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."

Comments

It couldn't possibly be because

[sh00z]

people talk so damn loud on their cell phones, could it?

Re:It couldn't possibly be because

[miggyb]

Clearly, the only solution is to have everyone speaking on speakerphone. That way, no attention is drained since you're listening to the entire conversation.

Re:It couldn't possibly be because

[thrawn_aj]

Since anecdotal gibberish passes for research these days (talking about tfa, not you), here's mine. I've ridden the same bus-line for the past 5 years in Berkeley - mixture of work commuters, high school kids and university kids. Done that pretty much most times of the day (unpredictable work hours) so I think I have a rather detailed sampling of the commuter crowds.

The one thing I've always found is that people in groups (3+) are BY FAR the single most annoying loud talkers EVER. Couples tend to be quieter (not all ethnicities but most). Pre-college kids are the absolute worst in terms of noise pollutants. What's worse is that they frequently play music - sorry, animal noises - on their phones for the group without headphones. College kids are just as bad because everyone appears to find safety in numbers when it comes to shouting their point out loud - again, ethnic and racial differences are dramatic (and no, I ain't white =p).

I would rank loud cell phone talkers probably 3rd or 4th in order of annoyance. The reasoning in tfa might be valid for most, but halfalogues haven't really bothered me in the past few years. Probably because I've heard so many full dialogues on the bus and now KNOW that most people really converse about stupid, uninteresting shit and can pretty much fill in the other sides of the convos without giving it much thought. So, tfa might be right, but intelligent human beings tend to adapt to frequently prevailing conditions. People who use public transport only once in a blue moon would find it the hardest I guess.

For me, the single most annoying thing that I have never adapted to is the Berkeley bum smell clinging to every bus and is probably the one reason I would accept without reservation for someone to waste money on gas and parking spaces. The "smelly car" episode in Seinfeld always resonated with me. *Cough* moving on.

It always amazes me that people who are having conversations in public places (not too quietly either in that you can hear everything quite clearly) actually have the gall to look dirty at people talking on cell phones just as (if not less) loudly than they are. For me (once you've adapted to ignore things), it is simply a matter of decibel level. I argue only from experience, not plausibility.
br> And for the record, I don't have cell phone convos on the bus, even though I usually travel alone. It's far too noisy to have a civilized convo. I figure if I'm not gonna have any peace and quiet, I might as well have the noise that I choose blasting in my ear instead of the mundane drivel that assails my ears everyday. The people who invented earphones and portable mp3 players should be given Nobel peace prizes because I am positive that they have prevented several noise-related homicides over the years =D.

In parting, I will only say that tfa being right just means that most people are nosy busybodies at heart who don't have the decency to ignore private conversations. Oh, is that too uncharitable an interpretation? Let me know when people sober up and lower their idiotic cellphone rage (that I half-suspect is a reactionary luddite thing for people of a certain age and an acquired issue for most youngsters who've heard one too many jokes and sitcom plots based on it) and I'll be sure to retract it. It's like fat people - an easy and socially acceptable thing to ridicule.

Re:It couldn't possibly be because

[thrawn_aj]

Pointing out a fact isn't racist, kid.

Pointing out a behaviour difference, by race, is.

Wrong again. Political correctness run amok. I weep for our future. Racism: definition. Racism is (among other things), believing that the race is responsible for the behavior. Correlation is not causation. I was pointing out a correlation. You will note that I mentioned ethnicity as another aspect (from what I've seen, it tends to be even more important).

It's demanding that something be done about it that might slip into racism. Besides, how do you know I'm not talking about my own race?

I think you mistake "racism" with "hating other races".

My mistake was falling for your accusatory tone and getting defensive. Shows how institutionalized this crap has become.

If you took the time to learn about other cultures,

You didn't speak of culture, you spoke of race. Had you replaced race by culture, I'd have agreed with you.

Sure I did. That's what "ethnicity" implies. Of course, hyper-sensitive language sanitizers like you seem to have mastered the art of selective text comprehension. I will admit though that I didn't think it through well enough and that since actual genetic differences (which is, as I now understand it, the only meaning of race) obviously aren't relevant in this matter, any correlations aren't really all that significant either. There should exist at least the possibility of causation before a correlation should be emphasized. Ethnicity would have fully covered the matter and, not unimportantly, saved me from this foolishness.

Sadly, while a perceived mistake (even on /.) is usually called out as such and I usually (I hope) concede and correct it, in this case, you read through a wall of text, saw the word 'racial' and puked a crude little accusation in quite a trollish manner. Excellent job.

If I hadn't stated the non-white disclaimer, there would have been a dozen trolls like this.

Because many people mistake racism with "white people's prejudices against black people".

