Two points of what I consider common etiquette (call me old school if you want). First, if I am standing in front of a person having a conversation and the other person is emailing, texting or answering the phone it is a definite indicator that I not only don't have they're full attention, but that I am not terribly important. Obviously these indicators and interpretations place me at the center of concern.
Second, my behavior should not negatively impact another's if I can at all avoid it. Personally I would never have a loud phone conversation where it disrupts others (think check out lines, restaurants and even public spaces to some extent. While I can only hope for this in return, it definitely impacts my personal space. As for lectures, speaking events and even meetings - its pretty common place to be taking notes, referencing additional material and even blogging. But I love when someone gets busted for playing solitaire. On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM, christine chastain < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Being an anthropologist and designer, my observations have taught me > that there is little difference between physical and virtual social > behavior from a cognitive behavioral and anthropological perspective. > People have the same needs they always did - to feel part of a social > structure and network, to feel validated and loved, to wield power, to > seek and present identity, etc. I would argue that while technology > itself provides differences in virtual and physical interaction, the > structure remains traditional. It is just more visible more quickly > now. > > What I've been thinking about is whether the "etiquettte" arising from > the use of "virtual" technology in a more traditional setting and > people's reaction to that might be anti-social punishment. Consider > this - as long as everyone (particularly in a collectivist setting) > has access and benefits from the same technology, the use of such > becomes the accepted norm. An example of this would be texting in > Finland - because almost everyone has a cell phone and the benefits to > society as a whole are understood. no one would dream of asking > another to stop texting someone during a conversation. In fact, the > person being texted is often drawn into the physical conversation as > though they were a part of it. So there is no opportunity, really, to > get something someone else has or to punish someone else for doing > something that everyone is doing. > > In the United States, we use shame to get people not to do things or > "decide" for themselves to adhere to the normative. If most of the > room has decided that cell phone conversations or twittering is off > limits in a particular setting, stronger-minded individuals will > "police" the group making sure everyone adheres to a certain code of > conduct.And this works most of the time as those being "policed" don't > want to stand out and don't want to cause trouble among peers who > might act as valuable connections. > > In a place like Greece, there is no reason to feel shame from someone > who is a stranger. Because family and close friends are the only > connections that truly matter, what a stranger says to you can be > completely disregarded. And because rule of law is perceived as > unreliable, no one will be following up either. So there will always > be multiple people speaking loudly on cell phones during a concert, > etc. > Interestingly, those who try and "police" this behavior are punished > by the policed as they are often seen as do-gooders and > maternal/paternalistic in behavior. Individuals seem not to mind that > the collective "suffers" as a whole. > > These are extreme examples however it makes me think that there are, > as much as cross-cultural differences, individual differences within > cultures. Perhaps those unwilling to conform at the lecture to > "lecture-like" behavior did not see the benefit of doing so for the > group as a whole and some could have become irritated with being told > what to do and as such, anti-social punishment may be part of the > reason they persisted. > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:30 AM, David Malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > thus is a tangent from Andrei's thread on Twitter @ SxSWi. > > > > "why us the person in front if you more important than the person a > > million miles away?" > > > > the assumption coming from a pre-digital culture is that the people > > with you ate more important than those away from you. > > > > I would like to suggest that in the digital cultural world that this > > distinction is blurted at beat or just outright arbitrary dependent on > > specific contextual queues. > > > > Personally I believe there is a balance we ate going to learn to > > strike, but to do that we have to put aside our presumptions and allow > > new and different things to happen. > > > > BTW, I am a lot less concerned about the example if people isn't media > > while a panel or speaker is going on, then I am about Andrei's example > > of people prioritizing their digital connections over those in front > > of them during 1-on-1 moments. But even then, I would allow for the > > possibility that someone can split their attention between the virtual > > & physical. To take a Buxtonism I don't think we have reached "G-d's > > Law" in terms of our abilities to attribute meaning and value to our > > virtual relationships. > > > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
