[careersuicide]

I think this is the one thing about technology I'm old fashioned about (I roll my eyes hard when people say stuff like "You should delete your Facebook account, you'll be better off."). If I'm eating food with someone else the phone goes away. The only exception is if in the course of conversation an easily googleable question is asked and both the other person/people and I are actually interested in the answer instead of just guessing. But after that the phone goes right back in my pocket. It's not a hard rule, but it's one I do make a conscious effort to follow.

I've noticed that others are a lot less likely to pull out their phones and stare while at the table if I don't do it myself. There's just something kinda sad to me when I see couples at a niceish restaurant and neither person is talking and both are looking at Facebook or Twitter and there's still food on their plates. I know you can't extrapolate that to a person's entire relationship, but it just seems kinda... unfortunate I guess.

[enobrev]

When my wife and I first started dating, I had to nudge her out of the habit. She wouldn't sit through a whole meal staring at her phone, but if she looked something up that had to do with our conversation, she'd then end up swiping through her various addictions and end up getting caught up (as I certainly do when on my own)†.

It wasn't a big deal to politely point it out and in time it almost never happened, or she would at least excuse herself to handle something quickly.

I think there can be a balance. After seven years, we will sometimes go out to eat and not really have much to say. Sometimes we'll sit in silence and watch the world around us or simply enjoy our meals and quiet company. Sometimes we'll eavesdrop on our neighbors.

Sometimes we'll whip our our phones and read whatever it is we read, even showing each other what we see... "Did you see so-and-so's new dog? What a cutie! Here, look" or "Take a look next time you're on Instagram". This might spark conversation about said dog, or our cat, or our workdays, or some other completely unrelated subject, or it may continue in silence.

And then there are plenty of other times when neither of us can shut up for hours, carrying on, barely eating, and forgetting we even have phones.

Our devices can obviously be unhealthy, especially the more addictive parts. But I think they can also be a healthy portion of our lives and relationships, provided our interactions are managed.

We don't have kids yet, but I definitely think it will be an interesting challenge to help them find that right balance.

† At our wedding, I urged my wife against writing her vows on her phone so she wouldn't end up swiping to buzzfeed in the middle of it.

[jancsika]

So the question that I don't know the answer to: would those couples have engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to them) had cellphones not existed? Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully with others but would only feign interest when the alibi of the cellphone isn't available?

[lamp_book]

Or a more optimistic view: it takes some effort to get to interesting conversation; you have to go through some fakeish small talk to find a topic worth discussing. Phones don't require that effort, they're the path of least resistance.

[msla]

Smalltalk is ideally about finding a hook, a more interesting shared topic which can support a more fulfilling conversation. Otherwise, it's just killing time, and I daresay most here have more intellectually stimulating ways to kill time.

The complexity is when people regard a lack of smalltalk as a chilly isolation. I personally have been called stuck-up because I didn't engage in smalltalk at school. Some cultures are more oriented to this than others.

[prawn]

Your least resistance point is crucial. I suspect that social media likes/karma will act as a low-effort faux-earning that waylays young people. It's a sense of achievement, but one that doesn't pay the bills unless you're one of the few able to derive an income from your broadcast.

[posguy]

Sometimes conversation may occur that otherwise would have been avoided thanks to cellphones, other times you get calming silence instead. Its a definite risk, but the whole equation is ignored usually.

[nulagrithom]

> other times you get calming silence instead

I always like that Pulp Fiction line: "That's when you know you've found somebody special. When you can just shut the fuck up for a minute and comfortably enjoy the silence."

I don't think a moment of silence is any excuse to pull out the cellphone. In fact, I think this highlights part of the problem we have with cellphones. We expect constant entertainment, action, and info. It's really rare anymore to just sit for a minute and do nothing -- and it could be that doing nothing is pretty important.

[chiefofgxbxl]

Phones have indeed allowed people to both need and satisfy that need for constant stimulation. It's pretty sad.

I'm the kind of guy in a coffee shop, waiting room, etc. who just stares into space glad that I owe my thoughts to myself and not my phone. But when everyone else has their phones out except for me, people probably think I'm a weirdo.

And it's not just phones, mind you. It's televisions, also. I used to go to a nice, quiet, and remote barbershop. Affordable haircuts and no noise. What's not to love? As soon as he started attracting more customers, boom: television in the waiting room. Gotta keep people constantly distracted I guess :\

I saw a guy today in a coffee shop. He had no smartphone, tablet or laptop. He just sat there drinking his coffee. Like a psychopath. (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5j54a0AOYfg/VqbpdyKMA8I/A...)

