Board 8 > Anyone remember my friend who got fired for msging the FB instead of calling?

(+) Yeah! (+)

VintageGin posted...

It's faster than typing, more personal (I know you disagree with this), and allows you to discuss specifics a lot more easily rather than sending a ton of messages/emails back and forth.

My job would be impossible if our only way of contacting with clients/coworkers was via text/email.

I mean you're not wrong (except I disagree with the personal thing but yeah). I'm not saying "abolish all phones! phones are the devil! rawr phones blargle". I just think they have a time and a place and are pretty inconvenient, so using them a primary communication source strikes me as bizarre. Some jobs are maybe different, but I've never had one personally, either as boss or employee.
---

Kenri posted...

1) The physical act of speaking does not make something personal, and it certainly doesn't make it MORE personal than other, equally legitimate methods of communication.

Yes it is. <_<
Someone calling you and saying "Happy Birthday" is more personal than getting a message on your facebook page saying "Happy Birthday"


Kenri posted...

1.a) There are people who can't speak for whatever medical or language-knowledge reason; this does not affect their ability to communicate in a way that is personal.

In this case it is understood that the person cannot communicate verbally so any communication is more personal. Getting a text message from a friend who can't speak is more personal than getting a text message from a friend that can. Or using facetime to talk to a friend who can't speak via sign language would be more personal.


Kenri posted...

2) Speaking "immediately" does not make something more personal. Handwritten letters are highly romanticized as a very personal method of communication and nevertheless are about as not-immediate as you can get without using smoke signals or carrier pigeons.

Speaking immediately does not make it more personal. But it can make planning much quicker. If you are planning on going out with a friend but need to set a date and place a phone call can get it done in 10 minutes as opposed to an hour of texting back and forth.
---

yazzy14 posted...

Someone calling you and saying "Happy Birthday" is more personal than getting a message on your facebook page saying "Happy Birthday"

The thought put into the message is what makes it personal IMO. All else being equal I'd rather get a two word message on FB than a two word phone call.

yazzy14 posted...

Speaking immediately does not make it more personal. But it can make planning much quicker. If you are planning on going out with a friend but need to set a date and place a phone call can get it done in 10 minutes as opposed to an hour of texting back and forth.

In my experience the fastest is usually starting with texts and then ending with a phone call. <_<
---

Man you're not being serious if you think people call each other to say happy birthday and then hang up.
---

pjbasis posted...

Man you're not being serious if you think people call each other to say happy birthday and then hang up.

Right, and therefore:

The thought put into the message is what makes it personal IMO.

Obviously posting "hbd" on someone's FB wall isn't a personal communication. Neither is doing the same over the phone. A phone call maybe has a greater chance of carrying a personal communication, but the phone call itself doesn't make the message more personal.

Edit: wait sorry maybe you were saying that to yazzy? idk either way this helps explain my thoughts a bit more clearly
---

Gotta agree with Kenri here - phone calls are a pretty bad way to transmit information.

They're fine for, say, casual chatting. But if you're trying to explain something even mildly complicated, text is way better because (1) you can't mishear and (2) you don't have to worry about forgetting details.

Also I don't think a phone call is any more personal than a text.
---

The problem (and feature) of phone calls is they are synchronous communication. I guess in the past people got good at talking on the phone while doing a bunch of other crap but I never figured that out.

Async communication is just way better almost every time. It requires absolutely 0 coordination or dedicated attention from either party, so you can basically communicate for free. Like Kenri said, sometimes it can be efficient to go from a text conversation to phone to discuss details and options and such... but even in that case I'm fine with text. You can link and do all kinds of text-based stuff that is great for conveying details and information that just isn't possible over voice.
---

Gatarix posted...

Gotta agree with Kenri here - phone calls are a pretty bad way to transmit information.

They're fine for, say, casual chatting. But if you're trying to explain something even mildly complicated, text is way better because (1) you can't mishear and (2) you don't have to worry about forgetting details.

