WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.379 Welcome to The Debate. Our subject today is, 00:00:03.459 --> 00:00:05.799 well, it's something probably everyone listening 00:00:05.799 --> 00:00:08.199 has experienced, maybe even gotten a little bit 00:00:08.199 --> 00:00:11.880 annoyed by. The whole idea of dry texting. You 00:00:11.880 --> 00:00:14.820 know, those really short clipped replies like 00:00:14.820 --> 00:00:20.160 just, okay, or yep, or maybe a plain okay. And 00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:22.280 we want to dig into what these kinds of texts 00:00:22.280 --> 00:00:25.179 really signal about how we communicate today, 00:00:25.359 --> 00:00:27.359 both in our personal lives and professionally. 00:00:28.029 --> 00:00:30.510 Exactly. And the core question we're wrestling 00:00:30.510 --> 00:00:33.549 with is this. Is sending these super brief texts 00:00:33.549 --> 00:00:36.829 actually fundamentally kind of rude? Does it 00:00:36.829 --> 00:00:39.929 damage connection because it feels so dismissive? 00:00:40.109 --> 00:00:43.549 Or is it just the way things are now? Maybe even 00:00:43.549 --> 00:00:46.469 a respectful way to be efficient in our very 00:00:46.469 --> 00:00:50.049 digital world. Right. My stance here is that 00:00:50.049 --> 00:00:53.009 dry texting, well, precisely because it's so 00:00:53.009 --> 00:00:56.530 minimal, It often creates this sort of asymmetry 00:00:56.530 --> 00:00:59.689 in perceived effort. It can signal disinterest, 00:00:59.710 --> 00:01:02.390 right? And it forces the person on the other 00:01:02.390 --> 00:01:05.189 end to do extra work trying to figure out the 00:01:05.189 --> 00:01:08.569 tone, the meaning. For me, that violates the 00:01:08.569 --> 00:01:11.609 basic point of good etiquette. Hmm, okay. I'm 00:01:11.609 --> 00:01:13.489 going to argue from a slightly different angle. 00:01:14.109 --> 00:01:16.730 I think this trend towards shorter texts, this 00:01:16.730 --> 00:01:19.430 compression, it's really driven by a need for 00:01:19.430 --> 00:01:22.329 efficiency. And in a lot of situations, being 00:01:22.329 --> 00:01:24.430 brief is actually a way of respecting the other 00:01:24.430 --> 00:01:27.670 person's time, their attention. It's about clear, 00:01:28.129 --> 00:01:31.069 quick confirmation, which I see as a core principle 00:01:31.069 --> 00:01:34.510 in itself. I get the efficiency argument. I really 00:01:34.510 --> 00:01:38.030 do. But let's think about this from, say, a communication 00:01:38.030 --> 00:01:41.290 theory perspective. Text messages, they're a 00:01:41.290 --> 00:01:44.340 medium with what we call cue scarcity. You don't 00:01:44.340 --> 00:01:46.780 have tone of voice, you don't have body language, 00:01:47.120 --> 00:01:49.939 none of those richer cues. So that puts a huge 00:01:49.939 --> 00:01:52.200 amount of pressure on every single letter, doesn't 00:01:52.200 --> 00:01:56.400 it? A one -word reply in that context can easily 00:01:56.400 --> 00:01:59.859 feel like disinterest or even dismissal because 00:01:59.859 --> 00:02:02.500 it just doesn't offer even the slightest bit 00:02:02.500 --> 00:02:06.420 of relational softening. And texting isn't just 00:02:06.420 --> 00:02:08.879 for logistics anymore, is it? It's huge for maintaining 00:02:08.879 --> 00:02:11.780 relationships. So when someone pours out a detailed 00:02:11.780 --> 00:02:14.699 message, maybe something personal, and all they 00:02:14.699 --> 00:02:18.240 get back is a dry, okay, well, the person who 00:02:18.240 --> 00:02:20.759 sent the longer message experiences this spike 00:02:20.759 --> 00:02:23.300 in what you could call ambiguity risk. Like, 00:02:23.300 --> 00:02:26.020 what did they really mean by that? This is super 00:02:26.020 --> 00:02:28.939 noticeable in, say, dating or just close friendships. 