I freely admit that texting favors the receiver of the communication at the expense of the initiator.
To offset that, I also proposed an etiquette guideline of prioritizing the receiver of the communication – especially if it’s a conversation between peers. My mother for example, is not my peer so if she prefers talking on the phone, then I guess I have to respect that.
On the Tokyo trains and subway, talking on a cell phone is forbidden. So instead, what people do is text. They seem to text continuously, in a conversational way. So one person will text a message, to the other, then get a response, then text his next sentence, wait for a response, then text again, etc. For the entire duration of the ride.
It’s not just young people who do this. EVERYONE does this.
One can easily see how that leads to a huge number of messages in a month.
Ed
The article doesn’t mention it, but I wonder how many were incoming texts from other people besides her friends. I’ve signed up for automatic text messages that send me the weather, sports updates, and Obama’s updates.
Some of these I’ve unsubscribed from because I was getting ten messages a day. If you sign up for enough automatic text deliveries, that can run up your total pretty quickly.
Actually it is fundamentally different. Depending on who you ask, anywhere from 50% to 90% of communication is non-verbal. You can’t convey tone, inflection or other non-verbal cues in an email or text message as effectively as you can when talking face to face (sorry, emoticons and LOLs don’t count). So right there, you are losing a major portion of your message. How many times have you seem a thread get derailed because someone mis-read the tone in someone else’s post?
Text and email is also a very superficial form of communication. It takes little effort to text or email someone. You don’t need to be engaged with the other party. You can text while being distracted by half a dozen other things. You have no idea if the other person is ignoring you, is busy, lost their Blackberry,or just never recieved the message. It also creates this false immediacy where everyone (especially your boss) now thinks you should be available 24/7 because you have this device with you.
Also, real, physical social interactions require a lot more finesse and nuance than just blasting text messages through the ether. There is just something fundamentally different from walking into a room full of strangers and striking up conversations than posting anonymously on a message board.
I’m not against IM or email, but I think each has their place. Texts are good for quick messages coordinating plans or sending short jokes. Emails are good for sending complex information. More than three back and forth messages though, I expect people to pick up the phone and have an actual conversation. If it’s something that involves multiple parties, I expect those people to get together in a conference room and have an actual discussion.
Also, if I am talking to you, put down your fucking Blackberry or IM. Someone sending your an electronic text does not have priority over the person who actually went out of his way to speak to you face to face. My biggest problem with these tools (as I mentioned above) is the Pavlovian false sense of urgency that everyone gives every inane text message they receive.
Also, **Ruminator **might be able to read 300-500 words per minute but I certainly can’t type that fast.
The girl in the OP is a freak.
That said the people who are saying that phones are for texting or that texting is a inferior way of communicating are just wrong.
It may not work for you but that’s the way things are going. Get used to it. You may never get used to it or like it but the generation that is coming up have owned this way of communicating. They are using it all the time.
I started this thread to see what the response would be and if it would differ along generational lines. I am a far older person , have never texted anyone and like some others here, do not even own a cell phone.
I do find this child very disturbing. This is from the article I linked to
That is pathetic anyway you cut it.
If the kid is averaging two text messages per minute for her waking hours, when does she have time to exercise… or eat … or even perfrom mundane bodily functions? Or is that the message of the text?
“think I have to poop”
" am now pooping"
" just pooped"
Okay, thats three right there. What a wonderful world of technology we all live in. Of course, Daddy sends out 900 each month himself so the apple does not fall far from the tree.
I feel so sorry for the people who are going to be dating and marrying these needy freaks. Back in my day some clingly drama queen, whould have to wait at least 7 days to freak out that “You didn’t call me back, you must hate, me I hate you!!!” Since you legitimately might not have gotten to your phone.
About 2 years ago one of my friends left his cell phone in the office over the weekend and on his way to work on Monday found out that he had been broken up with, and made up, with twice while he hadn’t had his phone on him, and had been about 200 messages 'OH why won’t youcall back?"
With this new instant technology and these 1000 texts a day stuff, you could find yourself divorced for non-reposiveness from a drama-queen, just from taking a nice relaxing dump without your phone in your hand.
It seems to me I can distill the thrust of your comments into two key areas: verbal (and especially, face-to-face verbal) communication is more robust because it can convey more nuances, and “real” interactions are more worthy than text-based ones.
To the first point, I don’t think anyone would disagree.
To the second point, I suppose it’s my general misanthropy kicking up but frankly it’s more expedient for most of the conversations I have to have them constrained into succint packets “blasted through the ether.” I find myself annoyed at having to focus on drivel or be tied to a ten-minute conversation that only executes a ten-word text equivalent exchange of information. It’s entirely possible I need to upgrade my cadre of communicatees, but for now I like dodging a high percentage of people who who feel my time is as expendable as theirs. Their willingness to go out of their way for a face-to-face or voice-to-voice communication does not constitute a contract on my part to make myself available.
So I guess my personal preference is to use txt frst if poss and upgrade to a real conversation when I feel the item is conversation worthy.
