From a Rhizome thread:

Why is the loss of email and TV reception met with frustration and near-hysteria, but cell phone signal loss is met with, at best, mild aggravation and more often than not, if you think about it, mild relief at the outside interruption of what was a (good but) banal conversation? What are the statistics on resuming conversations following a signal loss? What does this say about the flexibility of our habituations?

Well, that’s easy: we control the time of TV and email but not of telephones. You’re supposed to answer the phone when it rings. No one expects you to answer, or even read, an email instantly.

The first time I didn’t answer my phone when it rang was when my baby was born. No way was I going to interrupt breastfeeding or lullaby-singing or changing a nappy to answer a nagging phone! My sister-in-law was appalled. She truly felt that one has a moral obligation to pick up a ringing phone. No matter who was calling.

I still ignore the phone if it interferes with reading a bedtime story to my daughter, or I’m doing something else important, and I turn it off sometimes – but though I feel little guilt at that, I feel absolutely none at doing the same with my mobile.

And I love SMSes. They’re polite. They wait for you to have time. You can send them and know that you’re not interrupting. And you can answer them instantly if so inclined.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. pedabloggy

    network coocooning
    It’s interesting how we have different relationships with different networks, as Jill, in fading signals describes. Often I need to escape all incoming signals, not just the spam (spam of various mediated flavours). As a result, a lot of my…

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]