There are parts of this that make sense to me, and parts that seem very strange. The pervasive interruptions is true, but tying it to online vs. non-online conversation I'm more skeptical of, and seems to be some kind of nostalgia for an idealized era of intellectual discussion in the cafe that few people ever really experienced.
The article has an assumption sort of carried throughout, which I thought we had pretty much ditched in the 1990s, that online=shallow and IRL=deep, for various pop-linguistics reasons involving the supposed inability of textual conversation to carry nuance or emotion. I don't think studies have borne that out; among people who are "text fluent", i.e. regularly use real-time text chat for in-depth conversations, you find the usual range of linguistic features, including non-explicit conveyance of information, emotion, etc. There seems to be a persistent myth that text chat is equivalent to sending telegrams back and forth or something, which is only approximately true for people who have never developed any real experience or fluency with the medium (it does feel like that when I'm chatting online with my parents, who aren't really internet people, so I prefer to call/Skype them instead).
I haven't found a clear online vs. offline dividing line in terms of which supports "real" conversations in my own friendships. With some people it's more one, with others more of the other. My closest friends are people I talk to extensively via both modalities, and you tend to get different sides of people through each.
If anything, though, I would say I have somewhat more "real" conversations online. Maybe it's just who I end up being close friends with, but I find people are a little less guarded online, and actually worse at faking/masking emotion. Two of my friends in particular are very good at putting on an official face in person, such that even if you know them well it's hard to figure out what exactly they're thinking if they don't want you to. But online, when I talk to them regularly, it's nearly instantly obvious when they're in a bad mood or something is bugging them, by the way the cadence and subtleties of the conversation change, or change when specific things are mentioned. The changes are as much in what's omitted or different from usual as what's explicitly present in the text. But supposedly all those nuances don't exist!
Anecdotally, I've had the same experience. I can't count the number of times I've gotten into a heated argument with someone over email, and resolved it within 2 minutes simply by talking it over face-to-face with them.
To be clear, I'm not against email or anything like that. I just think it's important to realize that any medium of communication has inherent pros and cons.
A corollary I've found is that it's easier to go along with things you don't really agree with in person, when in email you'd disagree. Especially for conflict-averse people. Pros and cons, I guess.
If I know someone is conflict-averse I sometimes actively seek out their view by email after a meeting, to make sure I know what they really think.
Email I agree is considerably different. I think of it as fitting a different niche, but I'm admittedly not sure how most people use it. I don't consider it to be "conversation" in the same way as IM, IRC, or talking on the phone are conversation, though I guess you could use it that way. I try to use it more for intellectual exchange than personal conversation, in bigger, less frequent chunks. Same with HN comments or blog posts, for that matter, or even old-style letter-writing or office-memo circulation.
Would you ask a girl or guy [with whom you have an established non-sexual relationship] out for the first time over text message? Or ask someone to marry you? Would you break up with them over SMS? For the sake of your happiness, I'd hope the answer is "No." The potential for miscommunication is much higher once you add delay and limit expression to words and emoticons.
Now think of how such an approach to communication might harm your prospects of establishing connections and managing relationships with potential business partners.
Over AIM, sure, though not with a random name I pulled out of a hat or something. I think I've had most of my "heavy" conversations over IM, even with people I regularly speak to in person. It just lends itself better to that, imo, and greatly increases real conversation while reducing the risk of miscommunication. I'm not sure what the strange condescension is in the "for your sake", there. It's a kind of conversation. Perhaps it doesn't work for you, or you aren't very fluent in it. But between pairs of people who're used to it and who both "get it", it has plenty of nuances; it's not some strange caricature of exchanging telegrams with smileys in them. There are definitely people where it does feel like that, and I don't have real conversations with those people over IM, because it's just not their thing.
Same with a phone really; with some people phone conversations work well, and with others they work very poorly. I personally rank IM above phone in the nuance and avoidance of miscommunication department, so I would never want to have serious discussions with a risk of miscommunication over a phone. They're in a weird uncanny-valley place imo, but they do work for other people from what I can tell.
I don't use text/SMS a lot, so don't have a strong opinion on how that works. For people who have smartphone interfaces to SMS it seems it would be similar to a text chat, but I wouldn't want to venture a conclusion without knowing more.
What I'm saying is that it is intuitive for most people that for the situations in our lives that really matter most to us and the relationships we form, we know to be present in person, and fully engaged with our undivided attention. Then, it's not too far of a logical stretch to realize how such an approach is not unique to romantic relationships, allowing you to have a more effective impact on your business relationships as well.
Well, your first sentence is simply a prejudice that is true only for some people, so the logical conclusion clearly doesn't follow. :)
But it's not clear to me when we started talking about business relationships. That's not what either the article or my comment are about, is it? I don't really have an opinion on how to best run a business; the whole remote-work versus in-office work debate is a large, separate debate.
I'm not refuting your claim that text or instant message content can be deep. What I want to highlight is that relying on such methods of communication when decisions with substantial consequences need to be made, or you want to get someone on board with your idea, can be treacherous. Managing romantic relationships is a widely-relatable example of this.
I bring up the business relationship aspect because HN is focused on entrepreneurship, and many of the readers are interested in the subject. Even for non-entrepreneurs, successfully managing your business relationships would likely be of interest.
Wasn't this what helped SMS take off originally in Europe, kids text other kids to ask them out?