Also I don't think a phone call is any more personal than a text.

There was a study where they showed texting many times sends a wrong message than intended based on how you interpret the words without the audial cues to help convey intent.
---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemporary-psychoanalysis-in-action/201502/why-is-there-so-much-miscommunication-email-and%3Famp
---

in a conversation, phone calls allow you to transmit additional information through intonation. video calls allow you to transmit even more information through facial expressions and body language

in person >>> video conference > phone > text

for extremely dense information communications that don't require a lot of back and forth, email is the superior choice, because you then have a record and people won't have to re-read. for things where you just need to shoot info out, text is okay

there's a reason why it's so convenient in an office setting to be able to walk over to someone's desk
---

Kenri posted...

1) The physical act of speaking does not make something personal, and it certainly doesn't make it MORE personal than other, equally legitimate methods of communication.

Yes. It does. Because you are hearing someone's voice. You are adding intonation and personality when talking to someone on the phone as opposed to typing something out. Why do people choose to speak on the phone to their significant others than texting or emailing them? Hell, my girlfriend and I speak on the phone for the sheer reason that it's more personal than texting each other for when we don't see each other for a while! And you cannot tell me that it isn't more personal hearing someone's voice than it is seeing words they type.

1.a) There are people who can't speak for whatever medical or language-knowledge reason; this does not affect their ability to communicate in a way that is personal.

Really bro? We're actually going to throw out giant exceptions here? Because I'll have you know that people who I have went to college with that have voice modulation for when they move their eyes and whatnot to have a computerized voice speaking for them was a lot more personal to us than it would be if this person were to just send us messages.

2) Speaking "immediately" does not make something more personal. Handwritten letters are highly romanticized as a very personal method of communication and nevertheless are about as not-immediate as you can get without using smoke signals or carrier pigeons.

Okay, so what would move you more? If someone said beautiful words to you with their voice, knowing how they sound, hearing their sincerity, or if they were to write it out and give it to you? Both can be personal, in content, but one of those are more personal on an emotional level and which one it is should be obvious.

3) Texts and emails have actual interaction just as phone calls do, because you are... actually interacting? Not sure what to say here that won't just be "no it's not" "yes it is" "no it's not" even more so than the rest of this dumb conversation.

I said it's still interacting, but it's not as direct, you get all the time in the world to think about what to say and you can revise it, meaning it's a lot less genuine than speaking. And if it's not as genuine then... It's not as personal.
---

Corrik posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemporary-psychoanalysis-in-action/201502/why-is-there-so-much-miscommunication-email-and%3Famp

This is interesting but I disagree with a lot of it.

How many times have you read an email or text and felt an instant heated wave of irritation? Or felt hurt? Or disregarded? These are familiar experiences for us all.

I can't actually ever remember feeling hurt/disregarded from reading an email or text. I've felt irritated, but that's because the content is irritating ("the toilet is clogged again") - hearing it over a phone call wouldn't help.

“Can you pick up milk and cookies? I forgot when I was out earlier. Glad you’ll be here soon.”

If you get all upset over something this innocuous, seems like the problem is you, not the person who is texting. Like I don't think most people are going to be this thin-skinned.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And you cannot tell me that it isn't more personal hearing someone's voice than it is seeing words they type.

It's pretty much the same to me. I don't really get anything more from hearing words than I do from reading them.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Yes. It does. Because you are hearing someone's voice. You are adding intonation and personality when talking to someone on the phone as opposed to typing something out. Why do people choose to speak on the phone to their significant others than texting or emailing them? Hell, my girlfriend and I speak on the phone for the sheer reason that it's more personal than texting each other for when we don't see each other for a while! And you cannot tell me that it isn't more personal hearing someone's voice than it is seeing words they type.

