3 ms·

We have to normalize being on silent all the time and making people wait hours for a response. Return to the primordial monkey of 1800s-era high-latency comms.

by faidit 4mo ago

We have to normalize being on silent all the time and making people wait hours for a response. Return to the primordial monkey of 1800s-era high-latency comms. At first, some people will be offended. "Why didn't you let me ping and buzz you and interrupt you all day? You didn't respond immediately each time :'((". Some people with unrealistic expectations may even stop talking to you entirely. But eventually (years maybe) they will get overwhelmed too. No one can handle this madness indefinitely. I've seen giga-texters get broken down and turn into lazy texters like me, or at least learn to tolerate my long response intervals and recognize it as a coping mechanism rather than rudeness.

jawilson2 4mo ago
I've told people this for years. The mode of communication reflects the urgency. If you text me, expect a response on the order of 3+ days. If you call, and I recognize the number, it will be more urgent. If I DON'T recognize it, it goes to voicemail and back in the 3+ days queue. If you show up at my door, it is immediate. Even with my wife, she will text while I'm at the grocery to pick up some extra food items, and it doesn't necessarily come through or I'm on silent. I'll get home, and she'll ask where the food is, and I ask why she didn't call if it was timely. I just do NOT check my texts that often, it isn't because I'm deliberately ignoring anyone.
- WorldMaker 4mo ago
  The current trend seems to be switching the priority order of calls and texts among many of us. I feel like a call should be scheduled, preferably 3+ days out, and preferably with an agenda attached. (Same rules I feel about any sort of meeting.) But a direct text (non-group chat, just to me) is a priority. Group chats get that 1-2 days middle ground.
  - jawilson2 4mo ago
    I know that's the trend, but it is backwards to me. Like UDP vs TCP. If you need an immediate answer for something, why send a one-way communication where you have no idea whether the person on the other end A) received it, and B) acted on it. A 15 second phone call accomplishes this, whereas if I text you it could be hours, unless you immediately respond.
    - WorldMaker 4mo ago
      Most text message apps have real time read receipts for A and "actively writing" indicators that imply some of B. (The things that we invented for "instant messaging" decades ago are finally mostly back in vogue in text messaging.) Text messages have "reactions" like Thumbs Up that very quickly say "I will action this shortly." For me that's more TCP, the classic ACK receipt then action. A 15 second phone call probably goes straight to my voicemail and there's no read receipts if I have read the voicemail transcription yet, much less tried to listen to it. It might be hours until I'm in a quiet enough space to try to listen to it, because I don't carry headphones with me most of the time, don't listen to speakerphone in public, and the "phone speaker" on an iPhone is generally hard to hear for me, no matter how I awkwardly position the phone. The transcriptions are usually not good enough to action directly so I do usually need to do that dance of find a way to listen to it. Calls to me are a UDP hole with fewer acknowledgements and a lot of inconvenience. Unless you've prescheduled a call with me, in which case maybe I do answer and maybe it is quick enough to be a 15 second phone call. But the easiest way to schedule that call with me is going to be to text me "Hey can I call in an hour about X?" and I'll ACK it soon after, and probably then likely spend 45 minutes looking for a quiet place to take a private phone call. But, yeah, different perspectives for different sorts of people. Phone calls are taxing to me and the real world is a loud place and I don't carry headphones and I like to control the environment in which I try to answer a phone call, but also I find finding such quiet environments stressful enough to want to schedule them ahead of time.
  - II2II 4mo ago