[chimprich]

> Phones have indeed allowed people to both need and satisfy that need for constant stimulation. It's pretty sad.

Why is it sad? I think it's fantastic. It's the elimination of boredom and the ability to be interested, productive or entertained at any moment. It's not like anyone is forcing you to look at your phone. I'm quite capable of putting my phone away and staring into space if the mood takes me. Your communal TV example is rather more intrusive by comparison.

[chiefofgxbxl]

It's a matter of opinion, and I agree to some extent that phones can allow people to be productive or feed a curiosity.

At the end of the day, though, I think the greatest thing that gets to me is its impulsiveness and form of instant gratification.

It's gotten so bad that people can't even put their phones down while driving. I've seen enough drivers texting, even if they are just stopped at a red light. Why we permit people to continue driving when they can't respect the notion of operating a several-thousand pound, gasoline-filled vehicle that can kill dozens of those around them is beyond me.

On a less extreme spectrum, sometimes when eating dinner with friends a question will be posed and someone will whip out their phone to look it up. Sure, having answers instantaneously is a benefit, but the drawback is also the loss in ability to take a moment to ponder the question... to come up with your one's own thoughts and exercise the mind, so to speak.

[devotedtoneu]

I have to take a moment to thank you for this comment and that image. It demonstrates the point so well, without a lengthy read.

[i_cant_speel]

This morning I was in the elevator with three other people. All three of them were looking at their phones. Strangely, I felt weird just standing there waiting.

I feel like the world transformed so quickly.

[mirimir]

I remember when I was the only one carrying a laptop. And then a cellphone. And then a smartphone. Then I zoned out on privacy and anonymity zealotry. And the next thing I knew, everyone and their little yellow dog had their face in a smartphone 24/7. WTF? Seriously, WTF?

[Brockenstein]

>would those couples have engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to them) had cellphones not existed?

certainly some would

>Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully with others but would only feign interest when the alibi of the cellphone isn't available?

I think that people are addicted or at least oblivious at how attached to their phones they are. And they see plenty of other people engaging in the same behavior, which makes it a social norm and validates that behavior. Everyone does it, so it's OK.

Although I can't help but chuckle, because the same sorts of people who wanted to look down on me back in the day for spending hours in front of a computer, building a website, learning how to program, or playing games, are glued to their phones nearly every second they can manage to find. When it came time to practice the sort of etiquette that they preached, they failed miserably.

[croon]

> So the question that I don't know the answer to: would those couples have engaged each other in meaningful conversation (meaningful to them) had cellphones not existed? Or does the presence of cellphones reveal that a large number of people were never particularly interested in engaging meaningfully with others but would only feign interest when the alibi of the cellphone isn't available?

I would add a followup to that. Would this also mean that more people are together now that otherwise wouldn't, without that crutch?

Not sure I want anything said with that, but I couldn't help but draw the conclusion.

[careersuicide]

This is a really good question and one I think about often. Either possibility is pretty depressing to me.

[alaaibrahim]

For me it's not even a conscious effort, as it feels rude to be on your phone, when you are having a meal with someone. Is it not rude to start reading a book while you are having a lunch with someone, why is the phone any different.

When there is a need to look at your phone (Important message, a call, or even to look up something), I think the polite thing is to excuse yourself, do the thing really quickly, and get back to your meal.

[hycaria]

>Is it not rude to start reading a book while you are having a lunch with someone

In my world it is though.

[alaaibrahim]

I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, and sometimes I fall into these mistakes. I think what threw you off is my incorrect punctuation, as I should've wrote it as

> Is it not rude to start reading a book while you are having a lunch with someone? Why is the phone any different?

[jstanley]

You're agreeing

[hycaria]

You're right ! I kept reading it inverting the two first words. I even double-checked when posting because that seemed illogical. Funny how I somehow needed someone to point it out to be able to read it right.

[EADGBE]

English grammar is pretty crazy.

Does this happen in other languages, too? As often?

[wott]

It happened to me in French a couple of months ago. I read the sentence 5 to 6 times to be sure, I even quoted it in my reply, to express how illogical the proposition was.

And then the guy replied that I misunderstood. I was like: " impossible, I double-triple-quadruple-checked and quoted the relevant part". And then, blast! I saw that I got lost in the position of the negative part (it wasn't even a very complex case where negations are chained, as it happens sometimes). Worst thing is that the way I understood it, it didn't have much grammatical sense, whereas the real sentence was correct.

