Q: Why is text messaging stupid?

[universaldonor]

Q: I intuitively know that text messaging is a shitty way to communicate. But why?
A: It's complicated.
(edited and reposted from a comment I wrote here at

Comments

[tuckova]

Yeah, I would've been a better student if I hadn't been so busy passing notes in class, but I wouldn't have had half the fun and I might have died of boredom besides.

I use phone messaging cause it's cheaper, because it conveys quick information that does not require dialogue, and because the message can be read at the receiver's discretion (a phone is all HEY! NOW! ME! HERE!)... more than like notes passed in class, text messages are like messages on the answering machine. "I saw this thing, I'm right now thinking of you, I don't have time to talk and/or I know you're busy right now, but when you get a second to read this, you'll know that a second/minute/hour ago I was thinking of you."
People who want to send more information than that in a text message, or expect to receive more information than that, are likely to be often disappointed and/or confused. But this is not the fault of the medium. If you expect to fly in a car, you will be equally disappointed. If you just want the car to enable you to get someplace, though, you have a reasonable hope of its doing so.

[universaldonor]

Yeah, there you go. The medium has its limitations. It is not the fault of the medium, but of the people who expect too much of it. And if most people followed your suggested use of text (one time, one-way bursts of info), problems would arise much less often.

But that it not what happens! People gallop along with texting, having multi-transaction "conversations," expecting too much from the medium, and they slam facefirst against its limitations in a way that is sudden, painful, and AVOIDABLE.

Obviously, text where and when appropriate based on the capabilities of the medium and taking into consideration its drawbacks. But whenever possible, honestly, don't use it.

-------------
So maybe UD'S LAW OF COMMUNICATION is something like:
Use the highest-bps medium available to you for any given communication.
-------------

[tuckova]

I do better in e-mail with lots of people than I do face-to-face. Especially when something is emotionally charged, the ability to step away from it, calm down, re-read it, see if perhaps my emotional reaction is more to do with me than with the actual message, frame an answer, make sure it's exactly what I want to say, and THEN reply, has saved a lot of agony in relationships that were strained to begin with. For me, e-mails are an improvement on letters, not poor substitutes for face-to-face.

Also, the implication that people are often very bad at communicating and therefore all people should not use specific-individual challenging media in which to communicate is ridunkulous. Simply: poor communicators should be shot.

[universaldonor]

But so what does "do better" mean? Feel more in control? Feh. My whole premise here with shitty communication is that as the SENDER you always know what you mean -- what suffers is the understanding of the recipient, i.e. the QUALITY of the information is directly proportional to the QUANTITY. See?

Like many people, you think you "saved a lot of agony" by avoiding high-bitrate communication forms, but I put it to you that this is an ILLUSION fueled by fear of loss of control! You think you are talking about the recipient's agony, but you are really talking about your own! You avoid high-bitrate communication because you really believe it to save agony; you think worldsuck is reduced by lowering the bitrate -- BUT THIS IS LE GRAND ILLUSION! THE LIE OF HI-TEK LIFE!
--
Then again, I'm really good face to face. Maybe this all springs from that.

[tuckova]

"Do better" meaning: I feel I am doing a better job understanding the other person and expressing myself in a way so as to be understood. It's not only controlling what I put out, it's ensuring that I understand what got put in before I start thinking of a response.

I'm okay at face-to-face communication with people that I like. The people I like are also people I write to (even if they live in my town; I'm a texty person, I think). I definitely communicate better in writing when under stress. I can communicate in person as well, but I prefer to have a paper trail. This is in part because the arguments I tend to have are the "but you said" genre (see also: You Hurted MAH FEEWINGS), and while past experience has shown that when I SAY you SAID it, I am right, it is generally better to SHOW that you WROTE it.

There's a certain spurniness to your mention of "control"- It seems like you think I'm all clenchy and sphincterous, but I don't think of myself that way-- more like, I just don't think communication functions well when it is "out of control". I don't expect things to be perfect, but I don't think that means it's not a good goal.

To recap: We agree that phone messaging is nowhere near as good as good as face-to-face communication. You think it is a life-damaging medium; I think that it is treated with higher expectations than it deserves but if expectations were lowered it would be fine & fun. But we basically don't disagree.

We agree that more of a certain kind of information can be obtained in face-to-face communication. You find this information vital to communication; I don't disagree but sometimes find the method of communication distracting to the point being communicated, and I tend to be generally point focused.

We disagree that e-mail can be confusing. I think that it eliminates confusion by giving people the chance to think over what they wrote before they send it; you think it can lead to disaster because of the lack of emotional cues. Since you do better at face-to-face communication and like emotional cues (although you're clearly not Ludditing the e-mail), and I do better at written communication because I like the review feature (although I answer the door when people knock), I think we can agree to disagree there.

It's strange to me that a person as capable as expressing himself in print as you are would be so hesitant towards text forms. And if you're better in person, I can only conclude that speaking with you must be like winning the lottery and getting laid at the same time. Is it?

[universaldonor]

Hey Tux! When I'm talking about the fear of loss of control, I'm not talking about YOU specifically! I'm talking about the human condition!

Also, the thing about email is: you may be the best emailer out there, but you are only one emailer. What percentage of emailers do you think are good emailers? Assuming for a moment an unbiased metric of email skill (not a good assumption) I bet the distribution of email skill looks thin around the top. ANYCRAP.

But thank you from proving my point, accidentally!
If we had had this conversation in person:
1) It would have been over hours ago,
2) Misunderstandings would have been quashed as they arose,
3a) We would have figured out that we agree, or
3b) Identified the fundamental source of disagreement and moved on.

--------------------------------
PS: I know YOU live in a foreign country. Conversation suffers in quality with differences in language and culture. I've been in a similar position. So I can relate to why you might be the staunch defender of text here.
---
PPS: email is classist, favoring the privileged and educated! Which I am both, so I'm good at it! But still! Misunderstandings arise that wouldn't on a telephone! And less so in person! GOD this is just like email! I feel so blathery wanky! I'm not good at this at all!

[tuckova]

Not my fault you went to sleep while I was still talking. If that had happened in person, I would have punched you. Instead, I compared you to winning the lottery!

[universaldonor]

Yes! A sexy lottery! That was nice. I should go to sleep more often.