Electronic devices, attention, and subtextual messages

[firecat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/fashion/17TEXT.html?_r=1&ref=technology&pagewanted=all
"Keep Your Thumbs Still When I’m Talking to You" by David Carr

This article (well, it's sort of a cross between an article and a personal opinion piece, I guess) discusses electronic device etiquette. It says what you might expect it to say: People stare into their little screens in public and with friends. Is this rude? Is it destroying social connections? Shouldn't we put our devices down more often?



Personally, I think these things should be worked out between the people who are trying to communicate with each other. I find it stressful to stare at screens and try to socialize at the same time, and I enjoy putting everything down and just sitting and taking the world in. But I don't care to tell other people what to do.

I also enjoy knitting while talking to someone and some people think that means I'm not paying attention to them, but in fact it helps me listen more closely (well, if I'm knitting something uncomplicated).

So I don't think that looking away from someone if they're talking is inherently ignoring them.

But I also know that I can't attend to two language streams at the same time, so texting while having a conversation might not be the same as knitting while having a conversation.

What really fascinates me, though, is the image that was chosen to accompany the article, which comes right after the title. A young conventionally attractive Asian woman is standing and using her electronic device, while a young conventionally attractive white man crouches in front of her, with his hand on her arm, and makes a "screeching in distress" face. Accompanied by the title "Keep Your Thumbs Still When I’m Talking to You," it seems like there is a subtextual race and gender message.

It's always been the case that there is a power dynamic involved in "who gets to divide their attention and who doesn't."

Other than that I'm not sure I can put the race and gender messages of the image into words.

Can you?

Comments

[apis_mellifera]

It drives me utterly batshit when my husband texts or otherwise messes around with his phone while we're supposed to be spending time together. It makes me feel like I'm not interesting enough to hold his interest (and yes, we have discussed this and he is working on it--and it's getting better).

[firecat]

I am willing to put up with a small amount of someone messing around with a device when I'm with them, but after a little while I will (if I know them well enough) start to *ahem* and stare with one eyebrow raised.

[apis_mellifera]

The primary mode of communication for one of my husband's partners is text messaging, so he spends a lot of time tethered to his phone. I normally don't have an issue with it, but when we're doing something together or when we're hanging out with people in person, it's a problem. I've been known to fiddle with my phone excessively, but usually not when I'm expected to be interactive with other people.

[shanaqui]

It seems to me that being able to ignore someone and calmly go on texting is a way of asserting power. Like, if you need to keep someone happy with you, you look at them and smile and nod along to what they say. So the Asian woman is ignoring the man, asserting power over him -- no wonder he's pissed, 'cause man, he's not used to that. But she's not meant to do that, she's not allowed -- she should be paying attention to him, he thinks. Hence the screaming at her.

Personally, spending all the time texting or checking email or whatever does strike me as rude, most of the time. I usually apologise if I find myself doing it a lot, and try to explain why I do. It's basically fidgeting, for me -- I find it hard to maintain one-on-one conversation because it drains my batteries so fast. Quickly checking my phone gives me a second out, a moment for me rather than the person I'm talking to.

[firecat]

I agree with your analysis.

I never thought of checking one's phone as an introvert defense. Interesting. (My introvert defense is to start looking away from the person, which also comes across as rude to some people.)

[shanaqui]

I needed to write it out to really grasp it, so I'm glad it sounds right to you too!

I do the same -- in fact, I'm rarely able to look at people's faces for long.

[firecat]

in fact, I'm rarely able to look at people's faces for long.

Me either, although the crushee is proving an interesting exception.

(Which might explain why I don't like to do it much with other people—it feels intimate to me.)

[shanaqui]

Yes! Definitely. If I'm looking someone in the face a lot, it's definitely a sign of intimacy/comfortableness.

[zeborah]

Other than that I'm not sure I can put the race and gender messages of the image into words.

It looks to me like "Oh noes those cold-hearted WOC are oppressing me by not paying enough attention to meeeeeee! --She's probably just playing hard to get."

(That's a really creepy photo.)

[firecat]

Yes and yes.

[the_siobhan]

That picture makes me think of all the people who come and want to talk to me when I'm reading, and then get bent out of shape about how rude I am because I continue reading instead of paying attention to what they have to say. I want to bonk them over the head with my book.

I do think it's rude to start texting in the middle of a conversation[1], but that pic doesn't make me think that's what's going on there.

[1] Mostly because I have yet to encounter somebody who can actually do it. So far every person who has done this has lost the thread of what we're talking about. I might feel differently about somebody who was truly capable of doing both at once.

[firecat]

Good point about people interrupting readers -- who's owed attention is not exactly a new issue, is it?

[saoba.livejournal.com]

The title of the piece is nice and 'Do as you're told!' bossy too.

When I'm talking to you niggles at me as well. Not when we're talking or when I am talking with you. Combine that imperative title and that picture and it all comes across a little bit like 'I am entitled to your attention and to dictate what you do with your body parts while I have that attention.'

