Why Overheard Cell Phone Chats Are Annoying 344
__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."
Common sense.. (Score:1, Insightful)
We already knew this...
It couldn't possibly be because (Score:5, Insightful)
Other languages? (Score:2, Insightful)
They are annoyiong (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Also... (Score:1, Insightful)
What I like to do in those situations is call a friend on my cell phone, talk real loud and say "I'm being forced to listen to some idiot's cell phone conversation. The guy thinks he's real cool although no one cares what he has to say". It doesn't stop the fool from talking, garners a dirty look but gives me some satisfaction.
Hemilogue (Score:4, Insightful)
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'.
Re:Also... (Score:4, Insightful)
* 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
That looks like a list of bias confirmations.
Well done.
Re:Psychological Science? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:interesting research (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Hemilogue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paying researchers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If only they would have asked you first.
Re:interesting research (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Why does it matter either way? If that person on the other end of the phone were there, it would have been OK? I think the main problem is people speaking too loudly. That is definitely annoying, whether it's on a phone or in person. Same thing on an airplane, train, restaurant, sidewalk, etc. I have no problem with people speaking on the phone assuming they are using a "normal" volume to speak with. People speaking to each other excessively loud in person annoys me just as much.
Re:Also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong and Wronger (Score:3, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Texting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also... (Score:2, Insightful)
And your response looks like a confirmation that you are one of those obnoxious, self-centered, holier-than-thou assholes.
We could go on like this forever ahah
Re:Also... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, because someone who wants the peace of multiple other people to be respected is self-centred.
Anonymous Coward (Score:1, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with that stuff. Want reasons? Ill give you real reasons.
1- They always talk so much damn louder than everyone else.
2- Alot of people act like an arrogant asshole that thinks everyone wants to hear and think they look cool with their bluetooth permanently stuck in their ear.
3- They dont watch what the hell they are doing or where they are going. And they dont care if they are in your way because they are on a phonecall so important they have to stand around in a store to take it.
4- If your trying to talk to them or something they dont pay attention.
5- People that walk around stores or sit in restaraunts and talk on their phone for longer than 30 seconds tend to be self important assholes that are very inconsiderate of anyone else around them.
6- It really freaking pisses off people when you use a damn cell phone in a movie, no one paid to hear you talk. Even texters in a movie, I dont give a shit how well you cover it everyone behind you can see that damn light like staring into a trucks headlights.
7- Ringers and worse yet peoples stupid damn ringtones going off around is also damned annoying.
Re:interesting research (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Although people talking to people that are present are more likely to adapt their volume to the circumstances than someone on a phone.
Because, just as the research suggests, people talking on cellphones ARE much more annoying than people holding a conversation with someone that's there. For a given level of volume.
No, I'm annoyed by the person's behaviour, not by his/her phone.
Cell phone use in train cars is torture (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Psychological Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pavlov... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Common sense.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It couldn't possibly be because (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [merriam-webster.com]. 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).