00:02:29.340 --> 00:02:32.240 You expect a certain level of matched effort, 00:02:32.560 --> 00:02:35.740 emotionally speaking. Failing to offer that tiny 00:02:35.740 --> 00:02:38.180 bit of reassurance? I think that's a failure 00:02:38.180 --> 00:02:40.219 of basic respect. That's definitely a strong 00:02:40.219 --> 00:02:43.219 point about the recipient's feeling, their psychological 00:02:43.219 --> 00:02:46.699 comfort. But I think making that the primary 00:02:46.699 --> 00:02:49.979 requirement puts a huge, maybe even unsustainable 00:02:49.979 --> 00:02:53.120 burden on the sender. My core argument really 00:02:53.120 --> 00:02:55.360 leans on ideas of communication effectiveness, 00:02:55.800 --> 00:02:59.580 like Grice's maxims. You know, the maxim of quantity? 00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:02.879 Basically, be as informative as you need to be, 00:03:02.900 --> 00:03:05.900 but no more informative than that. Look, we are 00:03:05.900 --> 00:03:08.479 just swamped with notifications, emails, messages. 00:03:08.800 --> 00:03:11.960 all day long. In that kind of environment, maybe 00:03:11.960 --> 00:03:14.620 we actually have an ethical obligation to be 00:03:14.620 --> 00:03:18.919 efficient communicators. A quick OK or a K for 00:03:18.919 --> 00:03:22.319 something functional like, got the address or 00:03:22.319 --> 00:03:25.080 see you at seven, that's often exactly the right 00:03:25.080 --> 00:03:28.360 amount of information. Making someone add fluff, 00:03:28.919 --> 00:03:30.979 like exclamation points or smiley faces just 00:03:30.979 --> 00:03:33.520 to seem warmer, isn't that just adding noise? 00:03:34.400 --> 00:03:37.520 Brevity seen this way, It streamlines things. 00:03:37.680 --> 00:03:40.400 It respects everyone's limited focus. And it 00:03:40.400 --> 00:03:43.360 confirms what needs confirming fast. Maybe that's 00:03:43.360 --> 00:03:46.719 the new professional courtesy. Hmm. I'm still 00:03:46.719 --> 00:03:49.439 not quite sold that efficiency is a good enough 00:03:49.439 --> 00:03:52.479 excuse for creating ambiguity. Especially when 00:03:52.479 --> 00:03:54.840 adding just a little bit of reassurance costs 00:03:54.840 --> 00:03:57.979 almost nothing. Let's go back to that workplace 00:03:57.979 --> 00:04:00.520 example. Someone sends a detailed report, and 00:04:00.520 --> 00:04:03.800 the consultant replies just, okay. You say that's 00:04:03.800 --> 00:04:06.129 following the maximum of quantity. Okay, but 00:04:06.129 --> 00:04:08.349 what about the need for professional reassurance? 00:04:08.770 --> 00:04:10.810 The person who sent the report is left wondering, 00:04:10.990 --> 00:04:13.430 right? Did they actually read it carefully? Do 00:04:13.430 --> 00:04:15.490 they think it's any good? Was my effort even 00:04:15.490 --> 00:04:18.730 noticed? Now contrast that dry okay with something 00:04:18.730 --> 00:04:22.189 like, okay, reviewed, looks great, thanks. It's 00:04:22.189 --> 00:04:24.629 still really efficient, takes maybe three extra 00:04:24.629 --> 00:04:27.029 seconds to type, but it uses what we might call 00:04:27.029 --> 00:04:30.089 relational hedging. It smooths things over, gets 00:04:30.089 --> 00:04:32.629 rid of the doubt, confirms they actually engaged 00:04:32.629 --> 00:04:35.819 with it. If communication is about both transferring 00:04:35.819 --> 00:04:39.019 information successfully and keeping relationships 00:04:39.019 --> 00:04:42.360 stable, then I think the purely dry text often 00:04:42.360 --> 00:04:45.139 fails on that second part. When we strip the 00:04:45.139 --> 00:04:48.579 message down to the absolute bone, we risk chipping 00:04:48.579 --> 00:04:51.500 away at the relationship itself. That specific 00:04:51.500 --> 00:04:54.000 example, though, it might highlight a different 00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:57.060 issue. Not necessarily a problem with brevity 00:04:57.060 --> 00:05:00.959 itself, but maybe with medium specificity. If 00:05:00.959 --> 00:05:03.759 that document truly needed a detailed confirmation 00:05:03.759 --> 00:05:07.540 of review and appreciation, maybe text was just 00:05:07.540 --> 00:05:09.560 the wrong channel for the response in the first 00:05:09.560 --> 00:05:12.259 place, you know? If an expert is quickly confirming 00:05:12.259 --> 00:05:15.040 receipt or giving a go -ahead, OK can actually 00:05:15.040 --> 00:05:18.129 signal decisiveness, competence. I agree, yeah, 00:05:18.170 --> 00:05:20.029 the risk of misinterpretation is there, but I 00:05:20.029 --> 00:05:22.069 genuinely believe that risk decreases as our 00:05:22.069 --> 00:05:23.990 digital communication culture continues to evolve. 