Breaking up over SMS seems chicken to me; I am not especially good at conflict, but I always thought I owed it to the other party to explain myself face to face. Asking out, why not? Three hours of of somebody's evening is no huge commitment.
I guess the situation in my mind was asking a girl you already know, possibly as a friend or work/school colleague, to switch to a romantic relationship (confessing your love). There is great potential for miscommunication in those situations, as you're trying to change your respective roles. If you just met her, and so your roles are not already established, then sure, text away.
Perhaps it's different because of my age where everyone has grown up with technology and conversing online.
But yes, yes I would (and have) do all of those things online, via textual communication.
It's never gone badly. Especially when it comes to breaking up, it's much better over text since both parties can calmly-ish discuss the matter. Doing it face-to-face is just a bunch of awkward "uhm"s and "ahm"s and sad faces. It's a train wreck.
Life has awkward moments. It's better to take your bitter medicine and deal with it correctly than try to hide behind the safety of physical distance.
People can be vindictive, and breaking up with someone over IM is a fantastic way to get them really pissed off at you, and to wake up to find a brick through your windshield (if you're lucky).
As for asking someone to marry you over IM or SMS, pics or it didn't happen.
I can't upvote this enough. Once you become familiar with a person idiolect text is actually better for discovering the nuances in their emotion. If for nothing more than having ample time to perceive the differences.
In face-to-face conversation you are expected to react quicker. To keep the conversation flowing, make sure thare are no awkward pauses. You can't just take a minute to consider what's being asked and answer then, like you can in IM chat.
Face-to-face a minute of thought is an eternal awkward silence.
From the article: "It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news."
This sums up my first thought when I read the headline. Perhaps the underlying societal problem is that many hold in contempt ideas too complex for sound bite summarization? So, changes in the ways we converse are merely a symptom of this underlying change? How many times have you watched a televised interview or sat in a meeting as someone was explaining an idea and become angered when the speaker was interrupted -- not to clarify, but to change the topic? I find myself saying in my head, "Let him speak!" I have no problem with others silencing some babbling fool, but to shut someone up simply because the idea at hand requires nuanced explanation severely limits the spectrum of ideas we ever will be able to consider.
Perhaps, much like when people don't stand up and say something when another makes a bigoted joke, those of us sitting silently are partially to blame? I often say, "I'd really like to hear more about what Suzy thinks!", but only "often" in that I do so much more frequently than others. What would it take in, say, a company (or even department) to establish via social proof that those opposing complex thought simply because it is complex are the unacceptable ones?
As the first commenter almost an hour after posting, I just want to say it's ironic* that no one is discussing our flight from conversation.
*ironic in the Alanis Morissette way, that is.
Maybe the lack of comments is because the topic hits a little too close to home.
I would also venture that, for HN folks around these parts, the more people looking at their smartphones and not engaging in real conversation, is well, good for business.
It's a Sunday. HN is usually slow on a Sunday. On one hand it's nice to see stories that wouldn't make it to the front page, on the other there isn't the same amount of conversation as on a weekday.
Even for things like formal communication I've found that phone calls and face-to-face conversations are more productive, creative, complex, but most importantly I've found that people are more willing to change their opinions in face-to-face conversations, as opposed to an email where you assert your opinion and then get to be happy with it while you wait for a response.
I think this article is both a bit too general and a bit too specific. It's too general in tying together all forms of online communication (text messages, e-mail, social networks), and too specific in focusing on the concept of "conversation".
IMO, the main point is this: "Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means we can edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body. Not too much, not too little — just right. Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology." A better discussion of this issue can be found in this recent Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/is-faceb...
That article expands on the point mentioned in the quote: the fact that people invest a lot of time in polishing their online persona, which is separate from their real-life persona. Because the two are separate we may come to like one more than the other, or choose to identify ourselves more with our online persona because it's easier to control and perfect.
And this has a converse effect. Other people polish their online personas as well, and this may (and does) cause depression (because our lives are not that perfect), which, in turn, makes us perfect our online personas further, continuing the cycle.
The article has an assumption sort of carried throughout, which I thought we had pretty much ditched in the 1990s, that online=shallow and IRL=deep, for various pop-linguistics reasons involving the supposed inability of textual conversation to carry nuance or emotion. I don't think studies have borne that out; among people who are "text fluent", i.e. regularly use real-time text chat for in-depth conversations, you find the usual range of linguistic features, including non-explicit conveyance of information, emotion, etc. There seems to be a persistent myth that text chat is equivalent to sending telegrams back and forth or something, which is only approximately true for people who have never developed any real experience or fluency with the medium (it does feel like that when I'm chatting online with my parents, who aren't really internet people, so I prefer to call/Skype them instead).
I haven't found a clear online vs. offline dividing line in terms of which supports "real" conversations in my own friendships. With some people it's more one, with others more of the other. My closest friends are people I talk to extensively via both modalities, and you tend to get different sides of people through each.
If anything, though, I would say I have somewhat more "real" conversations online. Maybe it's just who I end up being close friends with, but I find people are a little less guarded online, and actually worse at faking/masking emotion. Two of my friends in particular are very good at putting on an official face in person, such that even if you know them well it's hard to figure out what exactly they're thinking if they don't want you to. But online, when I talk to them regularly, it's nearly instantly obvious when they're in a bad mood or something is bugging them, by the way the cadence and subtleties of the conversation change, or change when specific things are mentioned. The changes are as much in what's omitted or different from usual as what's explicitly present in the text. But supposedly all those nuances don't exist!