
Can helplines survive our growing fear of the phone call? - wjossey
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/nov/19/helplines-advice-survive-fear-phone-calls-samaritans-childline
======
clavalle
Characterizing the dwindling preference for phone calls as 'fear' is taking it
a few steps too far.

It just turns out that phone calls have a new niche. Other forms of
communication are used when their advantages outweigh a phone call...which
isn't hard.

Phone calls are really only needed when there is a need for synchronous,
immediate, communication that requires a high fidelity and require the bulk of
each party's attention.

Urgent, important help where the problem and possible solutions are not
clearly defined qualify. But anything less than that can likely be handled
over some sort of textual, asynchronous interface. And beyond just being more
convenient, they also offer their own advantages like archivability and
searchability.

~~~
Spooky23
In the general case, yes, "fear" is a bit dramatic. The average Joe isn't
fearful of talking to a banking call center.

But when you're talking about mostly kids who are mentally in a fragile place,
it's a context that is important.

Generally speaking, there's a continuum of intimacy or engagement ranging from
a physical presence at various levels to high latency written communication
like a letter or postcard. It's always better to do complex interactions in
person, but a less expressive medium is going to be superior to nothing.

------
logfromblammo
I think they will survive, but will diminish to a shadow of their former use,
being eclipsed by asynchronous communications methods.

Helplines for anxiety-related issues will diminish more than others. When
putting the phone to one's ear is itself a source of anxiety, people will
definitely seek out and use other options for getting help that present less
friction for them.

I have personally hated phone conversations since long before it was possible
to avoid them entirely. I'm glad I don't have to suffer through them as much
now. It isn't really fear. I just feel like they are a colossal waste of time.
Few people write up a script, agenda, or talking points for their calls. Most
just wing it. And they end up meandering, babbling, or inserting priority-
retaining nulls, made all the worse by having no physical cues from the other
person. Holding the phone up to one's ear also precludes the use of that hand
for any other purpose. And the synchronous nature of the call sometimes means
that I don't have time to formulate a concise topical response without the
other person breaking in with "are you still there?" so I also have to babble
or insert PRNs as a means of conveying "please wait while I assemble an answer
to your question." But for a long time, it was the only tool in the toolbox
for fast communication, so people had to use it when other means that would
have been more appropriate had not been invented yet, or not yet reached a
critical level of adoption.

Now that legacy can be retired. And good riddance.

Online community message boards where people with the same problems support
one another--moderated by professionals to control spam and abuse--are likely
to grow, in my opinion. These will likely have mobile companion apps to
simplify interaction through small screens.

~~~
monksy
> Online community message boards where people with the same problems support
> one another

Yes, that's what reddit does.

> \--moderated by professionals to control spam and abuse--are likely to grow,
> in my opinion. These will likely have mobile companion apps to simplify
> interaction through small screens.

Nope. Two things wrong with that.

1\. Moderation won't and will not pay. People don't value paying for that.
Advertisements put a question in conflicts of interest. Professionals require
payment to survive.

2\. Mobile companion apps: In general mobile apps are terrible due to physical
limitations. They limit conversation and kill the context of what's going on.
Also, again improvements to the apps cost money to develop and research.

~~~
logfromblammo
People are currently being paid to answer phone calls. Clearly, people value
paying for that. The salaries are paid from donations and state payments to
the nonprofit company.

Is there not a similar value proposition in having someone around to keep "You
should kill yourself" messages off the suicide prevention message board, along
with the scams and sales pitches?

Instead of paying someone to answer the phone at 1-800-DONT-DIE, you pay the
same amount to moderate suicideprevention.org/board . Don't know where you got
the idea of it being ad-supported, but you are correct that it's a horrible
idea.

Not everyone is going to be in front of a full-sized computer in the middle of
a crisis, but they are likely to have a phone. You at least need to have a
mobile-friendly web interface for your support resources.

------
thanatropism
I volunteer at 7cups.com. It's much easier to have a chat app open over lunch
than spend time with people on the phone; it's also lower quality attention, I
figure.

~~~
msla
> it's also lower quality attention, I figure.

I'm not sure you can make that a blanket statement.

It's entirely possible to multi-task with a phone in your ear, especially with
headphones, and it's also possible to focus completely on a series of text
messages. You might be able to say that videoconferencing is necessarily
higher-quality attention, but I wouldn't put chicanery past some
organizations.