For youngsters on whom the social non-nicety of txtng is lost, there’s no offense meant and none taken.
The next time a stinking cell phone rings in church, I’ll be reminded again of the superiority of texting before talking. Another topic, I know.
As an aside…
My girlfriend actually dislikes talking on the phone or making phone calls, even when its to her own advantage to do so. Once she sat a home all day getting madder and madder because her accountant never showed up. All day I kept telling her to just call the damn guy and see what the hell was up!
But no she never did, yet still got mad because her day was wasted :rolleyes:
Yet despite THIS, if she hears her cell phone ring she has a virtual panic attack if she can’t find it or get to it before it stops ringing. :dubious:
And, indeed, it seems the etiquette rules, they are a changin’. I was gently informed by my teenage goddaughters that it’s “rude” to call for something simple like ETA? or a change in venue. Apparently, I’m wasting not only their time, but their minutes (as in, cell phone minutes per month), whereas texts are unlimited. So I’ve learned to text them instead. Really, it’s not that hard. (Although I still eschew predictive text!)
As technology changes, so changes communication. While I wouldn’t consider a written by hand, mailed letter asking how my day was to be rude, I would consider it weird - why not call? For this generation, it’s - why not text?
Oh no you have more than 18000 posts it’s a sign of the apocalypse!
So, if you’re in the same room with someone, you two start texting each other instead of talking?
Because, based on your observations above, it would be more efficient.
If you don’t have a text/email conversation with people who are in the same room with you, why not?
Here is a pertinent video clip
I think due to millions of years of evolution most (not all) people prefer in-person communication & socialization. Video communication is one step removed from that (you can see and hear them but can’t touch them). Voice communication is two steps removed from that (you can hear their voice, but can’t see them or touch them). Text communication is even further removed (you can exchange information, but you can’t hear them, see them or touch them)
my phone has a full qwerty keyboard, if its not for texting then what the hell is it for?
granted I have a blackjack (which is basically a blackberry) so its more of a pda with a phone feature than it is a phone.
I only have 400 texts a month and have only hit that mark once. I dont text to often but I more than see the point, texting is a great way to send out a reminder (as in “text me so I remember to get you X when I get home”) the text sits there on your phone until you delete it. also as was pointed out up thread you can now get text messages to your phone from a variety of sources, my personal favorite is from Google Calendar, you can schedule events and set it to text you a reminder about them.
also until you actually start using them you really dont get it, you cant get it, its one of those things in life that simply must be experienced to really understand the appeal of.
I think you are explaining something that virtually everyone already knows (as far as I can tell in this thread.)
As stated by others more eloquent than I… your statement is only true for situations that warrant it. Face-to-face communication is a premium investment in interaction and is reserved for dates with girls or lunch with Warren Buffet. Everybody else including President Obama and Paris Hilton can just send an email.
Seriously though, my banker calls me about once a month to see if we can talk over lunch. I always refuse. I already know that he wants to discuss changes to the account etc. He can’t seem to get it through his head that I prefer reading an email outlining his ideas. Yes, I agree that face-to-face time is invaluable and irreplaceable but I don’t want to invest effort into face-to-face time with him in particular. My banker is not my partner, priest, or parole officer; therefore, face time is a waste of time.
For such cases, I agree.
But, if somehow you do end up in a room with such people, then since “People talk sooooo slooooowly. Typical people only talk about 100 words-per-minute. However, I can read text at 300 - 500 wpm”, why don’t you text with people in the same room with you?
The reasons, I suspect are:
Look, you can’t compare texting, talking on the phone and talking in person. They’re all good for different things.
Texting is good for one to ten words, of which you require a reply of one to ten words or no reply at all. These are much more efficient when you don’t clutter them up with waiting for the phone to ring and small talk. Examples:
OMG! My boss is too hot for words!
I’ll pick you up @ 2:40
ETA?
Bring milk, please!
Talking on the phone is good for conversations of light to middle depth:
How was your day?
What did Grandma’s doctor say?
What are we doing next weekend?
Or just to chat about anything and nothing in a free form way.
Face to face conversations are the best way to have important, sensitive or heavy conversations:
We Need To Talk.
Your dog is dead.
There’s something unusual on the MRI.
Now, if you don’t mind, I have to go pick up my kid at school so he can watch his little sister while I go pick up the television we ordered from Best Buy. And I arranged all that with him via text - I texted him when it was convenient for me, and he texted me to confirm during lunch when his phone wouldn’t be confiscated.
You are correct. As I mentioned to earlier to Jayn_Newell, the “reading” of text information works in favor of the receiver at the extra effort & expense of the sender.
Obviously, if both the sender & receiver are in the same room, then both are limited by their typing speeds which cancels out any gains of fast reading.
My preference for text-based interaction works for asynchronous communication instead of synchronous (realtime or IRL per your example).
What I’d like to know about the girl in the OP is what the hell she was texting about.
You’d think that after a week of non-stop LOLing she was only texting about texting.
I for one am already preparing for getting that “Yr MRI teh suxxors” text from my 40-year-old oncologist in 2039.