Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkTree | Hacker News Reader

I was hoping this article was going to highlight the emotional issues with responding instantly as opposed to the "lack of time" issue. I don't respond to most texts instantly, not because I'm driving or busy with my life, but because I just don't feel like responding right away. I am not sure why this is. I am not trying to be rude, and most of the time I feel bad about it and think that maybe I have communication issues, such as keeping in touch with people. But I am starting to realize that we shouldn't be expected to respond immediately "just because". We shouldn't have to be occupied to warrant not responding. Unfortunately, it is a stigma, and people will continue to get upset if they don't hear back within a matter of minutes. I wish someone would touch on this issue as I've never really seen it discussed.

View on HN

I read the article, and it wasn't all that insightful, to be honest.

However, this is a topic I'm very interested in because my fiancee is the first person I've ever met that does not reply back soon to a text message and hardly picks up her phone.

When we first started dating, this was a little strange. She would sometimes reply back within minutes. Other times she would take up to two hours. I couldn't gauge her interest in me.

It turns out due to her age and culture (non-Western), she just simply does not use her phone that much. So she isn't looking at it a lot.

We've argued that there must be a middle ground, though, and this is where it gets interesting.

This isn't really a technology problem. It is a philosophical one.

When we deal with people everyday, there is an unwritten and unspoken social contract we agree on. The case for not replying immediately to a stranger or an acquaintance is easily accepted, I believe. As the article says, you may be driving, you may be in another phone call, busy reading or studying. A stranger or acquaintance takes a longer time to sit higher up in your priority list. This is a basic socialization rule. I accept these things easily, and what's more, I act according to this concept. I basically categorise people's importance in my world. Even if I've read the text message, seen the missed phone call, or read the email. These categories are key, I believe.

However, when a loved one, your significant other, spouse, fiancee or fiance, messages you or phones you or emails you, it is a totally different ball game, in my view. Emergency purposes, communicating your whereabouts sooner makes cohabitation much easier, especially when planning your day, unexpected plans, people know your schedule/routine and any changes may cause grief to your loved ones, etc.

I do feel like family whom you do not live with is considered a step down in the priority list, but those you live with, specifically a partner, is different. And feeling insulted when they don't respond within 30 minutes at most generally, is pretty natural.

I would find it infuriating if I was expected to reply to every contact within 30 minutes. Sure, if it's important I'll reply. But otherwise? It feels control-freaky.

Yes, to every contact is just really strange. I'd like to clarify that is not what I meant, in case my response read like that.

While I admit that at times I wish I could Reply Later to my wife, I remember that almost every time I text her, it's a matter of relative time sensitivity, even if not important.

"Do you want me to buy X or Y beer?" "Do we have soccer tonight?" "Do I need to come home early?", "what were the days of our planned vacation?"

Almost all of those are non-important questions. Not an emergency. However, in each case, I'm blocked from further action (or risk angering her when I buy the wrong things, come home late). It's frustrating to be standing at the grocery store, give up after two minutes, and then get a text when you're in line that X >> Y.

This is, frankly, one reason I really prefer using Facebook Messenger -- it's easy to send a thumbs-up response if I don't feel like typing, and I can respond easily on my computer rather than having to pick up my phone.

Totally agree that it's very controlling and somewhat selfish to expect quick replies. 30 minutes is just an arbitrary line waiting for a misunderstanding or argument. Face-to-face and phone calls are different. If it's important, call. If it's not, I'll get to a reply when I'm free or not interrupting someone else I'm actually communicating with IRL.

But isn't expecting your spouse to answer your call immediately being "control freak" as well? Who do you think I am to answer your call, a Slave? Seriously, this s*it has gone to annoying levels. Expecting timely response to time sensitive questions is just expecting the other person to have some basic "mobile etiquettes", not an intent to control them. Not all questions are life-or-death critical, some just needs quick response. "My friend is asking whether you'd like to come to dinner at his place tonight". A simple "Yes", or "No" would suffice. Calling for every such thing is actually much more time consuming for both parties involved (though that's the last option).

Agree. If I have a formal relationship with you, or I'm just a casual not-so-great friend, I understand receiving messages at any convenient time. But with loved ones, especially if they've seen the message, a no-reply within a reasonable time would just indicate lack of interest in me. Of course they might be busy, in which case I'd expect a response indicating the same. Mobile communication is easy, it just takes some etiquettes you previously hadn't learned.

