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."
It couldn't possibly be because (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true of a lot of people. Based on this research, you may perceive it has being louder because you are giving it more attention.
Some people are jack asses and speak too loudly.
Re:It couldn't possibly be because (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there was another report that I'm not going to bother to lookup, that said about half the people studied unconsciously speak about 50% louder than the ambient noise level when on the phone.
Note the "unconsciously" part. There's a good chance you're one of them.
Re:It couldn't possibly be because (Score:4, Informative)
Add that all up and you get people that are shouting on the phone and unaware that they're talking too loud. In fact in many cases you don't even have to be able to hear yourself talking for it to be coming in loud and clear on the other end of the call.
Re:It couldn't possibly be because (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (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).
Re:It couldn't possibly be because (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [amazon.com]" (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.
What you find annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
I find amusing. I can learn more about a person from being a creepy eavesdropper than most people can by conversing with that person.
Texting (Score:2)
Could it be that "those damn youngsters" have this one right?...
Both when it comes to being rather discrete and maintaining privacy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also... (Score:5, Interesting)
* 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... (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: (Score:2)
That looks like a list of bias confirmations.
Well done.
Bias against the notion that the universe contains only one person?
Confirmed.
Did your anti-psychotics roll under the couch or something? Your poise is melting. Again. (What was that you said just a moment ago about knifing people? [slashdot.org])
This is a classic example of a twit in denial using ill-suited science lingo to squash an idea offensive to his tiny and ridiculous personal belief structure. Sorry, but everybody else on the planet knows exactly what their five senses and personal awareness are complaining abo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NO!
Re: (Score:2)
What amazes me most, besides the sheer inconsideration, is that they buy coffee or food in the cafe and yet can't afford to get fucking internet at home.
I think most of those people *DO* have internet access at home, but if you contact your "important foreign friend" at a cafe, then you can be a true poser, wannabe and a douche, all in one quick single effort.
It's kinda like a guy I knew about in high school. He walked around carrying a guitar, IN PUBLIC (mall, etc.). Some girls seemed to think it was co
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Also... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just carry on the invisible half of the conversation myself, like they're talking to me. It's rather amusing.
I HATE when people talk on a damn cell phone when talking to people trying to help them at a store or restaurant or something. It's just amazingly rude. So I'll also try to stick up for the service people and annoy the phone talker when the worker can't actually do much in the interest of keeping their jobs ;)
Backwards (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We tried it once round here. Didn't catch on.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not so much predicting what he says next (Score:2)
*orders parts for GSM/3G jammer*
Obvious Solution (Score:5, Funny)
what a waste of research (Score:2)
It's because the people I overhear are inconsiderate jerks with nothing useful to say and half of the conversation is 50% more than I'm interested in hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the research is wrong. It certainly couldn't be confirmation bias~
interesting research (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But who says your personal preferences outweigh those of another?
And you don't have cell phone service in your subway? Do you live in the 80's?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only real?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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
Re:interesting research (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: (Score:2)
Don't bother.
That creep is about as narcissistic as they come. I don't honestly think it can grasp what you are talking about.
-FL
Re: (Score:2)
Because I feel someone else should be telling me I should talk on a phone in a public place I'm narcissistic?
Brilliant deduction~
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that;s loud scary talk from an AC.
The context was on a bus. Not in a movie theater.
And yes, I'll use my cell phone is a restaurant if I need to. I won't yell in it or talk any louder...just like most people.
Well, duh. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Well, duh. (Score:4, Funny)
This should drive you nuts then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZXcRqFmFa8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hm.
I have an opposite situation - I can 'tune out' someone talking in English (it's not my native language) if I start thinking in Russian. Works great during boring meetings.
The same for Russian - I can tune it out by thinking in English, though it doesn't always work.
Re: (Score:2)
The most annoying part... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Paradigm is a perfectly cromulent word (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
What do you think he's incorrect about?
