Slashdot Mirror
Why Overheard Cell Phone Chats Are Annoying
__roo writes "American researchers think they have found the answer to the question of why overhearing cell phone chats are annoying. According to scientists at Cornell University, when only half of the conversation is overheard, it drains more attention and concentration than when overhearing two people talking. According to one researcher, 'We have less control to move away our attention from half a conversation (or halfalogue) than when listening to a dialogue. Since halfalogues really are more distracting and you can't tune them out, this could explain why people are irritated.' Their study will be published in the journal Psychological Science."
people talk so damn loud on their cell phones, could it?
I find amusing. I can learn more about a person from being a creepy eavesdropper than most people can by conversing with that person.
* They're usually talking louder than everyone else.
* They're not looking where they're walking.
* They're constantly shouting "WHAT DID YOU SAY?"
* They're unable to talk to you because they're distracted by another conversation
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
So by that token it would make more sense to ban cell phone use by passengers in a car than by the driver?
The obvious solution is for everyone to use speaker-phone.
===== will post for karma
I was just talking about this with my friend yesterday. She said that someone on the bus just looks over at a woman on her cell phone, and that another rider gave her the dirtiest look until he spoke up and said, 'please put away your cell phone' My friend thought the guy was rude, but I thought he was justified. Cell phones seriously irritate me. That's one good thing about riding the subway.
I used to set in a cube next to a guy who was always talking on the phone in Chinese. It always gave me a headache, because of the double whammy of hearing half a conversation in a language that I don't understand.
I'm pretty sure I remember coming across a news piece that said exactly this a good 10-20 years ago. The only thing I got out of this article is the word "halfalogue". Specifically, I added it to the List of Words I Must Never Utter. It sounds too much like Heffalump to ever be spoken in polite conversation. It joins other worthy contenders such as irregardless, paradigm, and "the cloud".
As heard at the supermarket.
Ring ring Hi hon ... Yeah just picking up some Cheerios ... Nope, haven't seen him ... You haven't either ... I hadn't heard about that ... Six of them, eh? Wow, he must have had raw thighs ... Really, I didn't know you could do that with motor oil ... Ignited you say ... Yeah, I think you have to wait 48 hours ... That's something she'll have to ask their insurance company ... Okay, home in a few.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So if I hear someone yapping away in a different tongue (one which I don't speak), then I won't find it annoying?
when
1) they are happening somewhere that a regular conversation shouldn't be (i.e. theatre while movie is playing)
2) they are happening while on the road, and the driver is noticeably swerving.
I often have a log when using my smartphone these days. Well, not with my iPhone.
Here's how to handle these people
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
Paradigm is a valid word. It is just painfully misused and overused. The word first came into wide use after Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." In that book he argues that different branches of science go through successive paradigms which encompass their general framework for understanding their matter of study. The vast majority of science then occurs within these consensus attitudes. People now use paradigm in such a general way as to be close to meaningless. For example, people talk about technological paradigms which makes no sense in a Kuhnian framework. Similarly, people talk about paradigms in the humanities while Kuhn spent quite a bit of effort explaining and showing how the humanities don't form paradigms and undergo paradigm shifts in the same way at all, in that consensus never occurs for any overarching explanatory structure. Don't blame the word paradigm. Blame the people who use it as a buzzword.
Also, while I'm at it, I strongly recommend that any interested Slashdotter read Kuhn's book. He's an excellent writer who makes a strong case. I think he's incorrect but it is a very enjoyable read and one get's to learn a lot of neat historical facts that are often overlooked or not discussed in standard pop explanations of the history of science. He also wrote "The Copernican Revolution" which is also very readable and provides a very different view of the switch from geocentrism to heliocentrism then that which is often presented.
... Public Masturbation. Taboo or tubular? You decide.
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
Surely half a monologue is a hemilogue?
If one must invent neologisms, then at least it should be done properly. It's the only thing people are going to remember from this 'research'.
I knew it, I'll go one bit further than their study goes. It's because your mind tries to fill the gaps in the conversation. It's not simply because you only hear one side of the conversation that it disrupts your concentration, but specifically, your mind is busy trying to imagine what's going on on the other end of the call.
If only they would have asked you first.
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
The researchers have identified that a "halfalogue" is confusing, but I'd like to share another aspect I did not see addressed in the article. It's not just what is being said, it's also how it's being said.