Learn to trust people, especially your significant other.

Their use habits have nothing to do with your relationship.

Demanding that someone change gets ugly quick, especially when you single them out as a unique case. Why don't those standards apply to everyone else?

Be honest about the role of fear in your rationalization. Sounds like there's a lot you can learn about living a more balanced life from this person. Unexpected events will always happen, technology won't change that, and blaming their occurrence (partially or totally) on a lack of communication is just not right.

There are a lot of assumptions you are making.

My significant other and I are a lot alike. We've happily accepted what it takes to live with another person, as two people who were used to doing stuff on their own and living alone. She doesn't speak English well, and learning her language has been fascinating!

Thankfully, we are the happiest we've ever been. I think knowing someone who is from a totally different culture from you puts things in perspective and the dynamic is totally different from being with someone from your own culture.

We often read things in Western publications, and laugh and say, "Wow, this is so American/Canadian/Western". It's funny how everything we read in English totally never even considers that there might be another "normal". Even in scientific publications.

With regard to those standards applying to everyone, sorry, I'm not Christian and don't believe we should love everyone and give everyone our undivided attention. This, of course, is an ideological difference. My time is important. However, if I do choose to give you my undivided attention, I will listen to you very carefully.

Hope you're doing well.

Personally, I don't identify with any titles, and that's where my compassion for other situations comes from. (People do try though; just the other day someone attempted to label my image as "Amish surfer"...)

My point being: it's irrelevant wether someone is "Western", Christian or otherwise; all that is important is their desire. Language is often inadequate for expressing these motivations (even moreso when there is a barrier). Respect others as capable, intelligent humans who have experienced just as much circumstance as you, and allow them to make their own decisions.

Their conclusions will likely be different from your own, but that shouldn't be offensive. Everyone is unique.

>This isn't really a technology problem. It is a philosophical one.

Yep. My cell phone is for my convenience not anyone else's (except my spouse). They're not paying my bill. For all intents and purposes people should think of my cell phone as a land line, assume it is plugged in charging next to my bed. Also, if I'm eating a meal, entertaining/have guests, not in the mood, I will not answer your call or immediately reply to your text messages.

Now, if you're my spouse, I expect more timely responses if you are aware of an attempt to communicate (text message, missed call, incoming call) but try to understand that they may be busy or unable to get back to me right away.

> but those you live with, specifically a partner, is different. And feeling insulted when they don't respond within 30 minutes at most generally, is pretty natural.

I agree. That's my biggest irritation. If I get done with work and try to get a hold of my wife but can't. If I get home and she and the children are not there my blood boils. We have come to an agreement. If she leaves the house or will be away from her phone for a period (in the pool), especially around when I get done with work, that she will send me a text message letting me know. This helps greatly.

Most of the people might approve what you saying, but it is also reasonable for people to expect response when you are "in a conversation". For example, would you ever do it when I'm talking to you on the face and asked "So what are the plans for tomorrow?". Do you expect one to stay there staring at your face while you acknowledge that you have received the question but don't "feel like" answering it right away, even though you have time? Technology, in a lot of ways mimics physical life.

You have to understand that the other person might have taken time out of his/her busy schedule to have a chat with you. And when you not busy but just don't feel like responding, it's reasonable for them to feel offended as admit it, no one likes to have a quick conversation when every response is after half an hour.

The easiest, non-offensive way to do that would just to drop a quick message telling them that you'd get back to them (when you are able to give a few minutes of undivided attention to them). That's all, and no one should mind it then. But if you never feel like having any realtime conversation with anyone at all, then may be there are communication issues :).

> For example, would you ever do it when I'm talking to you on the face and asked "So what are the plans for tomorrow?". Do you expect one to stay there staring at your face while you acknowledge that you have received the question but don't "feel like" answering it right away, even though you have time? Technology, in a lot of ways mimics physical life.

