
Instant messaging is a thorn in modern society - walterbell
http://mashable.com/2017/01/01/instant-messaging-killed-the-introvert-star/#822nx_R4Jkqh
======
zzalpha
There's a more basic problem, here, that'd be better expressed without
couching it in the ever popular introvert/extrovert false dichotomy (aside:
people really love picking labels for themselves): instant messaging tools
don't offer features to help users who aren't immediately available and need
to delay replies until later.

Give me tools to queue up a backlog, and to indicate to the sender I'm
unavailable. Give me a way to easily review batched messages and reply to them
as a group or individually (maybe by making it easy to take batched messages
and quote them in an email response). Let me set my phone to queue up alerts
until a specific time or time interval and then alert on the group. I'm sure
there's many other, better ideas, but you get the idea.

The immediacy of instant messaging is incredibly useful. But we need it to
adapt to non-immediate replies as well, and today that's just not that easy.

~~~
ams6110
Sounds very complicated. IMs for me are generally something I respond to
immediately, or not at all. And that seems to be the normal pattern for most
people I interact with on that medium.

~~~
zzalpha
Definitely not my use case. I frequently get instant messages from friends and
family when I'm unavailable to reply (at work, at a movie, hanging out with
friends and don't want to be impolite, etc). That doesn't mean I don't want to
reply, I just can't right away.

I can't imagine I'm unique in that regard.

~~~
ryukafalz
>I can't imagine I'm unique in that regard.

You're not, I do basically the same thing.

Personally I really wish read receipts hadn't caught on so much - they were
toxic in email and they're still toxic here. _Delivery_ receipts are fine,
they give you an indication that the message hasn't been lost in transit. But
read receipts put too much pressure on the recipient for a quick response,
because the other person knows they've already read the message.

------
zeta0134
Something amazing occurred to me when I got my Pebble. It grabs notifications
from my phone and displays them, but it goes a step farther: it lets you
choose in the app which notifications are _actually_ important.

I never sat down and thought about this properly. I had it set up to buzz when
my friends chatted in all my IM platforms, but that quickly got old and I
didn't want to become numb to the sensation; the watch is surprisingly good at
getting my attention. So I turned it off. I allow through text messages which
my friends only use to contact me for important matters, and I've silenced
almost everything else.

It's amazing how freeing this is. Even for text messages, a simple glance at
my wrist is enough; if I don't have my phone out already, I won't get it out
unless it's for something important. I walk around the city with my head held
high, surveying my surroundings, and noticing things I've never seen before in
the neighborhood where I live. My friends know. They can wait, and when I do
get around to replying, we pick up right where we left off, no worse for wear.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's amazing how freeing this is. Even for text messages, a simple glance
> at my wrist is enough; if I don't have my phone out already, I won't get it
> out unless it's for something important. I walk around the city with my head
> held high, surveying my surroundings, and noticing things I've never seen
> before in the neighborhood where I live._

And what prevented this previously was the fear of missing out on some
important notification?

------
mnm1
I find this is only a problem for people who don't understand what
asynchronous communication is. Explaining this ahead of time should clear up
any anxieties on both ends.

~~~
MR4D
I can see your point, but then it wouldn't be instant. Further, I think the
dopamine high that people get from responding to IMs significantly outweighs
their ability for self control to read messages later. This is easily
confirmed by looking at drivers texting on their phones.

~~~
mnm1
As far as I know, "instant" refers to the delivery of messages, not actual
processing by humans.

~~~
coldtea
The possibility of an instant response (as provided by the processing) makes
it also desirable from those waiting for one.

Technology is not passive -- it influences expectations.

~~~
mnm1
Technology influences expectations but we can choose not to be a slave to it.
Also, if an instant response is desired, the other party is using the wrong
technology. For instant response, people can call using a telephone (or app)
like people have been doing for over a hundred years and verify that the other
person is available before building up unrealistic expectations. After all,
what kind of friend (or especially acquaintance) expects you to drop whatever
you're doing to respond to them? Even my family doesn't expect that unless
it's a true emergency. Only an arrogant and narcissistic person who doesn't
understand the idea of work or prior commitments would do that. Needless to
say, such people are not my friends.

~~~
coldtea
> _Technology influences expectations but we can choose not to be a slave to
> it_

Only at the personal level. We can't easily control what others chose, and
this thread is all about what others expect from IM (instant responses).

~~~
mnm1
Sure, but we can control who we choose to spend time with and who we choose to
ignore. The thread is actually about the author who cannot control himself and
doesn't know how to even begin to talk to others about his problems with
instant messaging. There are many things the author can do, most of which I've
pointed out already. Just because we can't control others does not mean we're
powerless. Nor does it mean we have to bow down to others' standards and
demands for how to lead our lives. Isn't that what personal freedom is about?

------
CptArmchair
yes, what mashable said!