I can absolutely tell you that. I already did, twice, and even said we weren't gonna agree, and yet here we are so *shrug*

Anyway people communicate with their significant others over, like, every method of communication, depending on lots of factors, which is basically the ideal way of doing things rather than defaulting to phone calls for everything.


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Really bro? We're actually going to throw out giant exceptions here? Because I'll have you know that people who I have went to college with that have voice modulation for when they move their eyes and whatnot to have a computerized voice speaking for them was a lot more personal to us than it would be if this person were to just send us messages.

I'm throwing out "giant exceptions" to demonstrate that voice itself is not necessary for personal communications. Your example has not disproved this.


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Okay, so what would move you more? If someone said beautiful words to you with their voice, knowing how they sound, hearing their sincerity, or if they were to write it out and give it to you? Both can be personal, in content, but one of those are more personal on an emotional level and which one it is should be obvious.

It depends on the situation, I can't make blanket judgments for this. As I've already implied.


PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I said it's still interacting, but it's not as direct, you get all the time in the world to think about what to say and you can revise it, meaning it's a lot less genuine than speaking. And if it's not as genuine then... It's not as personal.

You said it's not "a personal conversation with actual interaction". Also some might say that being able to pick your words carefully makes it more genuine, not less.
---

banananor posted...

there's a reason why it's so convenient in an office setting to be able to walk over to someone's desk

This is actually horribly inconvenient for everyone involved vs a chat message
---

banananor posted...

in a conversation, phone calls allow you to transmit additional information through intonation. video calls allow you to transmit even more information through facial expressions and body language

in person >>> video conference > phone > text

for extremely dense information communications that don't require a lot of back and forth, email is the superior choice, because you then have a record and people won't have to re-read. for things where you just need to shoot info out, text is okay

there's a reason why it's so convenient in an office setting to be able to walk over to someone's desk

Exactly. Phone calls are also useful in discussing specifics, since you can stop the other person if there's a part that needs more clarification. With emails, I've frequently run into issues with someone being too vague or glossing over important details.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

banananor posted...

there's a reason why it's so convenient in an office setting to be able to walk over to someone's desk

This is actually horribly inconvenient for everyone involved vs a chat message

Not really. Especially if it's regarding something technical, I'd rather the other person be able to show me/whiteboard rather than try to convey it via chat.
---

VintageGin posted...

Not really. Especially if it's regarding something technical, I'd rather the other person be able to show me/whiteboard rather than try to convey it via chat.

i'll agree with this. i usually end up typing, "hey, it'll be easier if i just show you/you just show me/come over there"

sometimes it is just easier to show someone how to do something rather than explain it. it's also easier to collaborate- "do we want A, B, C, or D" and collectively come up with the finer points to each

my group does uses slack (the work version of discord, basically) and there are pros and cons to it. the mountain of logs or missed messages is not super helpful sometimes
---

*pinches the brdge of his nose*

Your mate *done* fucked up.
---

for a second i was wondering what human biodiversity had to do with phone calls and texts

your friend is an idiot
---

VintageGin posted...

Not really. Especially if it's regarding something technical, I'd rather the other person be able to show me/whiteboard rather than try to convey it via chat.

Depends what it is I guess. If it's visual or mechanical then yeah it's easier to show in person. But the vast majority of things are much easier to describe or do simultaneous collaboration via chat or some online collaboration like google docs.

banananor posted...

it's also easier to collaborate- "do we want A, B, C, or D" and collectively come up with the finer points to each

Like this is 100% better via online asynchronous collaboration. You can both list stuff and make edits and such in parallel and most importantly, agree on a final version.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I told him he should call them back ASAP, but he said "I don't have any clean clothes if they want to interview me tomorrow".

did you tell him there's these things called washing machines.
or that soap exists.


also calling is absolutely more personal simply because voice transmits more data than text can.
like if you're working out a contract, obviously you need something written. but if you're trying to convey anything that isn't complicated, speech is better. and if you're actually good at conveying complicated information with speech, you're showing your strength on the subject matter and it holds far greater impact than text does.
---

Gatarix posted...

