Reading in preference to conversation with other humans

[ardour]

...can be just as unsocial as phone use in my opinion. Like a "Do not disturb" sign above a person's head, which seems more like a "fresia you" sign much of the time.

The message to anyone around is "this book...I regard as more interesting than you, your life, anything you have to say".

Obviously it informs, people who don't read are lacking. But it's obnoxious when people prioritize that over almost all social contact. I'd rather talk and read at home.

Compromise and social etiquette just seem like alien concepts to the incessant readers, people who are friendly and polite when they feel like it, never otherwise.
Then funnily they're offended if you're not socially available for them, again, when they feel like going wild and having a conversation, completely oblivious to their own behaviour. There are plenty of people like that at work, I give them a wide berth, they deserve nothing less than peace and quiet.

 

[SomeoneSomewhere]

Reading in preference to talking with other humans can be just as unsocial as phone use in my opinion. What is it that qualifies this as sacred? Like a "Do not disturb" sign above a person's head, which seems more like a "fresia you" sign much of the time.

How is it wrong? It seems like you have a problem with people doing what they like and not giving you a chance to do what you want to do (like going up to them and talking to them or getting to know them (hidden motive: because you're lonely)?).

The message to anyone around is "this book...I regard as more interesting than you, your life, anything you have to say".

Obviously it informs, people who don't read are lacking. But it's obnoxious when people prioritize that over almost all social contact. I'd rather talk and read at home.

Have you ever wondered that there doesn't have to be any message at all? That maybe, some people could just enjoy reading more than talking to people (and sifting through all their honeysuckle).

they deserve nothing less than peace and quiet.

Then you'd just be giving them what they want or probably, what they need.

 

[ardour]

No I don't blunder into people's 'me' time.

I observe, and I've come to the conclusion that it's mainly about being selfish. For them, most of the time people are boring, and a book requires less effort than socializing.
These people aren't completely non-social but seem to want it all on their terms and get tetchy/rude if someone dares talk when it isn't welcome.

There's got to be plenty of opportunities to read at other times, so it's not as though they'd be deprived of this.

 

[SomeoneSomewhere]

No I know better than to blunder into people's 'me' time.

I observe and see it happen, and I've come to the conclusion that it's mainly about being selfish. For them, most of the time people are 'boring', and a book requires less effort than socializing.
As stated, these are people aren't completely non-social but seem to want it all on their terms and get tetchy/rude if someone dares talk when it isn't welcome.

Again, can we really blame them for it? I mean, most people we're talking about here probably don't even know you (so they'd care enough to give you an opportunity to get to know them or even be polite enough to stop reading and say hi or something). It's their time, their life and their choice - we can't really dictate what they should do with it and what they shouldn't or blame them for being selfish.

It's like having a problem with people who bond and socialize with a certain kind of people in clubs, colleges, social situations etc., you know, with the cool guys and girls. Ultimately, the "uncool" ones get left out. But the thing is, can we really blame them for it and call them selfish? As I said before, it's their preference and it's completely up to them.

And maybe some people really do like to read. Like there are people who go to libraries to read and people who go to them to find people they can socialize with. I used to get pissed at girls who would have dug their heads into their books when I'd go to libraries to find a potential friend but then, I slowly realized that it isn't their fault. We just have to deal with it.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

I knew a guy that I used to work with who would read a book at the smoking bench outside on break and at lunch. Some times I'd strike up a conversation with him and he'd set the book aside, and when there was nothing to say, he'd read his book and I'd people watch. So I can't relate to the particular experience you are attempting to describe. It sounds more like your general presence was unwanted socially to begin with. Maybe the person(s) who invoked such feelings within' you are snobby or something.

 

[dead]

That's abit narrowminded, imho. Some people read because they aren't confident enough to strike up a conversation, others just want some quiet time. Like any other generalisation, it does not apply to everyone, and probably shouldn't be taken so personally.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

I disagree.

People who read do it because they love adventure. Anybody who's a lover of literature would attest that.