00:05:24.569 --> 00:05:26.209 I mean, we've seen this kind of shift before, 00:05:26.269 --> 00:05:28.389 haven't we? Think back decades, sending an internal 00:05:28.389 --> 00:05:30.629 memo without a proper, Dear Mr. Smith, might 00:05:30.629 --> 00:05:33.810 have seemed shocking, rude. Now? Getting an email 00:05:33.810 --> 00:05:36.230 that just says, got it, or confirmed, is totally 00:05:36.230 --> 00:05:39.050 normal, standard even. Dry texting feels like 00:05:39.050 --> 00:05:41.290 the logical next step in that evolution, a super 00:05:41.290 --> 00:05:43.290 compressed signal for confirmation. Insisting 00:05:43.290 --> 00:05:46.279 that Every single functional exchange needs to 00:05:46.279 --> 00:05:48.819 be wrapped up in warm, fuzzy language. Well, 00:05:48.839 --> 00:05:50.920 it starts to feel like asking for a performative 00:05:50.920 --> 00:05:53.339 communication that just slows everything down. 00:05:53.439 --> 00:05:55.459 That's an interesting point about choosing the 00:05:55.459 --> 00:05:57.779 right medium, but I'd push back a bit and say 00:05:57.779 --> 00:06:00.959 it's really the sender's job, not the receiver's, 00:06:01.139 --> 00:06:04.240 to manage their channel choice effectively. If 00:06:04.240 --> 00:06:06.680 you choose a low -richness medium like texting, 00:06:07.100 --> 00:06:09.120 you kind of accept the responsibility that comes 00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:11.829 with it. the need to maybe overcompensate a little 00:06:11.829 --> 00:06:15.110 for the lack of nonverbal cues. If you want that 00:06:15.110 --> 00:06:17.529 high -speed clarity, you still need to provide 00:06:17.529 --> 00:06:20.389 the minimal context to stop your message from 00:06:20.389 --> 00:06:23.529 possibly landing as cold or, worse, hostile. 00:06:24.050 --> 00:06:26.269 And this cognitive load you mentioned, the effort 00:06:26.269 --> 00:06:28.550 it takes the sender to add just a few extra words, 00:06:28.970 --> 00:06:31.329 I think that's often tiny compared to the emotional 00:06:31.329 --> 00:06:33.870 load placed on the recipient who has to decipher 00:06:33.870 --> 00:06:36.750 a really blunt message. Think about dating again. 00:06:36.939 --> 00:06:40.060 If someone consistently replies with just K or 00:06:40.060 --> 00:06:42.639 yup, the other person is constantly having to 00:06:42.639 --> 00:06:45.740 guess, to reassess. Where do we stand? What does 00:06:45.740 --> 00:06:48.639 this mean? That's real emotional labor, and the 00:06:48.639 --> 00:06:51.220 dry texture is essentially imposing that on the 00:06:51.220 --> 00:06:54.199 other person. That carelessness, to me, that 00:06:54.199 --> 00:06:56.540 feels fundamentally rude. I don't know if I agree 00:06:56.540 --> 00:06:58.699 that the burden of interpretation is always heavier 00:06:58.699 --> 00:07:00.879 than the burden of performance, though. Think 00:07:00.879 --> 00:07:03.180 about really established relationships, high 00:07:03.180 --> 00:07:05.459 trust ones, friends, long -term partners, close 00:07:05.459 --> 00:07:08.300 colleagues. Sometimes a one -letter reply, a 00:07:08.300 --> 00:07:11.519 K, signals precisely that trust, right? It means 00:07:11.519 --> 00:07:13.600 we're close enough, I don't need to perform extra 00:07:13.600 --> 00:07:16.000 warmth for you. Making it longer might actually 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:18.480 feel tedious or unnecessary in that specific 00:07:18.480 --> 00:07:21.899 context. The rudeness really only kicks in when 00:07:21.899 --> 00:07:24.459 the dry text breaks an already established norm 00:07:24.459 --> 00:07:27.389 within that relationship. If we demand maximum 00:07:27.389 --> 00:07:29.970 warmth in every single message, aren't we basically 00:07:29.970 --> 00:07:32.129 forcing high -trust communication to look exactly 