[firecat]

I agree, there's something bossy and patronizing about the whole thing.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

I expect they set up the shot in an attempt to avoid any obvious race/gender messages, and ended up sending a weird or un-obvious message.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

I agree. Even two actors posing would coordinate on some sort of context; this is just photoshopped from unrelated sources.

As is, the girl might be oblivious to a parent or other authority -- but the man isn't acting like one. If someone was really screaming for her attention, she'd at least look annoyed. ;-)

[graymalkin13.livejournal.com]

I think her lack of response to him is meant to suggest that she doesn't even hear him, she's so engaged with her device.

Which sums up perfectly the real issue (IMO) behind articles like this: Anxiety (particularly men's anxiety) about being able to get what one wants or needs from other people (particularly women) when every five minutes there are more new things to pay attention to.

I'm 52 and have a certain set of expectations about what's polite in the attention-giving department. (And I have the perspective to know that I can change my expectations if I want to.) I would assume that a 32-year-old and a 12-year-old would each have completely different expectations, and a sense that their expectations were/should be the norm.

Since I can remember an era when there were far fewer attention-demanding devices, I can conceive of a world in which people don't need to be texting or emailing or facebooking all the time. Hence I can choose not to engage with these things or buy these devices. (I'm fortunate in that I don't have to have these things for work.) If I had kids, I would try to teach them about that choice, not that it would likely change the way they see things, especially given the lure of advertising and the force of peer pressure.

In other news, Obvious Malkin is obvious.

[firecat]

Smart Malkin is smart.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

"Here’s the funny part: If she is looking over your shoulder at a room full of potentially more interesting people, she is ill-mannered. If, however, she is not looking over your shoulder, but into a smartphone in her hand, she is not only well within modern social norms, but is also a wired, well-put-together person."

Well, no. She's still ill-mannered. Which is where I stopped in the article, because I simply can't agree with the premise.

As for the photo? I don't know. I think I'm with beaq. It strikes me as being a self-conscious attempt at avoiding the kind of message.

[19-crows.livejournal.com]

The photo makes them both look like assholes.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Subtextual, my ass. If that doesn't say, "No woman (especially a young, attractive woman) has the right to ignore a man who wants her attention," I've never seen anything that did. With a side of "How DARE you not recognize my wanting to fuck you?"

My attention was further caught by this, down in the article:

I prefer to experience the thing itself over the experience of telling people I’m doing the thing.

And that, IME, is not limited to things you do with a smartphone. Last summer, on our Western-parks vacation, I caught myself a couple of times looking at things -- really beautiful things -- more with an eye to getting a picture of them than for really seeing them, there in the moment. Yes, it's nice to have the pictorial record, but I want the actual memories as well.

[firecat]

If that doesn't say, "No woman (especially a young, attractive woman) has the right to ignore a man who wants her attention," I've never seen anything that did. With a side of "How DARE you not recognize my wanting to fuck you?"

Yeah, I was getting something like that.

I know what you mean about photo-taking. And then there's reading the signs about a site rather than looking at the site itself.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

At work, I generally don't answer the phone or email when somebody is talking to me at my cube, unless they are just gossiping and the phone call is from the boss (or otherwise presumably work-related).

[graymalkin13.livejournal.com]

First impressions of the picture:
- sigh Will using pictures of conventionally pretty young women to grab consumers' attention ever stop?

- Looks like she's getting whatever that is in her hand ready to stick in his mouth.

The article title is suggestive in an annoying way. The photo caption about woman using iPad in hot tub is also annoying. "Oh look, another sexy woman! In a sexy hot tub! With privilege and money out the wazoo! Isn't she busy? Isn't she important? ASPIRE TO THIS! (And keep reading our self-indulgent opinion wanks and buying status-laden electronic devices!)

[firecat]

ASPIRE TO THIS!

Yes, I have that reaction to many New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other media sources' lifestyle articles that talk about supposed new trends. "Oooh, aren't we cool and modern?"

[graymalkin13.livejournal.com]

Navel-gazing columns sell advertising space. This is one reason I never read the news.

[selki.livejournal.com]

It's why I dropped my subscription to WIRED years ago.  It was making me feel like it would be normal to spend thousands on a home theater. And and and.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Type mismatch. The man looks like a cartoon, unrealistic. The girl looks realistic -- but not with a cartoonish man holding her elbow and yelling in her face.

Showing a young person or employee ignoring an older person or boss would fit the article. But for that they should have used a cartoonish girl too.

[firecat]

I thought the type mismatch was weird too.

[pameladean]

"Keep your thumbs still when I'm talking to you" sounds parental to me, and not necessarily in a very good way, either. I don't see how it has any place in a conversation between equals.

P.

[firecat]

sounds parental to me, and not necessarily in a very good way, either.

Yes indeed.

small aside re headline

[gary-farber.livejournal.com]

Just to note that David Carr wouldn't have written the headline.

David Carr, btw: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20Carr-t.html?ref=davidcarr&pagewanted=all

Re: small aside re headline

[firecat]

Yeah, there wasn't anything creepy about the actual article, just the photo and headline.

It's interesting how many different lives some people manage to lead.