Old-Fashioned Communication
Communication is such a weird issue. It's like boundaries (and certainly related to them) in that everybody has different needs and expectations, and they have to be negotiated individually by situation and relationship. For instance, I love writing letters, but one of my best friends is allergic to paper. I only wrote very sparingly (not at all, these days), and I try to be careful. As I've been sick, and because I'm alone for the holiday, I have been thinking about communication. Like when you're really, really hungry and you make a shopping list.
Communication can be divided into three different kinds: synchronous, asynchronous, and a weird, middle ground where all the negotiations happen. Synchronous communication is like talking in person, talking on the phone, video calls, help chats, or anytime an awkward pause would be clearly identified by all (neurotypical) parties as awkward. Asynchronous communication includes things like writing letters, writing emails, Marco Polo, or any communication where some time between replies is expected. Semiasynchronous communication, that weird middle ground, includes things like social media PMs, dating app messaging, texting, and Google Hangouts.
I don't do well with non-visual synchronous communication. I need to read facial expressions because PTSD. But otherwise, I feel like the rules for synchronous communication and asynchronous communication are pretty commonly understood. In synchronous communication, you begin with a greeting, try to maintain a balance of speaking time and information from all parties (with the exception of interviews where it is pre-arranged that one party will ask questions and another will answer them), and conclude with a polite or expressive farewell. Asynchronous communication does not always expect a response, but it is expected that if the communication is personal, you will acknowledge receipt in some way. If you receive a Christmas card, for instance, you can pop on Facebook and say "thank-you" if you don't have the resources (time, energy, stamps) to reply in kind.
So far so good. These seem to be the social "rules" that have developed over the years. But what about semi-asynchronous communication? This blog seems to express the opinion that semi-asynchronous communication should be forcibly kept asynchronous, but it is situated firmly in a professional context where I agree, that if synchronous communication is necessary, it should be scheduled and quarantined because interrupting workflow is inefficient. It's a different type of relationship than the ones which currently worry me this Christmas week.
What about personal communication? Well, that's a personal negotiation, like boundaries, and I think those negotiations should be explicit, just like if somebody keeps insisting on hugging you and you're not comfortable with it, and the next time they offer a hug you take a step back and offer a handshake instead. That might be enough, or you might add some kind of explanation.
So I've been thinking about what my boundaries and expectations are. I think "ghosting" is common practice on dating apps. Whether you've communicated or not, if a "match" doesn't respond within a week, I assume I've been ghosted, and delete the contact. It's a terrible system because it's hurtful and rude not to offer the other person the courtesy of closing the conversation. Even a "it's been nice chatting. Maybe I'll see you around" would be valuable information without being emotionally vulnerable.
For DMs or PMs on social media, I wonder sometimes if I lurk like a spider and people are afraid I'll catch them in real time. I love conversations in real time, but if all you have time for is a quick check-in (even three days later), then I'm actually cool with that.
With texting and chat, it's expected that you'll only be paying half attention, at most, at any given time. My roommate and I communicate on three or four different platforms all the time, so we sometimes reply to things in strange spaces, so if you read our conversations, they're often very disjointed.
But there's one need I have that I have expressed to my chat friends that I don't always tell my texting friends or Polo friends: whether you take the conversation into real time or not, and whether you have time to respond right now, it hurts my feelings when my communication is ignored. I feel like unless it's an obviously time-sensitive thing, nothing I say should have an expiration date. If all you can find to say is, "that was random" sixteen hours later, then sixteen hours later when you read the text, you say, "that was random," and I will assume that you are lacking in the particular social skill to continue a conversation. I know people have work schedules. My brother operates trains and other heavy machinery and answering my texts immediately could endanger his life and millions of dollars in property. I still don't hesitate to text a random "I love you" and I know that when he remembers, he'll reply back. I know that sometimes people read a text, and then forget about it. I do that. But eventually you'll remember, right? And when you remember, why not respond to what was said, instead of pretending it never happened and starting a whole new thread?
Maybe I'm missing something. Somebody explain this to me?
via GIPHY
Communication can be divided into three different kinds: synchronous, asynchronous, and a weird, middle ground where all the negotiations happen. Synchronous communication is like talking in person, talking on the phone, video calls, help chats, or anytime an awkward pause would be clearly identified by all (neurotypical) parties as awkward. Asynchronous communication includes things like writing letters, writing emails, Marco Polo, or any communication where some time between replies is expected. Semiasynchronous communication, that weird middle ground, includes things like social media PMs, dating app messaging, texting, and Google Hangouts.
I don't do well with non-visual synchronous communication. I need to read facial expressions because PTSD. But otherwise, I feel like the rules for synchronous communication and asynchronous communication are pretty commonly understood. In synchronous communication, you begin with a greeting, try to maintain a balance of speaking time and information from all parties (with the exception of interviews where it is pre-arranged that one party will ask questions and another will answer them), and conclude with a polite or expressive farewell. Asynchronous communication does not always expect a response, but it is expected that if the communication is personal, you will acknowledge receipt in some way. If you receive a Christmas card, for instance, you can pop on Facebook and say "thank-you" if you don't have the resources (time, energy, stamps) to reply in kind.
So far so good. These seem to be the social "rules" that have developed over the years. But what about semi-asynchronous communication? This blog seems to express the opinion that semi-asynchronous communication should be forcibly kept asynchronous, but it is situated firmly in a professional context where I agree, that if synchronous communication is necessary, it should be scheduled and quarantined because interrupting workflow is inefficient. It's a different type of relationship than the ones which currently worry me this Christmas week.
What about personal communication? Well, that's a personal negotiation, like boundaries, and I think those negotiations should be explicit, just like if somebody keeps insisting on hugging you and you're not comfortable with it, and the next time they offer a hug you take a step back and offer a handshake instead. That might be enough, or you might add some kind of explanation.
So I've been thinking about what my boundaries and expectations are. I think "ghosting" is common practice on dating apps. Whether you've communicated or not, if a "match" doesn't respond within a week, I assume I've been ghosted, and delete the contact. It's a terrible system because it's hurtful and rude not to offer the other person the courtesy of closing the conversation. Even a "it's been nice chatting. Maybe I'll see you around" would be valuable information without being emotionally vulnerable.
For DMs or PMs on social media, I wonder sometimes if I lurk like a spider and people are afraid I'll catch them in real time. I love conversations in real time, but if all you have time for is a quick check-in (even three days later), then I'm actually cool with that.
With texting and chat, it's expected that you'll only be paying half attention, at most, at any given time. My roommate and I communicate on three or four different platforms all the time, so we sometimes reply to things in strange spaces, so if you read our conversations, they're often very disjointed.
But there's one need I have that I have expressed to my chat friends that I don't always tell my texting friends or Polo friends: whether you take the conversation into real time or not, and whether you have time to respond right now, it hurts my feelings when my communication is ignored. I feel like unless it's an obviously time-sensitive thing, nothing I say should have an expiration date. If all you can find to say is, "that was random" sixteen hours later, then sixteen hours later when you read the text, you say, "that was random," and I will assume that you are lacking in the particular social skill to continue a conversation. I know people have work schedules. My brother operates trains and other heavy machinery and answering my texts immediately could endanger his life and millions of dollars in property. I still don't hesitate to text a random "I love you" and I know that when he remembers, he'll reply back. I know that sometimes people read a text, and then forget about it. I do that. But eventually you'll remember, right? And when you remember, why not respond to what was said, instead of pretending it never happened and starting a whole new thread?
Maybe I'm missing something. Somebody explain this to me?
via GIPHY
Comments
Post a Comment