In polite conversation there is a protocol, if you will, of how I speak to someone else. Tone of voice, intonation, and the like provide information in addition to the words that I use. When I have a question and ask someone for an answer, there's a change in the tone of my voice at the end and then a pause while I await the other person's answer. Kind of an out-of-band signaling system.
To complicate matters, there are times when I've daydreamed while someone was talking to me, and then all of a sudden I realize that I have been asked a question and they are waiting for my answer.
So, when I'm only hearing part of a conversation, and then there's this ... pause ... there's a part of me that thinks "OMG, did I zone out and they are waiting for me to respond?" Since I do NOT hear the other side of the conversation, I get confusing inputs. Audio inputs suggest I should say something; visual inputs say it's not for me.
If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
I don't think it means what you think it means...
I believe that you are confusing science with fortunetelling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.[1] As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication -- to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers. The use of the scientific method to make new discoveries is called scientific research, and the people who carry out this research are called scientists.[2][3] This article focuses on science in the more restricted sense, what is sometimes called experimental science. Applied science, or engineering, is the practical application of scientific knowledge.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess about the nature of the universe, a scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by repeated observation and measurement. Scientific theories are usually given mathematical form, and are always subject to refutation if future experiments contradict them.
In the modern world, scientific research is a major activity in all developed nations, and scientists are expected to publish their discoveries in refereed journals, scientific periodicals where referees check the facts in an article before it is published. Even after publication, new scientific ideas are not generally accepted until the work has been replicated.
Scientific literacy is the ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science.
Also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of human or animal mental functions and behaviors. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist. Psychologists are classified as social or behavioral scientists. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring underlying physiological and neurological processes.
Psychologists study such topics as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Some, especially depth psychologists, also consider the unconscious mind.a Experimental psychologists try to determine causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, clinical psychologists sometimes rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques.
Psychological knowledge is applied to various spheres of human activity, including the family, education, employment, and the treatment of mental health problems, as well as wider historical dimensions such as the attainment of greatness in fields such as politics, music, art, and literature.[1] Psychology includes many diverse sub-fields, such as developmental psychology, sport psychology, health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, media psychology, legal psychology, and forensic psychology. Psychology incorporates research from the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities.
The word psychology literally means, "study of the soul".[2] It derives from Ancient Greek: "" (psych, meaning "breath", "spirit", or "soul"); and "-" (-logia, translated as "study of").[2] The term was probably coined in the mid-16th century, and in the following century it also came to mean, "study of the mind". In 1895, the term was used for the first recorded time in reference to behavior.[2]
Which completely and totally removes any and all need to do a study.
If only they would have asked you first.
For those of you whose threshold for displayed comments is too low to show the AC's half of that conversation, the first part of that was "We already knew this." There, now that you know both sides of the discussion, it's not as annoying.
We already knew this...
We didn't know why. I always assumed it was because overheard conversations are ALWAYS boring!
Here's a rule I'd like everyone to adopt: if you absolutely must be talking on a cell phone in public, make sure to spice up the conversation for anyone who has to listen. Here are some lines to throw in at random that will make it at least semi interesting:
-"How could you cheat on me with all those people?!? HOW?!?"
-"... now was that before or after you chopped up the body?"
-"Yes, that's right doctor, green, throbbing, and painful."
-"I could be wrong, I huffed a lot of gold paint just before I left."
-"This is indisputable proof that the incans had a primitive internet long before europeans came to this continent!"
-"I think I put my thong on backwards, it really hurts."
Sadly, no, 99% of the conversations I overhear don't involve anything more than he said she said I'll see you later do you want me to meet you there we just landed crap. It's just plain boring, people.
If the suggested theory (using the term at its loosest possible fitting) is correct, it would have been noticed not long after "Watson, come here, I need you." It wasn't.
What people found most annoying at first, and some still do, is the violation of accepted protocol of interpersonal communication. When someone near you starts to talk out loud, it had always been a safe bet that they were talking to you. You redirect your attention and prepare to interact. Then you find out they weren't talking to you, may not even be aware of your existence, but there you are standing in front of them feeling like you've been made a fool of (or made of fool of yourself by starting to talk back). And It's All Their Fault. After a decade and more of experiencing it, fewer are bothered, and half a generation has been raised on a different context and can't understand why there was even a problem.
