Interpersonal communication (sdf.org), 12/11/2019
------------------------------------------------------------
Before I rant and ramble, I'd like to remind the random
gopher stumbler about the distinction between broadcasting
and interpersonal communication: in broadcasting (like this
gopher post), you cast your thoughts out to a wide audience,
and get little or no feedback- even if you get a lot of
feedback, the medium isn't inherently looking for that; in
interpersonal communication, you communicate back-and-forth,
and you expect that. In broadcasting, getting no response
isn't an insult at all; in interpersonal communication,
getting no response can be hurtful.
So, I promised both to rant and ramble...
First, a rant: it annoys me to no end that people have
such strong preferences when it comes to communication. One
person prefers voice calls, another prefers text, another
would rather email, another wants to use Facebook. If it
were just a simple preference, which had a little deference
attached to it, it would be just fine. I'm practicing what I
preach here- though I have a preference, I exercise a lot of
deference, because *communicating with people is more
important than my preferences*.
(Now you know why I brought up broadcasting: I prefer to
broadcast with gopher. I don't use deference in
broadcasting, because I don't really care all that much
about the www audience, and I don't intend to reach them. I
really would rather snub that broader audience for the
purposes of my phlogs, that's my choice, and it's nothing
personal. It's not interpersonal communication until
someone notices the broadcast and replies- *at which time*
my deference kicks in! If someone emails me, sends a
letter, calls, or texts me in response to gopher content,
*I will respond*- unless I drop the ball, because I'm only
human. But, I will *mean* to respond, I won't ignore them
because they used the wrong method.)
Second (because you have to have a second when you had a
first, right?) a ramble: What is the deal with people that
will only communicate via one method, anyway? And why can't
they just admit it to themselves and everyone else and say,
"I'm sorry, I refuse to interact with you unless we both
agree to sacrifice our privacy and use a commercial platform
that we may or may not agree with."? In my experience,
people will feign flexibility- "yeah, you can call me," or
"sure, I do email,"- but when it comes down to it, if you
want to communicate with them, as in *receive a response*,
then you better darn well use their #1 preferred method (you
see what I did there? They have a #1, but not a real #2, so
they're doing something wrong). But NO, instead they'll
pretend to be flexible, then when you try a method that is
other than their primary method they'll ignore you, and when
you ask them about it they'll say something like, "oh, I
really don't [fill in the blank] that much, why don' you
just [fill in their #1 choice here like they should have in
the first place]."
Of course, it could simply be that I'm just not that
important in the lives of these individuals. Perhaps whether
or not I communicate with them is of little or not
importance. I can see that, and I accept that. But, I don't
agree that this problem only occurs when that is the case.
An example: some family members, who love you and say so,
will refuse to communicate things outside of Facebook, even
if they know that you don't use Facebook. To be fair, this
is the one area I generally don't give any deference. I'm a
jerk when it comes to social media. I did the social media
thing for years, found that it was a plague on humanity, and
left. I gave everyone who cared a way to get in touch with
me (well, three ways actually). I'm not going back unless I
have to in order to save my life or career (you know,
because I have to feed my family.)
Another example: you're part of an organization where you
and the other members share common goals and beliefs- a
church, a club, or whatever. Another member needs to
coordinate with you, complex matters with great detail
required. You suggest that for such communication, email
might be best suited. They can't/don't/won't email, they
only text (but of course, they agree to email, they just
never do and they force you into texting long, tedious
messages, which must be broken down to single thoughts and
single questions per text otherwise they will get lost and
will only respond to one item anyway) so you end up texting,
even though it sucks, takes way longer, is less organized,
etc.
The moral of this rant and ramble is this: don't be a jerk.
If you have to be a jerk (like me), at least be as little of
a jerk as possible, in as few areas as possible, say you're
sorry, and be forthright. Don't pretend to be flexible when
you're not, just embrace your jerkiness and be dutifully
apologetic for it.
