Cell Mate

How many ways do we have to communicate? Let me count the ways. First, people talk to each other face to face. Then, there was the letter. Technology provides us the three ways to communicate: by phone, by email, and by instant messenger.

Of all the ways to communicate, people seem to prefer, by far, to meet in person. You get to see a person's face, their body reaction. You can do non-verbal things such as throw a football or watch a movie.

The phone creates an interesting social dynamic. People are forced to talk on both ends. It's rare for the conversation to have a pause lasting more than 15 seconds. In fact, people get so uncomfortable with pauses in conversation, that someone needs to talk, or at least, to reaffirm that they are still connected. I know many people who can't stand using the phone. Guys in particular seem to use the phone primarily to arrange events, never just to talk to one another.

Women tend to use the phones more just to talk to friends. There's the stereotype of the daughter who has to talk to her friends for hours at a time, gossiping about guys and actors and singers that are cute. I'm sure there are some guys who also find themselves hooked on using the phone, but I suspect numbers are much smaller, because guys have a sense of homophobia. If they're going to talk to someone, they'd prefer to talk to women.

The reason people don't like using phones is because it's almost always an interruption. You can't tell if the other person is watching TV, or eating dinner, or sleeping. Assuming people have things to do, even dull things, conversations on the phone are a pain. And because of the need to keep the conversation flowing, shy people especially, avoid the phone.

I'm going to get back to phones in a moment, because there's a "new" technological development. At least, new relative to the time phones have been in popular use. You know what it is, but I'll speak to it momentarily.

Letters used to be much more popular than they are today. Sending letters is still fairly cheap, but it's the slowness of sending letters and the huge amount of effort it takes to deliver mail. In the old days, you had to write your letter,
and it was usually a few pages long, then find a stamp and envelope, and drop it at a mailbox or a post office. Later on, the mailman would come and pick up mail at the post box. After all, they were right there.

Mail would take 3-5 days or more to get to its destination. This meant turn-around time was slow. In general, people would write infrequently, but write long letters. These days, who bothers? I mean, can you even remember the last time you wrote a letter? We still get snail mail because folks who send out bills still seem to use regular mail. It's sad we
even get real mail these days. We should only get it for packages, not bills.

Email basically killed letter writing. It's much easier to fire off an email whenever you want. If you own a computer, it takes a minute to write it, and off it goes. What's more, you don't need postage, no stamp, and it's delivered near instantaneously. But because it's so quick, there's little need to write lengthy emails. Where, once upon a time, men and women of breeding wrote stylized letters filled with flowery turns of phrases, and thoughtful bon mots, an email might consist of a sentence or two.

Despite the speed of email, replies aren't always quick nor forthcoming. While neophytes to email believe that once you receive an email, you should reply right away, there are many people who let mail sit in their inboxes, possibly, never even replying to it at all. I have sent "invites" to friends, who decide, rather than decline the invite, simply not to reply at all. Certainly, people don't put a great deal of thought writing email. Only occasionally, when someone is trying to woo someone else does email get to be longer than a paragraph or two.

Ask yourself this. When's the last time you write email more than five paragraphs long? And not to complain about the quality of some service?

Some people like email, but unlike the phone, there's nothing compelling the other person to reply. On a phone, both sides must talk, or else the conversation is likely to be very short. On the other hand, with email, it's OK, if mildly rude, not to reply to an email. Response time for email is typically a day. Unless it's something urgent, two people are not likely to exchange 2-3 emails a day. Perhaps exceptions are made if they are romantically involved. I know, there are likely to be exceptions, but that's all they are---exceptions.

In between the immediacy of a phone, and the somewhat slow pace of email is instant messenger. It's a particularly compelling form of communication. While you would think it would have the immediacy of a telephone, people use IM when they use a computer, and people use computers to play games, watch movies, or surf. Furthermore, unlike a phone, you can be in multiple IMs at the same time. A person can be deeply involved with one conversation while ignoring another.

The protocol for IM is odd. People can leave the conversation at any time, and do. For example, I might decide to watch television, or do laundry, or talk to my roommates. I can leave IM conversations right in the middle. Now, a few people are polite and let you know when they are headed away from IM, and can't talk to you, but many don't. I must admit, I'm in the camp of people who don't. Furthermore, unlike phones and somewhat unlike email, you can block people on IM.

Again, some people dislike IM for conversation. They don't like the interruptions, and by it's very nature, it's not good for deep or lengthy thoughts or stories as letter writing is. In fact, letter writing and possibly talking in person seem to be the only two ways to discuss anything in detail, and that's only if you're good at thinking on your feet.

I find people don't like to IM much, and if they do, it tends to lean to people they're interested in, as in possibly romantic. Again, I don't doubt there are people who talk to their friends all the time in IM, and have conversations lasting hours, much as they have phone conversations that last hours.

