Pointed sticks not good enough for you?
I was going to write another serious political post today, but since everyone else seems to be talking about IM and social networking sites, I’ll talk about that instead.
I’m on exactly one social networking site, which doubles as my individual blog. I don’t use instant messengers and I don’t text message; I don’t see the point, really. Either takes nearly as much attention as a phone conversation and is a much less efficient communications medium. Text messaging is particularly bad, as it costs 10 cents a message sent or received, and it requires me to type text on a numeric keypad. I’d disable texting on my phone entirely, except that there’s people I like communicating with who insist on using it.
I only got around to getting a cell phone last year, and I’ve got the most basic model my provider offers. I resisted getting a cell phone for a long time, and only broke down and got one because without one it’s extremely difficult to coordinate plans while travelling.
I am an enthusiastic email user, though. It’s an efficient communications medium (text can be written and read very quickly), it’s asynchronous (I read email when it’s convenient for me, and I can send you an email any time without interrupting what you’re doing), and it has zero marginal cost and a very low fixed cost. The big disadvantage is that text-only strips out a lot of context cues and makes emotion-heavy communications difficult, which is why telephones will always have their place. Telephones are also the best way of communicating when the communication needs to happen immediately, as there are situations where synchronous communication is a feature not a bug. I’m a bit phone-shy because I’m more eloquent in text than by voice, and because I don’t like interrupting people when I don’t know what they’re doing, but telephone definitely has it’s place.
I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a luddite, but that’s quite inaccurate. The historical luddites opposed technology use by others because they were unable to compete when machinery gave factory workers the ability to create a better product with less effort than skilled artisans using hand tools. My attitude towards technology is more akin to the Amish (although I apply it at a much less intense level) — technology exists to serve me, not the other way around, and I’ll adopt new technology only when it produces a clear benefit in my life.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
13 comments
Luddies at [maniakes’s employer — a well known software company]. The jokes make themselves
Punning Pundit’s last blog post..We promise we’re not wasting trees
[edited by Maniakes]
I like IMing as compromise between e-mail and telephone. It’s moderately synchronous. With a telephone conversation, you pretty much have to devote your entire attention to it. With an IM conversation, you can pop in to make a reply, and go back to what you were doing.
However, unlike e-mail, you know there is a high probability that the recipient will receive the communication right away, and will respond within a couple minutes, but without needing to intrude on them to the extent that a telephone does.
The advantage of text messages is that, like cell phone calls, you can receive them anywhere, but unlike phone calls, you don’t have to talk. Thus, I use text messages a lot while at work, where I’m sitting in a low-walled cubicle, and the entire room can hear anything I say. Thus, text messages are the medium of choice for non-work-related communications while at work.
Sorry I censored your comment, but my employer has policies about blogging which I try to stay strictly within. Basically, if I identify my employer while blogging I have to act with the expectation that some people will believe that I’m an official spokesperson of the company.
If I’d know that, I wouldn’t have said anything. Your point is well taken.
If I’d known the policy, and been a bit more clever, I would have written it _exactly as you censored it to_, because it’s funnier that way
Punning Pundit’s last blog post..We promise we’re not wasting trees
Heru, I’ve heard similar justification of IM from enough people that I’m forced to conclude that the problem is with how I relate to the technology rather than with the technology itself. I’ve got IM firmly categorized as a synchronous communication medium, and I check email and blogs often enough (and the majority of my friends do the same) that I can use them to fill the semi-synchronous niche that most IM-users use IM for.
My fundamental problem is that I’m only comfortable with letting my attention wander from a communications medium if there is no expectation that the communication will be synchronous.
Maniakes
I’m with you on this. I’m an information junky, but I can’t stand IM and I’m leery of the social networking sites. I’ve turned off the text messages on my cellphone due to $.10/message spam, and IM is illegal to use at my employer. Heck, even email is blocked except for “internet kiosks” - so Web 2.0 isn’t ubiquitous - which is just fine with me.
Sorry for “forcing you” to keep the expensive texting turned on. I’ll buy you lunch next time you’re down. >-)
I like it for the reasons Heru Feanor mentioned, as well as the lovely asynchronicity of it. It falls into the same mental niche for me that IM does with an added benefit. It’s a way to get a quick thought across or give someone information without the expectation of a response or long conversation.
If I text you to ask a question, I figure I’ll get a response some time that day simply with the answer to my question.
If I call you, I have to make sure that neither of us are doing anything important and there is the expectation that we’ll chat for a while.
I deal with too many people who don’t check their email nearly often enough for quick correspondence.
People who think instant messaging takes as much time as a phone conversation obviously don’t understand chat etiquette. The whole point of it is that you don’t drop everything to take part in the instant messaging at all. It’s somewhere between email and a phone conversation. It is not in the least bit uncommon for me to respond to an instant message 10, 15, 20 minutes, even hours later. Or to just walk away and come back and resume right where I left off.
People who feel you have to pay constant attention to instant message windows don’t understand that that defeats the whole purpose of the technology.
I do understand that it defeats the whole purpose of the technology, which is why I don’t use the technology. If you want a response from me possibly hours later, send me an email.
For your lack of more modern modes of communication (what will you do with your cel # if you move down here), you are courteous enough to respond quickly to email. I do thank you for that.
Since a given area code around here doesn’t actually cover that large an area, people around here always ask for your area code anyway. Thus, it’s not terribly inconvenient to have an unusual one. At most, it gets you an odd look when you rattle it off.
I’m living proof that it’s not a problem, since I kept my number when I moved here from 300 miles away.
It’s the least I can do, seeing as I’ve comprehesively designated email as my medium of choice (I’d use paper messages strapped to the legs of birds, but my parakeets have astonishingly bad navigational skills).
You must log in to post a comment.