Another effect comes from violation of personal space (there's an auditory version as well as a visual-spatial). If someone invades your space without acknowledging you so they can apologize or get permission or whatever, it's a nonverbal communication version of a slap in the face. And as for failing to acknowledge you, when someone fails to consider whether you want to hear whatever it is they're blabbering about and fills your hearing space with talking far louder than is needed (especially considering they're not talking to anyone in sight), they're making an implied statement that if it bothers you, too fucking bad for you.
There are even some people who make a point of talking louder than they would otherwise because they want you to know they think they're important and you're not. At first, when only the rich could afford them, they made a point of doing this in restaurants and other places, even repeatedly interrupting a conversation with you or someone else to 'take a call'. There were more than a few comedy acts and sitcoms that jabbed at those people by emphasizing the few but true instances of people faking calls to do this in others' presence. The same happens now, but more often with people who couldn't afford to keep their phone on but don't want you to know that.
A one-liner version of this all could be "look at me not talking to you".
But as I said, with the passing years most people who were bothered have gotten used to it, and many more have come of age around it and have never been bothered.
Then again there are those few, those oh so unhappy few, who have not and will probably never get used to it and will always be bothered. To those I say, cheer up: I'm working on a version of the cell phone signal blocking device that detects their signal and sends out interference. But rather than just interference, it'll turn on a tesla coil and broadcast thousands of volts through that little piece of hellspawn technology frying the little shitbox as well as blowing their inner ear through their brain and out the other ear hole, and then we can jump up and say "LET'S SEE YOU SAY 'WHAT'S UP' WHILE LOOKING AT ME BUT THEN WHEN I START TO ANSWER YOU IT TURNS OUT YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO ME, NOW, YOU FUCKING BRAIN DEAD FREAK!"
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
For those who do not know the reference, it's a Louis Black joke.
Well done, CorporateSuit! I modded so I have to post AC.
Indeed. Same thing with the sulky teens with headphones you see everywhere. Oldies complain about that all the time but forget the 80's with douchebags carrying fucking boomboxes everywhere with noise blaring out. Hooray for technology I say. If I see kids playing music on their phones (in the bus for example) without earphones, I have to consciously restrain myself from grabbing it from the stupid little shit and throwing it out the window (no, I could never do it but saying it is very cathartic).
No, this is not enough to have science.
Yes, it is. Look up "Science" if you want to know more.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
People talking on cellphones tend to carry their voices better than two people having a conversation amongst themselves in public. Anytime I answer the phone in public, I make a distinct effort to lower my voice, and if possible find a suitably private area, for the sole reason that I don't want to annoy the crap out of people I don't know just because I'm talking on the phone. I think if people would chat at the same volume on the phone as they do in person, it wouldn't be annoying to anyone.
It also seems like people tend to tune out the fact that people are around them. This might somewhat explain the volume increase, but it also means that they seem to feel comfortable talking about more intimate topics. Most people would be somewhat guarded about information about where and when their kids will be, phone numbers, etc.. but I hear people blurt information out loudly enough for everyone within 30 feet to clearly make it out.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
The difference is that a monologue is intended to be spoken by one person. It's complete, whole, and self-contained - unlike half of a two-way conversation.
Obligatory; if you cut a car in half, you don't get two motorbikes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some of us did already know this. Owing to Sensory Integration Disorder or something like it, I have very acute senses, or rather I have very acute processing of my senses. I am always painfully aware of what distracts, irritates, and bothers me, and I have been driven to understand why in each instance that it occurs (in the hope that the knowledge might help me flee or fight it). It took me a long time, but I figured this out for myself; I recognized that the distraction flowed from the absence of context, which made what I heard confusing and demanded extra attention to unwillingly try to reconstruct what was missing. It didn't occur to me that it would be worthy of a full-blown academic study.
When I'm trying to read on the train, it is just torture to hear someone talking on the phone. I already have ADD which makes it doubly hard to try to focus on what I am reading. I have seriously considered investing in a cell phone jammer to preserve my sanity (I'd only use it for one minute bursts). Some people are completely unaware of how their behavior affects others.
That a dog will salivate when you ring a bell.
Pavlov...
Unexpect the expected!
It's the same kind of common sense, that told many non-smokers that being around smoker's can't be a good thing...
Proving it to the smoker - or the guy actually chatting away on his mobile - will show you how much common sense you can expect from that end.
You get your wish: you've been added to it.
Studies have been done before, I believe that's what AC is alluding to. This is VERY old news. Here's an article about a university of York study from 2004 that came to the same conclusion:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html
There are even older stories. I'm just at work and have boss aggro.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.