00:07:32.129 --> 00:07:34.790 like low -trust communication? And beyond that, 00:07:34.910 --> 00:07:36.769 we probably need to adjust our definition of 00:07:36.769 --> 00:07:39.370 rudeness for the digital age. Are we maybe prioritizing 00:07:39.370 --> 00:07:42.230 an older, more verbose standard of warmth over 00:07:42.230 --> 00:07:44.629 what's becoming a new standard one valuing clarity, 00:07:44.910 --> 00:07:48.829 speed, decisiveness? In the really fast -paced 00:07:48.829 --> 00:07:53.230 world of modern work, a quick, unambiguous okay 00:07:53.230 --> 00:07:57.379 is functional clarity. insisting on flowery language 00:07:57.379 --> 00:08:00.439 just slows the whole system down. And you could 00:08:00.439 --> 00:08:03.060 argue that large -scale inefficiency is its own 00:08:03.060 --> 00:08:06.100 kind of disrespect, maybe disrespect for time 00:08:06.100 --> 00:08:08.680 and resources. I just can't quite get behind 00:08:08.680 --> 00:08:11.519 the idea that operational efficiency should override 00:08:11.519 --> 00:08:14.639 interpersonal friction. The whole point of etiquette, 00:08:14.819 --> 00:08:17.279 traditionally anyway, is to reduce that friction, 00:08:17.620 --> 00:08:20.259 to make interactions smoother. If we consistently 00:08:20.259 --> 00:08:22.839 choose speed over managing how our messages might 00:08:22.839 --> 00:08:26.509 be perceived, we're kind of Neglecting the human 00:08:26.509 --> 00:08:29.329 element, aren't we? And the cost of that may 00:08:29.329 --> 00:08:31.509 be small in each instance, but multiplied across 00:08:31.509 --> 00:08:33.990 hundreds of daily interactions. It could lead 00:08:33.990 --> 00:08:36.429 to this background hum of relational instability. 00:08:37.070 --> 00:08:39.230 And let's widen the lens for a second. Look at 00:08:39.230 --> 00:08:41.529 the global picture, the cultural side of things. 00:08:42.090 --> 00:08:43.990 Because this really complicates the idea that 00:08:43.990 --> 00:08:46.509 brevity is just inherently respectful or efficient. 00:08:47.169 --> 00:08:49.769 How people interpret short, direct texts varies 00:08:49.769 --> 00:08:52.440 wildly around the world. What seems perfectly 00:08:52.440 --> 00:08:56.000 normal, efficient, maybe even appropriately unemotional 00:08:56.000 --> 00:08:58.960 in, say, low -context cultures, think maybe Nordic 00:08:58.960 --> 00:09:02.200 countries where conciseness is valued, that same 00:09:02.200 --> 00:09:05.440 message can feel incredibly cold, rushed, even 00:09:05.440 --> 00:09:09.279 offensive in high -context cultures. Places like 00:09:09.279 --> 00:09:12.159 many Latin American or East Asian societies often 00:09:12.159 --> 00:09:15.379 expect more warmth, more contextual padding in 00:09:15.379 --> 00:09:18.759 communication. This huge variation surely proves 00:09:18.759 --> 00:09:22.220 that dry isn't some universal tool for efficiency. 00:09:22.659 --> 00:09:25.120 It actually puts a pretty big responsibility 00:09:25.120 --> 00:09:28.120 on the sender, doesn't it, to practice sophisticated 00:09:28.120 --> 00:09:30.879 audience awareness? You have to kind of perform 00:09:30.879 --> 00:09:33.240 cultural adaptation, depending on who you're 00:09:33.240 --> 00:09:36.259 talking to, and the simple dry text, by often 00:09:36.259 --> 00:09:39.159 ignoring that need, frequently fails in global 00:09:39.159 --> 00:09:41.919 communication. Oh, I absolutely acknowledge the 00:09:41.919 --> 00:09:44.279 cultural variance. It's profound. But I might 00:09:44.279 --> 00:09:46.850 frame that variance differently. To me, it shows 00:09:46.850 --> 00:09:49.649 that brevity itself isn't inherently rude. It's 00:09:49.649 --> 00:09:52.149 just culturally indexed. Its meaning depends 00:09:52.149 --> 00:09:55.169 on the context. But look at the trend in global 00:09:55.169 --> 00:09:57.629 professional communication. What seems to be 00:09:57.629 --> 00:09:59.730 happening isn't necessarily that everyone's sticking 00:09:59.730 --> 00:10:02.129 rigidly to their local, perhaps more verbose 00:10:02.129 --> 00:10:05.230 norms. Instead, we're seeing a rapid kind of 00:10:05.230 --> 00:10:08.029 homogenization, especially in digital work environments. 