I have friends, pretty much all male, who can't stand any form of communication except face to face. I know I like that better, but there are times, when you are not in close proximity to another person, and alternative means of communication must be used. Think about what you say in email, or IM, or anything compared to what you'd say as a person. You're far more likely to talk about even the most mundane thing in person.

The funny thing about being in person is that you're generally interrupting that person too, and often for an hour or so. I find that if I haven't seen a person in a while, I can find out a lot more about what's happened to them if I speak to them in person. What people are willing to say in person is often much more than what they're willing to say in email or IM. I think there's a social pressure in face to face talk that makes people need to talk, much like on the phone. While it's easier to be quiet in person, it's still not like IM, where you can simply walk always for half an hour or an hour.

OK, now i'll get back to the phone. This time, I want to talk about the cell phone. Gad, what an awful name. I much prefer the British term of mobile (pronounced as mo-bile as in the bile of liver). Cell phones allow you to do things that were once rather impossible. You're driving to visit someone, and you're lost? Call them up! Or you're running late? Call them up.

Or you're bored? Call up a friend! Or you're supposed to meet someone at a game, and can't quite find them? Use the cell phone to negotiate a common location you can meet. Cell phones provide an insanely convenient way to coordinate meetings. Yet, they also lead to people who need to call others whenever.

Consider this scenario. You're with your friends. You get a cell phone call. It's from a good friend. Do you answer? Some people find the act of talking to anyone on a cell phone while they are with others rude. Others find it rather natural, and go ahead and talk. Which one are you? If you see it's a good friend, and you're, say, waiting for food, will you leave your party and talk to this person? There's different notions as to how rude this is.

I do find that cell phones do not make guys any more likely to call others. Again, if they dislike calling friends on landlines, the cell phones are no better. Yet, there are those who are frightfully addicted to phones. Imagine the following scenario. You are without your cell phone. Your landline is down. Are you in a panic? Why do you need to talk to that person so much? Why are you so distressed? If it bothers you so much, then you're probably an addict. I suspect I'm a minor addict. I like talking on my cell phone, but usually to pass time while I'm travelling. Alas, that's the most dangerous time to use a phone.

Cell phones are right at the point of an interesting issue in etiquette. I've seen a restaurant that doesn't want its customers talking on cell phones when they are orderig food. Of course, movie theaters have long insisted on no cell phones on in the theater. How many of you can simply ignore your cell phone if someone calls. I mean, you don't look at the cell phone, not even to see who it is. This is how important the cell phone is to some of you.

The phone, email, IM. All of these are ways for us to get closer to one another. Some of us embrace this technology. We simply love it. Others can't abide by it. They insist on the traditional barriers of communication. No communication except face to face communication.

The only successful form of communication I see is two fold: the chat room and the interactive video game. In a chat room, you deliberately decide to go into a group for the express purpose of talking to others. I used to be addicted to this, but I found the conversation became repetitive and unusual. In particular, since the room was semi-anonymous, people pretended a great deal. Maybe they weren't the gender they said they were, or maybe they said they were 15 when they were 60. Or 20 when they were 15. Then, if the room permits private chats, you find people sending private messages to the most popular.

In a room where people can enter anonymously, and leave whenever, you see a great tempation to be someone you aren't. In real life, it may be tougher to make yourself taller, or stronger, or more beautiful, or more eloquent, but in a chat room, you can pretend, and people do. Rules about honesty seem to break down. Rules of etiquette too. People are rude because there's less repercussions for being rude. A person who would never raise their voice in real situations (out of fear) might chastise someone in a chat room.

The anonymity has an interesting flip side. Some people find themselves far more honest. They can reveal many personal issues. The people in the chat room won't necessarily throw it back in their faces. They act less judgemental, and best of all, if you are anonymous, you can just leave whenever. People who are closeted or simply shy can act far less shy in a chat room, because there are no repercussions. The rules of etiquette seem to break down, and it can eventually become this din.

If you've ever seen a busy chat room, it's not so much a conversation as it is many people yelling, trying to say one or two words here or there. If the chat room is sufficiently small, say, 4-5 people, and people are willing to talk, then it can actually be quite engaging.

I suspect there's something similar in networked video games, even though most of the conversation, I'd imagine, centers around the game itself.

I find the topic of communication in the 21 century compelling. Why do some people still reject these forms of communication? What does it say about their relationship with communicating? How do social conventions break down in chat rooms or over IM? We can now easily log conversations. What does that say?

You would think that alternate forms of communication would give us more ways to talk to one another, and to some extent, it has done exactly that. Yet, the quality and form of communication seems to have changed. It's not nearly as fulfilling as one would hope, and yet, it can, at times, be curiously addictive, and not necessarily in a positive way.

Ah, yes, then there's the blog, the one way communication to the world, where I stand on my soapbox (do they even exist anymore), and shout to the world. Does the world even listen? Does it even care? Do I even care? Maybe that there's some offchance that someone hears me is good enough. Go out into the forest, and listen to the trees drop, will you, my good man? Don't trip over that cat.