-FL
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
Fo' Shizzle
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure I remember coming across a news piece that said exactly this a good 10-20 years ago..
Yep, it's old news. Here's an article from 2004, about some research done in the UK: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html [useit.com]
Here's the summary of the paper at ACM.org: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=993187 [acm.org]
You can find also find the PDF.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dia" also means "across" or "between". If I were to take one sense among these as the best fit I'd say "words between [people]", thus describing number of participants (as more than one).
More precisely speaking, this is not a half-a-log so much as a half-a-dialog. Perhaps a "monolog", but that's in use and doesn't convey the fact that there's a dialog going on and we're being subject to just a portion of it. Maybe "tomolog" for cut up or "merolog" for partial or "ateleolog" for incomplete. But even the
Yup... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
One other thing... (Score:2)
I run a bunch of labs at a community college lately (hey things are tough all over), and one thing I've noticed is people love to talk at the top of their voice when on the cell phone - that's annoying in a study hall.
Other languages? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
May be annoying still sometimes, but I find it much easier to ignore at least.
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.
halfalogue? (Score:2, Funny)
Relevant Curb Your Enthusiasm clip (Score:4, Informative)
One child's solution (Score:2)
.
Next on Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
... Public Masturbation. Taboo or tubular? You decide.
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:Hemilogue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quick, add Slashdot as a citation!
Tim 'Ere! (Score:2)
'Allo mate! Tim 'ere! Yeah, I've been off on 'oliday. Yeah.
Was down in Spain on me bike. Lovely weather, mate, but I was sayin' to the wife, we went up in the mountains on this mowtaway, three thaasand feet and it only bloody started snowin' IN SPAIN IN MAY!!!!
You know that snow and bikes don't mix, well, I was doin' 5 miles an owa...
Yeah, and them when we got daaahn to the plain, it TURNED TO RAIN mate!!!! Rain in Spain on the PLAIN!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to say, some of us are trying to fix bugs in code.
Heywood Banks (Score:2)
Intonation and the "pregnant pause" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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!"
They're louder too. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't know that. You may have thought it. Those are different things.
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: (Score:2)
Fortunately, I can know something without submitting it to a rigorous scientific study.
If you want to be completely anal about it, why don't you prove to me that there was actually a study, and that the reported study isn't just a hoax? I mean, if it takes some scientific hoops to jump through to pass from the realm of thought into actual knowledge, not simply of repeated personal observation, then why should my observation of this report be any less subject to testing? You cannot call it knowledge, either,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you come to a site for geeks (where there will be a lot of science news), just to post how useless science is?
Nice one.
How's it going in your world of always knowing what science is studying? Maybe you can tell the world how to cure cancer or get to Mars. Since you already knew the results of a scientific study before it was conducted?
Your sig really does tell everyone a lot about what goes on between your ears.
Re: (Score:2)
That a great way to get stabbed..by me.
Re: (Score:2)
A woman walking past me in a park: No you are not listening to me. Its over, get it? Don't call me. Throw away this number, got it?. Ends call. I think he got the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Removing the battery instead of turning it off or into quiet mode? One cellphone = an oil tanker of energy when there are probably around 5 billion of them right now? And all trasmitting all the time, sort of.
Ehhh...
Re:Common sense.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If only they would have asked you first.
Re:Common sense.. (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [useit.com]
There are even older stories. I'm just at work and have boss aggro.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Common sense.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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:Common sense.. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 cont
Re:Common sense.. (Score:4, Funny)
You get your wish: you've been added to it.
Re: (Score:2)
My old Dodge Neon had a Semi-hemi...
Re: (Score:2)
SCIENTOLOGIST SPOTTED.
Re: (Score:2)
This one comes to mind. [penny-arcade.com]
You keep using that word... (Score:2, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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 [wikipedia.org]
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]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, this is not enough to have science.
Yes, it is. Look up "Science" if you want to know more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pavlov... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe your brain just doesn't put in much effort most of the time?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.