium 15y ago
  A corollary I've found is that it's easier to go along with things you don't really agree with in person, when in email you'd disagree. Especially for conflict-averse people. Pros and cons, I guess. If I know someone is conflict-averse I sometimes actively seek out their view by email after a meeting, to make sure I know what they really think.

WiseWeasel 15y ago

Would you ask a girl or guy [with whom you have an established non-sexual relationship] out for the first time over text message? Or ask someone to marry you? Would you break up with them over SMS? For the sake of your happiness, I'd hope the answer is "No." The potential for miscommunication is much higher once you add delay and limit expression to words and emoticons. Now think of how such an approach to communication might harm your prospects of establishing connections and managing relationships with potential business partners.

mjn 15y ago
Over AIM, sure, though not with a random name I pulled out of a hat or something. I think I've had most of my "heavy" conversations over IM, even with people I regularly speak to in person. It just lends itself better to that, imo, and greatly increases real conversation while reducing the risk of miscommunication. I'm not sure what the strange condescension is in the "for your sake", there. It's a kind of conversation. Perhaps it doesn't work for you, or you aren't very fluent in it. But between pairs of people who're used to it and who both "get it", it has plenty of nuances; it's not some strange caricature of exchanging telegrams with smileys in them. There are definitely people where it does feel like that, and I don't have real conversations with those people over IM, because it's just not their thing. Same with a phone really; with some people phone conversations work well, and with others they work very poorly. I personally rank IM above phone in the nuance and avoidance of miscommunication department, so I would never want to have serious discussions with a risk of miscommunication over a phone. They're in a weird uncanny-valley place imo, but they do work for other people from what I can tell. I don't use text/SMS a lot, so don't have a strong opinion on how that works. For people who have smartphone interfaces to SMS it seems it would be similar to a text chat, but I wouldn't want to venture a conclusion without knowing more.
- WiseWeasel 15y ago
  What I'm saying is that it is intuitive for most people that for the situations in our lives that really matter most to us and the relationships we form, we know to be present in person, and fully engaged with our undivided attention. Then, it's not too far of a logical stretch to realize how such an approach is not unique to romantic relationships, allowing you to have a more effective impact on your business relationships as well.

Swizec 15y ago

I can't upvote this enough. Once you become familiar with a person idiolect text is actually better for discovering the nuances in their emotion. If for nothing more than having ample time to perceive the differences. In face-to-face conversation you are expected to react quicker. To keep the conversation flowing, make sure thare are no awkward pauses. You can't just take a minute to consider what's being asked and answer then, like you can in IM chat. Face-to-face a minute of thought is an eternal awkward silence. Online, a minute of thought isn't even noticed.