I don't like to have e.g. a walking meeting for a discussion that I would like to be able to reference later. Memory is way too lossy of a format to rely on. Yet people just feel better about in-person meetings, phone calls etc. - where means of recording are usually medium, unless you literally record the audio. This is the case even in situations where the relationship is well-established, friendly and interaction repeating - so with little reason to worry about misunderstandings or personal offenses taken.
It's costly to the collective because it stifles coordination, especially if it's not just a 1-1 relationship but exchange has to include 3+ people across various media.
Is this really just because meetings make people feel better? How malleable is this preference?
Does waiting on answers make them anxious otherwise? And people just haven't learned to deal with notifications sustainably?
Or are people (unconsciously) so much into ambiguity that they prefer all parties involved to have altered memories of statements within minutes? Allows more room for political manoeuvres or reinterpretation in a way that is less costly to the individual?
Or is this purely cultural?
Am I underestimating the barrier that writing poses to many?
Who's writing about/researching this?
I agree with this, especially if you're trying to make a decision or solve a problem together. It's very difficult and time-consuming to negotiate solutions via text.
Yeah, agreed that your conclusion applies to the majority of interactions from a 1-off perspective.
But I observe a decent amount of cases where it would be good to have literal documentation of statements, take-aways etc. because otherwise, you'll have to have many more phone calls.
I'm especially thinking of co-working and other mutually agreed upon mid- to long-term coordination scenarios. In order to do collective world-modelling better, i.e. to find cruxes, prioritize, research, introspect, etc., it seems good to have more bandwidth AND more memory. But... (read more)