    Wouldn't it depend upon context? If it is an emergency, it is a voice call. It is both immediate and conveys urgency. If it is something that you need to talk through, it is a scheduled voice call. Asynchronous communications may demonstrate respect for a person's time since it does not (need to) interrupt them in the moment, but the inefficiency results in a disrespectful waste of time for bidirectional conversations. If it is something where you need a simple response by the end of the day, it is a text. If it requires a lengthy response, email. Never expect a lengthy response by the end of the day, or for it to be handled on devices with terrible input methods (like phones). Anything that isn't covered by those scenarios will be largely dependent on the person.
    - WorldMaker 4mo ago
      If it's an emergency I want it in text first because I read faster than I listen to voicemails, and can do so in more spaces/contexts/environments (say, at a loud concert or eating in a restaurant), and I trust a person to write the message better than the voicemail system will transcribe a call. Certain emergency keywords sent in a text will especially alert me faster than a call would. (I have call notifications as practically turned off as possible in current operating systems [way too much phone call spam], but a measured set of notification levels for text notifications.) I think even for emergency situations the relationship between voice calls and text messages is flipping. Text messages are immediate and can convey urgency. Phone calls are for private, quiet spaces, which take time to find (or schedule). With the death of the private phone booths in public spaces, phone calls are inconvenient to take almost everywhere now outside of one's home, but urgent text messages can be read and even acted upon just about anywhere.
      - zchrykng 4mo ago
        Why are we talking about voicemails in the context of emergencies? If it was an emergency, I'm calling every number I have for someone until they pickup or enough time has passed that I write them off as a flake and find the next person on the list who might be able to help with whatever it is.
        4mo ago
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  That's funny, I take the exact opposite approach. I prioritize interactions based on how much commitment I expect they'll require, with lesser commitment getting more priority. So a text message I'll usually answer right away. An email or some written reply that requires some redaction I'll postpone to when I can take the time for a thoughtful response. A ring on my buzzer, if I'm not expecting anything or anyone, I'll always ignore; I can't let any dumbass passing by the front of my building rope me into a pointless conversation. Phone calls don't fit neatly into this scheme because they demand a lot of attention, but it's easy to get out of one if you realize it's not something critical. I generally pick up and the moment I get the slightest whiff of spam, I just hang up.
Uncle_Brumpus 4mo ago
I am notoriously "bad" at texting. My phone's on silent almost 95% of the time, I don't even have a smartphone so the only way to get to me wirelessly is to call or text. I got really into sending mail last year, specifically postcards. I have a list of ~10 people I would consider "close", immediate family and good friends, and 5 or 6 more tertiary contacts. I travel fairly frequently, so I had plenty of opportunities for sending postcards. I send cards for obscure holidays just because. The physical process of hand-writing messages is so therapeutic for me. I've probably sent ~250 postcards in the last year and a half. I have received... 3 physical responses. It has been extremely disappointing, but I continue to send mail because I enjoy the process of writing the cards, and the knowledge that people probably appreciate the mail makes me feel good, so at least I get a little out of it myself. My mom will occasionally text to say she liked the postcard, but has never bothered to send one back to me. I would be delighted if more people chose to communicate slowly.
- abustamam 4mo ago
  I like this. I don't know what postcard etiquette is, but when I send a postcard it's just to show that I'm thinking of someone while I'm traveling. If the recipient doesn't travel or finds other ways to express that they're thinking or me while traveling (souvenir, etc) I'd consider that social contract fulfilled.
  - brewdad 4mo ago
    I haven’t sent a postcard in years but I always thought it was a signal that I am having a great time but also you are important enough to me that I want to include you in the only way I can. I certainly never expected a direct response but hoped I might receive a postcard from that friend at some unexpected future time.