And the fact that I had quoted the sentence proved that he hadn't edited in between. Else I would certainly have blamed him for that: I was so sure of my cautious multiple checks...

I was ashamed of myself.

(I had troubles with "is it"/"it is" in the present case too, I had to re-read the sentence 3 times to be sure. What confuses me in English is not really the grammar, it is the abundance of very short words, they scramble the structure of the sentence, for they are less recognizable and distinguishable from each other.)

[int_19h]

You seem to be assuming that the function of the multi-person dinner is always to engage each other. Have you considered that, for some couples at least, it's simply not the case, and there are other times when they talk?

Personally, I would rarely bother with anything other than random social chit chat in a place as public as a restaurant. More involved conversations take place somewhere else more private. But why would I do random social chit chat with my spouse? It's the kind of stuff reserved for strangers and casual acquaintances.

[rhn_mk1]

I consider the assumption correct in most circumstances, and almost always when visiting a restaurant.

Otherwise, why bother with the logistics of getting people all in the same place at the same time?

I would only agree that engagement is irrelevant when leaving the table with one's food is acceptable. Otherwise there's the implication that you're there for some purpose, other than getting yourself some nutrition.

[int_19h]

> Otherwise, why bother with the logistics of getting people all in the same place at the same time?

It's hardly a logistical problem to get two people who live together (and therefore already have largely intertwined schedules) to a restaurant.

And the reason is fairly obvious: to enjoy the food.

[dannysu]

It's true. I was having hot pot with my wife the other day. Sitting near us was a couple, both on their phones the whole time and not looking at each other.

When I first played with smartphone, it was before most people had phones with Internet (it was pre-iPhone). Someone commented on how I was on the phone all the time and the lesson stuck with me ever since. Now I don't do that to people.

[prawn]

Don't be too quick to judge people in all of these situations. Not saying it was likely in your example, but I've had meals where I've just spent days out of range with someone, talking endlessly in the car and on hiking trails, and then got to a restaurant with wi-fi and used that as the best chance to communicate with other people for the first time in a while, or deal with work emails.

[joezydeco]

Look around in any restaurant these days and you'll easily see half of the adults in the room engaged with their phones at some part of the evening, if not most of it.

[heartbreak]

Be sure to judge them for that, too. This forum exists because of money spent by people on their phones all day.

[joezydeco]

It was an observation of a trend. Nothing more.

If are going to discuss how to instill values in our children regarding smartphones, we need to look at ourselves first.

[imnotlost]

The judging is for his/her own benefit and doesn't really have anything to do with the object.

"I'm a little bit better than that person because I can take an elevator ride without looking at my phone"

"Our relationship is better than theirs because we can get through dinner without looking at our phones"

On and on it goes... it's comforting, isn't it?

[posguy]

The occasional check of your phone is very different than staring at your glowing rectangle through the entire dinner, ignoring those you are with entirely.

[eric_h]

Like literally every human quality and habit, it's a spectrum, and people arbitrarily stake out a line on that spectrum (as we do with all the other spectrums).

Not intended as a judgement, just an observation.

[mirimir]

Hey, imagine when that "glowing rectangle" exists privately in the visual cortex ;)

[PascLeRasc]

That's odd, one of the reasons I love hot pot is that it's really hard to have your phone out, since cooking the meat/fish requires focus and at least one hand.

[mywittyname]

But also a timer, which ironically, often turns out to be a phone.

[UK-AL]

Your assuming this is some kind special lunch. For all you know it could be a work lunch, trying to fire off some emails.

[s3nnyy]

> sad to me when I see couples at a niceish restaurant and neither person is talking and both are looking at Facebook or Twitter

Is that like a Bay Area thing? Sounds really terrible to me (I live in Europe)

[throwaway42323]

I live in Europe and I wouldn't say that it is much "better" here - it depends on the places and the subcultures obviously, but for sure you will also see lots of people staring at their phones (and I admit to do it myself from time to time).

Nobody would say s(he) is a bad driver, but so many people complain about the driving of other people.

[s3nnyy]

true

[careersuicide]

I live in Texas. I've seen it all over here and pretty much every other state I've visited in the last few years. Maybe it's an American thing?

[arghIdontwantto]

You see it all around Europe as well. I live in a touristy area and Germans, English, French and Spanish are guilty of this as well.

Right now I'm working from a restaurant and would say 1/4 of the people are looking at a phone (give or take, didn't count!)

