Interpersonal communication (sdf.org), 12/11/2019
------------------------------------------------------------
Before I rant and ramble, I'd like to remind the random 
gopher stumbler about the distinction between broadcasting 
and interpersonal communication: in broadcasting (like this 
gopher post), you cast your thoughts out to a wide audience, 
and get little or no feedback- even if you get a lot of 
feedback, the medium isn't inherently looking for that; in 
interpersonal communication, you communicate back-and-forth, 
and you expect that. In broadcasting, getting no response 
isn't an insult at all; in interpersonal communication, 
getting no response can be hurtful.

So, I promised both to rant and ramble... 

First, a rant: it annoys me to no end that people have 
such strong preferences when it comes to communication. One 
person prefers voice calls, another prefers text, another 
would rather email, another wants to use Facebook. If it 
were just a simple preference, which had a little deference 
attached to it, it would be just fine. I'm practicing what I 
preach here- though I have a preference, I exercise a lot of 
deference, because *communicating with people is more 
important than my preferences*.

(Now you know why I brought up broadcasting: I prefer to 
broadcast with gopher. I don't use deference in 
broadcasting, because I don't really care all that much 
about the www audience, and I don't intend to reach them. I 
really would rather snub that broader audience for the 
purposes of my phlogs, that's my choice, and it's nothing 
personal. It's not interpersonal communication until 
someone notices the broadcast and replies- *at which time* 
my deference kicks in! If someone emails me, sends a 
letter, calls, or texts me in response to gopher content, 
*I will respond*- unless I drop the ball, because I'm only 
human. But, I will *mean* to respond, I won't ignore them 
because they used the wrong method.)

Second (because you have to have a second when you had a 
first, right?) a ramble: What is the deal with people that 
will only communicate via one method, anyway? And why can't 
they just admit it to themselves and everyone else and say, 
"I'm sorry, I refuse to interact with you unless we both 
agree to sacrifice our privacy and use a commercial platform 
that we may or may not agree with."? In my experience, 
people will feign flexibility- "yeah, you can call me," or 
"sure, I do email,"- but when it comes down to it, if you 
want to communicate with them, as in *receive a response*, 
then you better darn well use their #1 preferred method (you 
see what I did there? They have a #1, but not a real #2, so 
they're doing something wrong). But NO, instead they'll 
pretend to be flexible, then when you try a method that is 
other than their primary method they'll ignore you, and when 
you ask them about it they'll say something like, "oh, I 
really don't [fill in the blank] that much, why don' you 
just [fill in their #1 choice here like they should have in 
the first place]."

Of course, it could simply be that I'm just not that 
important in the lives of these individuals. Perhaps whether 
or not I communicate with them is of little or not 
importance. I can see that, and I accept that. But, I don't 
agree that this problem only occurs when that is the case.

An example: some family members, who love you and say so, 
will refuse to communicate things outside of Facebook, even 
if they know that you don't use Facebook. To be fair, this 
is the one area I generally don't give any deference. I'm a 
jerk when it comes to social media. I did the social media 
thing for years, found that it was a plague on humanity, and 
left. I gave everyone who cared a way to get in touch with 
me (well, three ways actually). I'm not going back unless I 
have to in order to save my life or career (you know, 
because I have to feed my family.)

Another example: you're part of an organization where you 
and the other members share common goals and beliefs- a 
church, a club, or whatever. Another member needs to 
coordinate with you, complex matters with great detail 
required. You suggest that for such communication, email 
might be best suited. They can't/don't/won't email, they 
only text (but of course, they agree to email, they just 
never do and they force you into texting long, tedious 
messages, which must be broken down to single thoughts and 
single questions per text otherwise they will get lost and 
will only respond to one item anyway) so you end up texting, 
even though it sucks, takes way longer, is less organized, 
etc.

The moral of this rant and ramble is this: don't be a jerk. 
If you have to be a jerk (like me), at least be as little of 
a jerk as possible, in as few areas as possible, say you're 
sorry, and be forthright. Don't pretend to be flexible when 
you're not, just embrace your jerkiness and be dutifully 
apologetic for it.