Still the fact is that it is inconsiderate, or plain rude, to be "somewhere else" when you are sitting with other people who all took the time to physically be with each other. If a few people get together and spend large amounts of their time on their phones, then why get together at all?
>After five days without phones or tablets, these campers were able to read facial emotions and correctly identify the emotions of actors in videotaped scenes significantly better than a control group.
The OP places greater value on face-to-face conversation. I'm saying that the OP takes this too far, that electronic interactions should not be dismissed so readily.
You may have huge brain and trillions of times of the computing capacity of a simple calculator, but it's still going to beat you at arithmetic. Know your limitations and embrace your strengths. You're not some general purpose machine; what's the point in pretending otherwise?
Electronic/social communication is, by its very nature, asynchronous. You can send a message and there's generally little pressure for an immediate response. Face to face conversations are synchronous and when you do something on your laptop/phone/tablet you break the flow of the conversation.
An no, my reply can't wait because I had a tempo of conversation, and the person on the other side of the phone can't see that someone interrupted me in person. Face to face conversations transmit out-of-band information through body language, and in the same way electronic conversations transmit out-of-band information through timing. Also reading timing is just as subtle skill as reading faces.
I understand people "read timing" and interpret it as adding to the conversation but timing in a text conversation is so unreliable I personally give it no importance. More often than not the timing of my IM/text/email has more to do with the situation I'm currently in rather than how I feel about the conversation. I didn't reply to that last text because I just stepped into a meeting, or started driving, or got in the shower, etc.
Of course there might be the occasional checking of messages, and nobody minds that, especially in groups. But generally I've found people in my age group (early to mid 20s) to be very mindful of when and how they use their phones. If they are going to text in front of you, I find that they often explain out loud why they're doing it, without your even asking, so you know that they actually are responding to something that needs or deserves a somewhat prompt reply.
The illusion was shattered for me with my former roommate, also former friend. I was really amazed at how he'd just sit on his phone on Facebook whenever we went out together to grab something to eat. He'd often just sit there in silence. What sealed the deal for me and led me to the above realization was how he'd ignore me even if I remarked on something while he was in the midst of his Facebooking. It was so offensive to me that I don't even consider him a friend anymore.
It's not that I have a superiority complex over not using smartphones, though it is delightfully ironic to witness many of the older generations I hear chastising people like me for a variety of grievances commit one of the cardinal sins I actually don't.
And yes, if you can't last more than 5 minutes without checking Facebook, you need help.
That's why I'm always glad when I find other people my age who consciously refuse to be constantly available via WhatsApp, FB Messenger, etc. - several I know actually refuse to have a smart phone at all (yes, those people still exist ;-) ).
That's abusive generalizations for you.
So I assume you'd have no problem if your date pulled our his/her phone and completely ignored you? If your boss called you over and spent the next half hour on his phone, that shouldn't be a problem. If you ask a friend over to talk because you're hurting, and he ends up on his phone the whole time, that shouldn't be a problem either right? If you fly across the country to see someone, and they ignore you completely for two days while being buried in their phone, that's not a problem?
Is this a generational thing? No, you're just being a selfish asshole by talking on the phone when you should be giving others your attention. What arrogance indeed!
I think that's precisely the point of the article. If you are in fact in the middle of a conversation with someone, then it is polite to pay attention. If you don't want to be in a conversation with them, then exit the conversation (i.e. tell them that you don't have time and walk away). Pretending to pay attention while doing nothing of the sort cheapens the interaction.
The behavior is a demonstration of not valuing someone else's time and attention (the time that it took to put themselves into your proximity, and the attention that they can't pay to someone else while waiting for you.) One would expect that people who practice it would tend to know less about what other people think and feel.
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this again.
Generational generalizations are also a trope we can do without.
I'm a millenial myself and I have a lot of strong opinions about previous generations but enough with tired meme that all baby boomers or most of them are evil people and we're the saviors of the planet esp when you see examples like that jerk from our generation blackmailing sick and people in need just to get a new sport car or jet to show off in front of his peers of the same age.
Why do you care how other people enjoy themselves?
Actually there is plenty of evidence that texting and social media offer a similar kick as several other addictions like smoking, etc. it's akin to blaming teenage smoking on boring classes. Further, the teenage mind is susceptible to getting easily bored and to addiction.
I'm sure one could just as easily say that getting the mail is like other addictions, because I chronically get excited at the thought of my latest online order arriving.
There actually are many people addicted to shopping. You can often see them on “Hoarders” or similar TV shows, their homes filled to the brim with products in boxes, unopened.
I do feel the analogy is overused though, mostly because the notion that chemical reactions in the brain are involved seems to have an unduly strong impression on people, whereas I imagine that these phenomena in the brain turn up in all sorts of human activity (see sandworm101's comment).
There's also a negative connotation that exists with drug usage. I could be totally addicted to jogging, though ("runner's high"), with an almost totally net positive effect on my life.
Habitual behavior in general forms because of "a similar kick". The main difference between a habit and an addiction is whether the habit is seen as adaptive or maladaptive.
By all means, communicate with your friends over the internet using all the means availed to you by technology. On the other hand, when you're sitting at a coffeeshop with your friend right next to you, that isn't the time to be chatting with someone half way across the country.
You seem to have missed a main theme of the article, which was in first paragraph: "Now they use it when they want to be both with their friends and, as some put it, 'elsewhere.'"
I would say an illusion of financial security does that too. If your life depended on getting a decent education, petty indulgences like this wouldn't even occur.
Personally, i've been following the maxim "Prefer a warm body over a cold screen." I turn off (most) notifications. Sure, sometimes i'll pull out my phone to look something up. I'll check from time to time if i'm coordinating with someone, but i try to let my interlocutor know what's going on.
Right there is where the author looses me. That online collaboration via the phone IS a social gathering unto itself. One is not fundamentally different than the other. Physical proximity is great, but it is a serious limitation. Not everyone has the time/money to physically meet their friends over coffee every twenty minutes. Not everyone lives in downtown Boston or NY.
> They say it’s a skill they mastered in middle school when they wanted to text in class without getting caught.
And why do kids text so much at school? Because they are bored to death by mind-numbing subjects and teaching that doesn't actually teach. Texting is the symptom, not the disease.
The ability to 'not get caught' while communicating with others is a valuable skill for nearly everyone these days. It should be encouraged.