Well, at least you don't make obvious mistake. There's hope yet (though not too much).

Re:It couldn't possibly be because

[thrawn_aj]

The rest of personal attacks I'll ignore as I don't think add much to the discussion.

If I'd done just that, this entire sub-thread wouldn't exist. Perhaps there's a lesson in this for me.

I agree on "ethnic" and I think implying racial differences is racist, whether you're white or not.

I'll say it again because this is important. Racial differences do exist in some things (some medical conditions for instance). I admitted that in the matter under consideration, the differences, while showing some correlation with race are so unlikely to be caused by race (no doubt having more to do with culture and upbringing), that mentioning that correlation added nothing to the discussion. It was incorrect on my part, maybe even intellectually lazy. By any sane definition of the word, not racist. Words have specific meaning. Let's not use them arbitrarily.

If anything, my flippant remark about not being white was my worst mistake, because it appeared (incorrectly) to be an apology for racism.

Well, what you leave in "among other things" is, still, "Racism: racial prejudice or discrimination". Quoting you again: "ethnic and racial differences are dramatic", where you did discriminate by race.

*Sigh*. Prejudice is the act of pre-judging a group (specifically in this case - a racial group) of a certain (usually negative) behavior or mannerism. Discrimination is the treatment (or any noun conveying action taken) of groups (or individuals belonging to certain groups) based on prejudice.

No matter how hard you wish it, simply stating that a specific behavior has been observed [from personal experience] to show large differences between different racial groups is neither prejudiced [empirical observations] nor discriminatory [there is no action or even the possibility of any action implied]. The statement (while valid as a summary of observations) may be useless, but it certainly isn't racist. In practice, the PC movement discourages such things merely because they have tended to lead to discrimination - understandable, but I have the right to refuse such preemptive high-handedness. If I ever happen to fall that way, I'll be sure to look you up so you can berate me soundly for being racist. Until then, get it right.

Sorry for the lack of precision and the excessively aggressive first reply, that stained an otherwise interesting dialogue.

Thanks. While the accusation did sting initially, I've spent all this time trying to explain why you are incorrect, not defending myself (it's an objective matter).

There is a book by Thomas Sowell (a renowned economist) called "Applied Economics" (a more scholarly version of Freakonomics in some respects). His chapter on 'the economics of discrimination' is very enlightening on this point. He spends several pages properly defining all his terms. In retrospect, I can see why he did that. In any case, it (and the book itself) is very enlightening - you might find it interesting. Most libraries should carry it.

Also...

[MrEricSir]

* 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

Re:Also...

[sexconker]

I find it much easier to carry a piccolo.
No need to know how to play it - just blast away on it whenever someone's being an asshole on their phone.

Obvious Solution

[megli]

The obvious solution is for everyone to use speaker-phone.

Sigh

[tool462]

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".

Yup...

[MightyMartian]

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.

Relevant Curb Your Enthusiasm clip

[glavenoid]

Here's how to handle these people

Paradigm is a perfectly cromulent word

[JoshuaZ]

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.

Re:Well, duh.

[sznupi]

Just a bit foreign languages (from one linguistic group) are actually more irritating, possibly. With totally foreign & unknown ones - they're just gibberrish. With related ones - there's constant trying to make sense out of something which doesn't have much of it, to you; trigerred by occasional words or even whole sentences which do sound "right"... (even if their true meaning is different)

Re:interesting research

[BasilBrush]

But who says your personal preferences outweigh those of another?

It's not a one to one trade off. It's more like one person enjoying the phone call, 30 people being annoyed by it. It's just plain rude.

Re:interesting research

[shitdrummer]

When people chat loudly on a phone while on public transport, I like to comment on their conversation when they hang up.

Me: It sounds like Susan is a real drama queen. You should tell her to stop being so dramatic.
Phone person: What, were you listening in to my private conversation?
Me: Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was private. I thought you wanted to involve everyone else on the train in your mindless pap.
Phone person: !!?!?

I don't mind people talking on phones when they need to. e.g. I'll be at the station in 20 mins, can you come pick me up? But why have full detailed conversations while on a packed bus/train?

Re:Backwards

[cpirius]

It does not say that overhearing half a conversation takes more concentration then having a conversation yourself, it says that overhearing half a conversation takes more concentration than overhearing both sides of a conversation.

Re:Hemilogue

[asylumx]

Yeah, I think this is a classic case of a malamanteau.

Re:Paying researchers

[enjerth]

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.

Re:Common sense..

[Redlazer]

Which completely and totally removes any and all need to do a study.

If only they would have asked you first.

Intonation and the "pregnant pause"

[martyb]

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.

Re:Common sense..

[CorporateSuit]

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

Re:Common sense..

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re:Common sense..

[interkin3tic]

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.