Corrik posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemporary-psychoanalysis-in-action/201502/why-is-there-so-much-miscommunication-email-and%3Famp

This is interesting but I disagree with a lot of it.

How many times have you read an email or text and felt an instant heated wave of irritation? Or felt hurt? Or disregarded? These are familiar experiences for us all.

I can't actually ever remember feeling hurt/disregarded from reading an email or text. I've felt irritated, but that's because the content is irritating ("the toilet is clogged again") - hearing it over a phone call wouldn't help.

“Can you pick up milk and cookies? I forgot when I was out earlier. Glad you’ll be here soon.”

If you get all upset over something this innocuous, seems like the problem is you, not the person who is texting. Like I don't think most people are going to be this thin-skinned.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And you cannot tell me that it isn't more personal hearing someone's voice than it is seeing words they type.

It's pretty much the same to me. I don't really get anything more from hearing words than I do from reading them.

You have literally never texted something that someone took the wrong way because they read it differently than intended? That's pretty unbelievable.
---

Wanglicious posted...

also calling is absolutely more personal simply because voice transmits more data than text can.

nothing more personal than comparative rates of data transmission!
---

Corrik posted...

You have literally never texted something that someone took the wrong way because they read it differently than intended? That's pretty unbelievable.

You've never said something that someone took the wrong way? That's pretty unbelievable
---

voice helps tell you their emotion, their physical condition, and any difference from normal conversation becomes clear extremely fast.

text cannot mimic this. all of those different pieces of data that voice gives you result in a more personal interaction.
---

uhh text shows a LOT of emotion, and very clearly too
---

Nowhere close to the extent voice does.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

uhh text shows a LOT of emotion, and very clearly too

if that was true we'd see it used as an artistic medium and as far i know, no such medium exists
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Corrik posted...

You have literally never texted something that someone took the wrong way because they read it differently than intended? That's pretty unbelievable.

You've never said something that someone took the wrong way? That's pretty unbelievable

what foolmo said

in fact, I'm less likely to miscommunicate using text because I can carefully think about what I'm going to say before I say it. speech is more likely for me to make an off-the-cuff statement that someone takes the wrong way.
---

I asked him today if he called the guy, he told me "he hasn't responded to my email yet."

I said "the guy told you to CALL dude".

He responded with "his hours say 8-4, so he's already gone for the day anyway."

Keep in mind this is a local security system install company, and the guy is the owner--he probably called from a work cell phone!
---

Kenri posted...

if that was true we'd see it used as an artistic medium and as far i know, no such medium exists

Dude let's invent it
---

Kinglicious posted...

Nowhere close to the extent voice does.

Very close actually, sometimes more, and sometimes less
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Kinglicious posted...

Nowhere close to the extent voice does.

Very close actually, sometimes more, and sometimes less

That's why nobody has ever had a miscommunication with somebody being sarcastic in text, right
---

"Hi, how are you doing today?"

what emotion is expressed in this sentence?
because i can count over 8 different ways it can be said without thinking about it much but in text i won't know which one it is from that alone.
---

I send people emails about what design change I'm going to shove down their throat so they won't see it in time to complain before I publish it, but I can still claim due diligence in letting them have a chance to review it before forcing them to enact it
---

Me and chaostony had a miscommunication yesterday over how I read his post and how he intended it. Would have never happened via voice because the intent would have been obvious.
---

Take any side you want on phone vs. text. Both have merit.

But voice being able to show more/better emotion than text is a super weird thing to argue against
---

StealThisSheen posted...

That's why nobody has ever had a miscommunication with somebody being sarcastic in text, right

Are you having the exact same conversation we had 5 posts ago on purpose? cuz it only proves my point you know

Wanglicious posted...

what emotion is expressed in this sentence?