[EADGBE]

I'd venture to guess you'd see it wherever data is cheap.

[collyw]

For me (in Europe as well) I get the impression that it is shallow, pretty people that engage in that sort of behavior. Nice clothes, they look pretty but not much personality.

[PascLeRasc]

It's definitely an affluent US city thing. When I was in Spain for three weeks this summer zero of the locals had their phones out in a restaurant.

[bonesss]

Come visit Scandinavia: we're predicting lots of back and neck problems for this generation later in life based on constant hunched-over phone swiping :)

For realsies though: it's all about the connectivity of the area you are in combined with local social norms. Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are filled with phones, 4G connections, and quiet dining tables as people read the news.

[AndrewUnmuted]

I deleted my Facebook account two years ago, and I am much happier as a result.

[bdamm]

I haven't logged on to Facebook since March, and frankly I don't miss it. I'm not happier since I've instead filled that time with vapid alternatives such as HN.

[EADGBE]

Much easier to trade one vice for another, than to remove the vice altogether.

[EADGBE]

I've deleted my Facebook and Instagram apps from my phone since last Tuesday.

Much happier.

I like the potentiality of being able to log into it with the Browser, but giving myself just enough resistance to not go through with it. I feel like it gives me more power to my decisions.

Also, I have lots of good friends and family who user Messenger frequently and I'd hate to miss their messages on that.

Also, related, I've removed notifications from nearly all my apps. That's nearly the same effect as removing the app altogether from my phone.

[EADGBE]

> I know you can't extrapolate that to a person's entire relationship, but it just seems kinda... unfortunate I guess.

It's important to remember this fact. Too many people judge others based on their own ideologies. It's their life; not your own. I'm just as guilty as everyone else to judge, but I'm working on it.

[vidarh]

I make a difference between a date or other explicitly agreed "dinner as a shared experience" and a random meal. At a date or family dinner, the phone stays away. But meals can be purely functional too, and then I may sit there with my whole laptop for that matter.

What's important to me is that there is sufficient device free time whether over a meal or otherwise. Then it's fine if some meals aren't amongst those times.

But eating out at anything above a fast food place certainly are amongst the device-free times... And often fast food meals are too.

[importantbrian]

My friends and I will often play this game where everyone puts their phone face down in the middle of the table. If you touch your phone before the check comes you get to pay the bill.

[irishasaurus]

I'd say 9 out of 10 of those couples you see on their screens in a restaurant are on a first date.

[maccard]

I regularly go out for dinner with my partner, and sometimes we sit and talk for 3 hours, not noticing where the time goes. Other times, we sit in silence, enjoy our food, and head home together. And other times, we will sit, chat, and maybe take our phones out for a little while. Don't judge a relationship based on a single observation.

[jussij]

Would that not be the one time you have your phone off, with you paying full attention?

Or are you describing a first and last date situation?

[Sir_Substance]

>(I roll my eyes hard when people say stuff like "You should delete your Facebook account, you'll be better off.")

Your mortgage might be more expensive than it should be because of your facebook account.

https://www.ft.com/content/e8ccd7b8-6459-11e6-a08a-c7ac04ef0...

If the cost of your home increases by $10,000 in extra interest over the lifespan of the mortgage due to things your friends post on your facebook wall and you use facebook for 80 years of your life, will you still be happy with your $125 per year facebook subscription?

[PhasmaFelis]

So set your account to friends-only. It's easy and you should be doing it anyway.

[Sir_Substance]

Dude, Facebook is the one exporting the data. The friends only flag doesn't do shit.

[Sargos]

Hah, if only that were true. That scandal would be so big that it would likely threaten Facebook's entire business as it would lead to lawsuits and Justice Department investigations. Facebook has a privacy policy and is required to abide by it. No manager would ever greenlight a program that actively violates that as they would get canned on the spot and there's very little benefit to them.

Don't get caught up in conspiracy theories. Facebook is actually really constrained in how much "evil" stuff they can do without you knowing.

[wutbrodo]

Doesn't it follow that it might be cheaper as well? Especially for this audience

[Sir_Substance]

>Doesn't it follow that it might be cheaper as well? Especially for this audience

That's not up to you, credit score systems based on your social media profile examine your friends as much as they do you. Job prospects are also affected by how your friends post and present on facebook: http://theundercoverrecruiter.com/facebook-friends-matter/

Remember: How your friends express themselves affects your financial future, so work hard to keep them in line citizen!