by faidit 4mo ago

jawilson2 4mo ago

I've told people this for years. The mode of communication reflects the urgency. If you text me, expect a response on the order of 3+ days. If you call, and I recognize the number, it will be more urgent. If I DON'T recognize it, it goes to voicemail and back in the 3+ days queue. If you show up at my door, it is immediate. Even with my wife, she will text while I'm at the grocery to pick up some extra food items, and it doesn't necessarily come through or I'm on silent. I'll get home, and she'll ask where the food is, and I ask why she didn't call if it was timely. I just do NOT check my texts that often, it isn't because I'm deliberately ignoring anyone.

WorldMaker 4mo ago
The current trend seems to be switching the priority order of calls and texts among many of us. I feel like a call should be scheduled, preferably 3+ days out, and preferably with an agenda attached. (Same rules I feel about any sort of meeting.) But a direct text (non-group chat, just to me) is a priority. Group chats get that 1-2 days middle ground.
- jawilson2 4mo ago
  I know that's the trend, but it is backwards to me. Like UDP vs TCP. If you need an immediate answer for something, why send a one-way communication where you have no idea whether the person on the other end A) received it, and B) acted on it. A 15 second phone call accomplishes this, whereas if I text you it could be hours, unless you immediately respond.
  - WorldMaker 4mo ago
    Most text message apps have real time read receipts for A and "actively writing" indicators that imply some of B. (The things that we invented for "instant messaging" decades ago are finally mostly back in vogue in text messaging.) Text messages have "reactions" like Thumbs Up that very quickly say "I will action this shortly." For me that's more TCP, the classic ACK receipt then action. A 15 second phone call probably goes straight to my voicemail and there's no read receipts if I have read the voicemail transcription yet, much less tried to listen to it. It might be hours until I'm in a quiet enough space to try to listen to it, because I don't carry headphones with me most of the time, don't listen to speakerphone in public, and the "phone speaker" on an iPhone is generally hard to hear for me, no matter how I awkwardly position the phone. The transcriptions are usually not good enough to action directly so I do usually need to do that dance of find a way to listen to it. Calls to me are a UDP hole with fewer acknowledgements and a lot of inconvenience. Unless you've prescheduled a call with me, in which case maybe I do answer and maybe it is quick enough to be a 15 second phone call. But the easiest way to schedule that call with me is going to be to text me "Hey can I call in an hour about X?" and I'll ACK it soon after, and probably then likely spend 45 minutes looking for a quiet place to take a private phone call. But, yeah, different perspectives for different sorts of people. Phone calls are taxing to me and the real world is a loud place and I don't carry headphones and I like to control the environment in which I try to answer a phone call, but also I find finding such quiet environments stressful enough to want to schedule them ahead of time.
- II2II 4mo ago
  Wouldn't it depend upon context? If it is an emergency, it is a voice call. It is both immediate and conveys urgency. If it is something that you need to talk through, it is a scheduled voice call. Asynchronous communications may demonstrate respect for a person's time since it does not (need to) interrupt them in the moment, but the inefficiency results in a disrespectful waste of time for bidirectional conversations. If it is something where you need a simple response by the end of the day, it is a text. If it requires a lengthy response, email. Never expect a lengthy response by the end of the day, or for it to be handled on devices with terrible input methods (like phones). Anything that isn't covered by those scenarios will be largely dependent on the person.
  - WorldMaker 4mo ago
    If it's an emergency I want it in text first because I read faster than I listen to voicemails, and can do so in more spaces/contexts/environments (say, at a loud concert or eating in a restaurant), and I trust a person to write the message better than the voicemail system will transcribe a call. Certain emergency keywords sent in a text will especially alert me faster than a call would. (I have call notifications as practically turned off as possible in current operating systems [way too much phone call spam], but a measured set of notification levels for text notifications.) I think even for emergency situations the relationship between voice calls and text messages is flipping. Text messages are immediate and can convey urgency. Phone calls are for private, quiet spaces, which take time to find (or schedule). With the death of the private phone booths in public spaces, phone calls are inconvenient to take almost everywhere now outside of one's home, but urgent text messages can be read and even acted upon just about anywhere.
    - zchrykng 4mo ago
      Why are we talking about voicemails in the context of emergencies? If it was an emergency, I'm calling every number I have for someone until they pickup or enough time has passed that I write them off as a flake and find the next person on the list who might be able to help with whatever it is.
      - 4mo ago
fluoridation 4mo ago
That's funny, I take the exact opposite approach. I prioritize interactions based on how much commitment I expect they'll require, with lesser commitment getting more priority. So a text message I'll usually answer right away. An email or some written reply that requires some redaction I'll postpone to when I can take the time for a thoughtful response. A ring on my buzzer, if I'm not expecting anything or anyone, I'll always ignore; I can't let any dumbass passing by the front of my building rope me into a pointless conversation. Phone calls don't fit neatly into this scheme because they demand a lot of attention, but it's easy to get out of one if you realize it's not something critical. I generally pick up and the moment I get the slightest whiff of spam, I just hang up.

Uncle_Brumpus 4mo ago

I am notoriously "bad" at texting. My phone's on silent almost 95% of the time, I don't even have a smartphone so the only way to get to me wirelessly is to call or text. I got really into sending mail last year, specifically postcards. I have a list of ~10 people I would consider "close", immediate family and good friends, and 5 or 6 more tertiary contacts. I travel fairly frequently, so I had plenty of opportunities for sending postcards. I send cards for obscure holidays just because. The physical process of hand-writing messages is so therapeutic for me. I've probably sent ~250 postcards in the last year and a half. I have received... 3 physical responses. It has been extremely disappointing, but I continue to send mail because I enjoy the process of writing the cards, and the knowledge that people probably appreciate the mail makes me feel good, so at least I get a little out of it myself. My mom will occasionally text to say she liked the postcard, but has never bothered to send one back to me. I would be delighted if more people chose to communicate slowly.

abustamam 4mo ago
I like this. I don't know what postcard etiquette is, but when I send a postcard it's just to show that I'm thinking of someone while I'm traveling. If the recipient doesn't travel or finds other ways to express that they're thinking or me while traveling (souvenir, etc) I'd consider that social contract fulfilled.
- brewdad 4mo ago
  I haven’t sent a postcard in years but I always thought it was a signal that I am having a great time but also you are important enough to me that I want to include you in the only way I can. I certainly never expected a direct response but hoped I might receive a postcard from that friend at some unexpected future time.