I think it's important to acknowledge that, while technology mimics physical life in a lot of ways, it does not replicate it. The medium of conversation matters and should be considered. For example, no I wouldn't stare at their face until I felt like answering it, but I also wouldn't say, "Dear John, thank you for your question.." as I would only do that in an email. Likewise, I wouldn't speak out loud a lot of common phrases I use in texts, because having a conversation through the medium of a phone is psychologically different than in-person, and I think that's the issue I was getting at. While texting, you have to be more cautious about word choice and sentence structure so that you can convey not only the message, but the tone as well, which will naturally come out in-person. 200 years ago, all instant communication was done in person. This is a relatively new field of psychology that hasn't seem to be explored due to the fact that, especially texting, is an extremely new form of communication.

IRL convos are very different than online ones. If it's not important enough for a call, taking time "out of a busy schedule" to text also requires letting the recipient take time out of their busy schedule to reply. People really need to chill out when it comes to messaging. The recipient's time and reasons for responding when appropriate are just as valid and important as the senders time. Dropping a quick busy reply sometimes works, but also interrupts a persons flow. It's much better if a sender just has the proper perspective.

Like I've said elsewhere, there's no built-in contact state that effectively communicates whether the person you are trying to reach is in normal work hours or they're with their family and only expect to be contacted in emergencies. It is a huge cultural problem, but the solution is technical: bring back away messages. It worked for AIM.

It's more than a technical problem. It requires a mindset change. Even if I'm Available, I can still be in the middle of a task and rather respond later - or perhaps think about how I want to respond. Also, by not responding immediately, it trains the sender not to expect instant replies. Contact states always introduce other issues.

What issues? By "training" the person that contacts you it only affects their relationship with you, and has to be clarified for everyone you're in contact with. Some people will assume the rules that apply to them are the same for everyone else, unless you plan on explicitly defining your preferences to prevent misunderstandings.

Issues include:

- Privacy/InfoSec - Forgetting to change status - Meaningless status states (Away was never really that accurate or meaningful) - Extra messaging friction

I've found that it's usually just a few certain types that expect instant replies. It doesn't require too much time for them to get that I respond when I can. The same rules do apply to everyone, but I'll deliberately delay responses at times so as not to feed the expectation of the reply-needy. With email, I have set times to review and reply.

Away messages wouldn't hurt but that's not what the GP is talking about. We receive dozens of messages and notifications, we shouldn't have to feel we should be dropping everything we're doing to respond just because it's during "normal work hours". This expectation used to common with email, and maybe still is in some companies, but we've slowly come to accept email as what it is - asynchronous communication. Mobile notifications and chat applications are a step back in this respect.

If you're a distributed remote company with people who prefer to work early and others who like to work late, all in different time zones, what are "normal work hours?"

Also, I work I higher education, where things move slowly. Although we don't have an assumption that after-hours emails will be replied to until the next business day, any delay of a day or more can cascade to far more delay on the other end(s).

"We receive dozens of messages and notifications,"

I've been "on call" for a while before, and part of the solution is to deal directly with that. Anything app that thinks it has the right to pop up notifications whenever the hell it feels like it (and why is "3am" so often when they feel like it?) better have a setting to undo that easily found, or they're in for a rude uninstalling. Anything else that thinks it gets the priority interrupt had better be prepared to discover it doesn't.

Because I need to save that priority interrupt for the actually important "site down" notice. I was getting a visceral twitch whenever I got a text because having the same alert for "CARTHAGE IS BURNING PREPARE TO SPEND HOURS FIXING IT YES I KNOW IT'S 2AM" and "hey whats up dude" was not working for me.

I'm not on that call anymore, but I've kept the habit of keeping everything away from that level of interrupt. If it's that important, pick up the phone and call me. Provide social proof of its importance by putting your own attention into the conversation. (Which, of course, can only be done by a real human.) Otherwise, you're not that important and you can deal with a delay.

I dislike contact states personally. They are mostly noise. People set them, don't set them, forget they set them, had some program set them etc.

For me it is fairly simple - usually texts in my company are higher urgency, location agnostic, communication. Only reason I would text is I need someone sooner than they see an email/Lync message, but I don't need them urgent enough to interrupt with a call. "I'm running late from this meeting, can we delay?", "you ok for lunch in 5?" etc. people typically respect that rough, unexpressed, protocol.

I never ever wasn't "away" in ICQ and most in my friend list did the same. In my narrow experience its use tends to erode pretty quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com