Smug condescension, self-righteousness, deep insecurity due to knowing you're wrong but have no choice but to continue arguing, self-consciousness about how weak your example, wishful anticipation that I won't pick up on your backpedaling

REALLY subtle and hard to describe emotions, all conveyed through a little bit of text
---

I'm used to foolmo purposely being contrary before, but I don't think I've ever seen him be so utterly wrong like this just to argue
---

Kenri posted...

I can absolutely tell you that. I already did, twice, and even said we weren't gonna agree, and yet here we are so *shrug*

Anyway people communicate with their significant others over, like, every method of communication, depending on lots of factors, which is basically the ideal way of doing things rather than defaulting to phone calls for everything.

Listen, I'm just going to reply to this part because it just makes my entire point.

You can disagree that speaking is more personal than typing something, but here's the deal. I argue that with examples and well-placed reasoning for why that is, backed up by what is frankly just sense.

And your response is "Yeah, but I disagree." And then your only reasoning is to say that people communicate in various ways... which has nothing to do with how personal it is! Of course there's many factors involved with how I would communicate with my girlfriend or my mom, but what do you think we want to do if we want to take some time to be more personal with each other? We don't e-mail each other. We don't text each other. We call each other and have a conversation, like most people would.

But hey, I guess saying "lol" gives you the same personal feeling to someone than them actually laughing.

Gatarix posted...

It's pretty much the same to me. I don't really get anything more from hearing words than I do from reading them.

Well, sure. I guess if you want to delude yourself into thinking you don't get anything more out of a conversation with one of your friends by speaking and hearing their voice and playing off their tone than you do from them texting you, but sure brother.
---

Well, here's how I see it. You can have miscommunication in any medium (voice, text, sign language, whatever odd scenarios you want to think of). But the downsides of voice are more significant than the downsides of text.

- Downsides of voice: Conversation takes place in real-time so you have less time to phrase things carefully; because you can't actually see the text, there's the possibility that you mis-hear something; there's no transcript that lets you review important details and make sure you didn't miss anything

- Downsides of text: No tone/inflection

Personally I'd much rather have no tone/inflection but be certain that I've got the whole conversation committed to text. I've had many more instances of "Wait, you said that? I didn't hear that" than "I misunderstood your meaning because of lack of auditory tone."
---

man, with a reply like that i'm not sure what there is to follow. adds in other issues of projection when reading text, had the point fly right over your head, still managed to be completely wrong, and went straight to attacking the person.

i don't know if i could've asked for better proof.
---

SEP and Wang are right
---

Guys, why are you like this?
---

I have absolutely crippling phone anxiety that I don't experience in any other type of social situation. It has taken me days to work up the courage to dial a phone number before. I get this.

is it phone anxiety that he has? or is it an issue of confrontation he has in general? shrinking away from an in person interview seems like it's beyond a phone issue and more of a confidence one. basically anything that changes his daily routine in a significant way puts him into fight-or-flight and he always picks 'flight.'

unless this is his reaction to just job situations.
then i got nothing.
---

I don't think it's anxiety, I think it's laziness.

The dude has zero problem calling people up if they're selling something on Craigslist for a good deal.
---

Speaking as someone who does have phone anxiety, it does sound like this guy doesn't have phone anxiety.

On one hand, I kinda agree with the people who say that text can be preferable to voice, though part of it is I have slight hearing problems and even in-person I can't always understand what people say, and their reaction is usually "Oh, you didn't hear me the first time? Well, I'll just repeat what I said at the exact same tempo, volume, and slurriness. You didn't hear me the second time? Well FUCK YOU, you're just being difficult on purpose, you heard what I said the first time."

On the other hand, we've already given managers 24/7 access to their employees via cell phones, we don't need them getting even more passive aggressive by making them pissy at you because you didn't answer a text message they sent in the middle the night while you were asleep.
---

Oh okay. Nevermind, then.

I can't call people on the phone even about totally minor stuff.