
The Flight From Conversation - harscoat
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
======
mjn
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!

~~~
WiseWeasel
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
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
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.

~~~
mjn
Well, your first sentence is simply a prejudice that is true only for some
people, so the logical conclusion clearly doesn't follow. :)

But it's not clear to me when we started talking about _business_
relationships. That's not what either the article or my comment are about, is
it? I don't really have an opinion on how to best run a business; the whole
remote-work versus in-office work debate is a large, separate debate.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I'm not refuting your claim that text or instant message content can be deep.
What I want to highlight is that relying on such methods of communication when
decisions with substantial consequences need to be made, or you want to get
someone on board with your idea, can be treacherous. Managing romantic
relationships is a widely-relatable example of this.

I bring up the business relationship aspect because HN is focused on
entrepreneurship, and many of the readers are interested in the subject. Even
for non-entrepreneurs, successfully managing your business relationships would
likely be of interest.

------
ShabbyDoo
From the article: "It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news."

This sums up my first thought when I read the headline. Perhaps the underlying
societal problem is that many hold in contempt ideas too complex for sound
bite summarization? So, changes in the ways we converse are merely a symptom
of this underlying change? How many times have you watched a televised
interview or sat in a meeting as someone was explaining an idea and become
angered when the speaker was interrupted -- not to clarify, but to change the
topic? I find myself saying in my head, "Let him speak!" I have no problem
with others silencing some babbling fool, but to shut someone up simply
because the idea at hand requires nuanced explanation severely limits the
spectrum of ideas we ever will be able to consider.

Perhaps, much like when people don't stand up and say something when another
makes a bigoted joke, those of us sitting silently are partially to blame? I
often say, "I'd really like to hear more about what Suzy thinks!", but only
"often" in that I do so much more frequently than others. What would it take
in, say, a company (or even department) to establish via social proof that
those opposing complex thought simply because it is complex are the
unacceptable ones?

~~~
derleth
> Perhaps the underlying societal problem is that many hold in contempt ideas
> too complex for sound bite summarization?

That's always been the case for most people; the difference now is, more and
more of the 'most people' group have access to global audiences.

------
pron
I think this article is both a bit too general and a bit too specific. It's
too general in tying together all forms of online communication (text
messages, e-mail, social networks), and too specific in focusing on the
concept of "conversation".

IMO, the main point is this: "Texting and e-mail and posting let us present
the self we want to be. This means we can edit. And if we wish to, we can
delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body. Not too much,
not too little — just right. Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and
demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology." A
better discussion of this issue can be found in this recent Atlantic article:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/is-
faceb...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/is-facebook-
making-us-lonely/8930/)

That article expands on the point mentioned in the quote: the fact that people
invest a lot of time in polishing their online persona, which is separate from
their real-life persona. Because the two are separate we may come to like one
more than the other, or choose to identify ourselves more with our online
persona because it's easier to control and perfect.

And this has a converse effect. Other people polish their online personas as
well, and this may (and does) cause depression (because our lives are not that
perfect), which, in turn, makes us perfect our online personas further,
continuing the cycle.

------
jseims
As the first commenter almost an hour after posting, I just want to say it's
ironic* that no one is discussing our flight from conversation. *ironic in the
Alanis Morissette way, that is.

~~~
OzzyB
Maybe the lack of comments is because the topic hits a _little too close to
home_.

I would also venture that, for HN folks around these parts, the more people
looking at their smartphones and not engaging in real conversation, is well,
good for business.

</wit>

------
PaperclipTaken
Even for things like formal communication I've found that phone calls and
face-to-face conversations are more productive, creative, complex, but most
importantly I've found that people are more willing to change their opinions
in face-to-face conversations, as opposed to an email where you assert your
opinion and then get to be happy with it while you wait for a response.

------
MBlume
Automatic response: the author is obnoxiously neurotypical.

------
Skillset
Here's the TED talk version of this article: "Connected, But Alone?"

<http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html>