00:10:08.330 --> 00:10:11.470 There's this growing need for quick, clear, unambiguous 00:10:11.470 --> 00:10:13.590 confirmation that works across different languages 00:10:13.590 --> 00:10:16.090 and cultures. And that pressure, I think, is 00:10:16.090 --> 00:10:18.049 pushing us towards a more standardized functional 00:10:18.049 --> 00:10:20.570 mode, a sort of digital lingua franca, if you 00:10:20.570 --> 00:10:23.210 will. The simple transactional okay, or just 00:10:23.210 --> 00:10:25.649 a confirmation check mark, is arguably becoming 00:10:25.649 --> 00:10:28.190 that necessary global norm, precisely because 00:10:28.190 --> 00:10:31.480 it cuts down on unnecessary words. That's valuable 00:10:31.480 --> 00:10:34.120 when you're dealing with time zones, different 00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:37.919 language backgrounds, diverse expectations. So 00:10:37.919 --> 00:10:40.659 while yes, we adapt for close personal contacts, 00:10:41.059 --> 00:10:43.399 the broader professional world seems to be demanding 00:10:43.399 --> 00:10:46.399 the kind of compression that dry texting provides. 00:10:46.740 --> 00:10:50.360 My position fundamentally remains that while 00:10:50.360 --> 00:10:53.860 yes, speed matters, the potential downsides of 00:10:53.860 --> 00:10:56.940 dry texting, the risk profile, it just feels 00:10:56.940 --> 00:11:01.139 too high too often. It can erode trust. It can 00:11:01.139 --> 00:11:05.059 signal disinterest. It creates that doubt, which 00:11:05.059 --> 00:11:07.919 can undermine relationships, both professional 00:11:07.919 --> 00:11:12.100 and personal. Connection, I believe, often requires 00:11:12.100 --> 00:11:15.100 an effort that matches the recipient and the 00:11:15.100 --> 00:11:18.080 situation. And that tiny investment of adding 00:11:18.080 --> 00:11:21.559 just a few clarifying words, it buys you relational 00:11:21.559 --> 00:11:24.580 stability that pure raw efficiency just can't 00:11:24.580 --> 00:11:26.820 deliver. It feels like we're sometimes trading 00:11:26.820 --> 00:11:29.740 long -term relational health for very short -term 00:11:29.740 --> 00:11:33.559 time savings. And I'll reaffirm my view. In a 00:11:33.559 --> 00:11:36.679 huge number of necessary transactional exchanges, 00:11:37.240 --> 00:11:39.080 especially the ones that are really just about 00:11:39.080 --> 00:11:42.200 conveying information clearly, like Grace's maxims 00:11:42.200 --> 00:11:45.179 suggest, efficiency is the most genuine form 00:11:45.179 --> 00:11:47.879 of respect. Respect for the other person's limited 00:11:47.879 --> 00:11:50.700 time and attention. The cultural meaning of being 00:11:50.700 --> 00:11:53.700 brief is shifting. What may be used to feel dismissive 00:11:53.700 --> 00:11:56.799 is increasingly being seen as decisive, clear, 00:11:57.049 --> 00:12:00.330 effective confirmation, its usefulness for providing 00:12:00.330 --> 00:12:03.029 functional clarity in our totally saturated digital 00:12:03.029 --> 00:12:05.690 world, well, that should be recognized as a necessary 00:12:05.690 --> 00:12:08.190 evolution, I think, not just written off as rudeness. 00:12:08.769 --> 00:12:11.809 Well, we can certainly agree on one thing. The 00:12:11.809 --> 00:12:16.330 final judgment on whether a specific OK or OK 00:12:16.330 --> 00:12:20.789 is acceptable or not, it really does hinge completely 00:12:20.789 --> 00:12:24.009 on the immediate context, the specific message, 00:12:24.350 --> 00:12:27.360 and crucially, the relationship between the people 00:12:27.360 --> 00:12:31.000 involved. Indeed, it really highlights how even 00:12:31.000 --> 00:12:34.720 something as tiny as two letters OK can spark 00:12:34.720 --> 00:12:38.340 this whole complex conversation about what respect 00:12:38.340 --> 00:12:41.259 even means in our hyper -connected, fast -paced 00:12:41.259 --> 00:12:44.399 modern era. It forces us to constantly juggle 00:12:44.399 --> 00:12:46.980 that need for connection with the relentless 00:12:46.980 --> 00:12:48.159 demand for speed.