This post is a response to Tantek Çelic’s article on communication protocols. I agree with most all of it, except the bit about IM protocol.
Depending on the mindset of whomever you ask, small talk is either the foundation of a good conversation or annoying prattle to be minimized as much as possible. I find the latter opinion to be often held by highly systematic thinkers who find communication to be stressful.
You can see this reluctance to jump into a conversation without small talk by listening to a radio call in show. When a caller is put on air, it takes them a second to collect themselves and launch into their thought. They often want to go through the usual rituals of starting a conversation, saying hello and complimenting the host. Even though the handlers have coached guests to get straight to the point, the hosts often have to prompt the guest again with “what’s your question.” The pressure is on to be as efficient in communication as possible, but most people fail because we’re socialized to preface our conversations.
The most efficient from the point of view of not using small talk are toddlers. They blurt out their requests without regard to whether the caregiver is listening or not. Through patient effort, they are socialized to request an audience first. This has its own difficult stage as the toddler repeats that request “mommy, mommy, mommy…” ad nauseum.
Fortunately we (mostly) all make it past these stages with proper adult manners to first request someone’s attention. Their response allows us judge the person’s mood and level of engagement so we may adjust our communication style.
Greetings and small talk persist beyond face to face and voice-only communication. Letters must include greeting to conform to ettiquete.
Direct message (DM) and text messaging (txt) aren’t subject to these etiquette rules because they are asynchronous.
Instant message (IM) is as close to synchronous conversation as we have in the text-based communication world. It’s close enough to a phone conversation that we often query to see if the person is there before launching into the conversation. It’s similar to making the phone ring. That’s why people say things like “psst,” “ping,” “u there,” or “hello?” as their first message.
To those of you who are annoyed by these greetings, keep in mind that the majority of folks find jumping right into a conversation rude. Please don’t inflict your Aspergers on the rest of us. Yes, etiquette changes to adapt to new technology, but I suspect this won’t be changing any time soon. All of the people who I would classify as exceptional communicators start off with a request for audience. Consider how you might respond in a way that will help the other person adjust their expectation of how much of your time and attention you have available for them.
5 comments
Tantek says:
Mar 30, 2011
Ah I see the source of our different perspectives.
(Thanks for the chart!)
I treat IM as more/mostly *async* because people tend to be doing many other things at the same time (like commenting on a blog post). (IRC is pseudo-async like this as well for similar reasons).
Which is quite different from true sync comms like phone, video-chat, or in-person, where there is a much greater expectation of attention/focus, and the absence thereof is much more noticeable (silences are effectively part of the content of the comms).
Adam Jury says:
Mar 31, 2011
I too prefer that people get to the point with an IM, especially if they are requesting info from me. By doing so: “Hey Adam, what is the current page count of the Communications chapter?” it means that regardless of whether they are AFK or not when I get around to answering their message, I can give them a complete answer. My part of the loop is therefore closed and I don’t have to wonder what they wanted and if it was important.
It’s OK to do the ritual stuff, but I think it’s best if people also jump right to the point as opposed to waiting for a reply to said rituals.
David Tenser says:
Jun 22, 2011
I find it strange that video is placed as less engaging than IRC in the graph. Video conversation has to be as close to IRL conversation as you can come, which should be the most engaging…
Crystal Beasley says:
Jun 28, 2011
David: my handwriting is the issue. That says “IRL” not “IRC.” We’re in agreement.
Jim Blandy says:
Jun 28, 2011
Leaving aside the actual thesis of your post (“small talk allows you to assess your counterpart’s mood and engagement”), I’m fascinated by the chart:
- I find IRC conversations draining, while IRL conversations charge me up — assuming they’re going well.
- Effort and engagement being so strongly correlated, I wonder if they’re not really aspects of the same thing. I guess what one looks for is ways to lower the effort while retaining the engagement: lower-right-ward motion. Thus: audio phone is preferable to video phone.