I don't care if I'm reading in public, or private. I just love reading. It's nothing personal. I'd put the book down if I really wanted to have a conversation with you, but otherwise, I'd rather know what is going on in this novel, and how it ends.

I'd argue that those who wear headphones/earbuds are being less social than that. At least you don't wear the book on your ears, blocking out sound.

Why is this a big deal to you, rdor? Were you trying to get the attention of someone who was reading? If someone is tucked away, reading a story, they probably don't want to be bothered.

 

[ladyforsaken]

I read in public cos I like reading and especially if what I'm reading is really interesting. But if someone were to stop me and strike up a conversation, I wouldn't mind it, I'd still be friendly to them. I don't do it because of not wanting to talk to people.

Edit: Thinking of it again, I do see your point though, rdor. It can seem like when someone's reading, they don't want to be disturbed. But it's not always the case though.

 

[Limlim]

I'm not really sure I understand, are you mad at people who whip out a book when you're trying to have a conversation with them? Or are these just people who happened to be reading a book while out and about?

If the former, I'd get why you'd be annoyed. That would be akin to pulling out a cellphone and texting at the dinner table, but the latter is just.... someone reading a book.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

I've never felt like someone was reading because they didn't like me. I always thought it was because they either wanted something to do, or they wanted to read.

 

[Solivagant]

I guess I'm a bit befuddled by this. If, like Limlim said, someone whips out a book while you're trying to have a conversation with them, then yeah, that would be rude.

But personally I think it's rude to interrupt someone while they're reading. They're busy, they're involved in an activity, why should your mood for chat automatically take precedence over that?

I rode the bus to college and I had to use the time to keep up with the reading assigned in my classes. Random strangers would sometimes interrupt me for a chat, and I would always put my book aside to socialize with them, but frankly it was annoying. Plus when I get interrupted without having reached a good stopping point to bookmark, I then have to re-read some of what I already read in order to refocus. I wish there was a "Do Not Disturb" sign above my head when I was reading.

 

[Tiina63]

In my first job which was in a department store I used to read at lunchtime in the canteen because I found that dealing with customers all day drained me completely and I needed space so that I could recharge my batteries emotionally. This pissed off the others in the department and they bullied me because of it, calling me weird and withdrawn, and I ended up having a nervous brekadown. I still, 30 years later, don't understand what I was doing wrong. It was my break so my free time and I was taking time out to stop myself from people-exhaustion.

 

[ardour]

guess I'll reply to this..

I guess I'm a bit befuddled by this. If, like Limlim said, someone whips out a book while you're trying to have a conversation with them, then yeah, that would be rude.

And I've overheard that happening. "Oh, I'm going to read now" - oblivious to how rude it was and how they've probably damaged the relationship.

But personally I think it's rude to interrupt someone while they're reading. They're busy, they're involved in an activity, why should your mood for chat automatically take precedence over that?

Sure, if you're referring to random strangers, you don't owe them anything. But what if it's a friend? What if they're distressed and need to talk. What if they just want to talk? Why shouldn't that take precendence? That's rude but your preference for reading isn't? And if you continually find books more interesting than them, well... I think there's a problem.

Part of being an adult, in my opinion, is learning to tolerate others and socialize when you might not feel like it.

But if people prefer to act like autistic children, that's their right. Absolutely their right.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

What in the world is wrong with reading? It's an education!

 

[ardour]

I didn't say anything was wrong with it!

 

[Sci-Fi]

But if people prefer to act like autistic children, that's their right. Absolutely their right.

That's a bit of an inappropriate comment.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

I don't know what you meant by that, but autism is not a disease. Many socially awkward, lonely people are on the spectrum.

 

[ardour]

But if people prefer to act like autistic children, that's their right. Absolutely their right.

That's a bit of an inappropriate comment.

true, that was offensive ... apologies.

 

[Solivagant]

If you're referring to random stranger, yup. But what if it's a friend? What if they're distressed and need to talk. Why shouldn't that take precendence over reading? That's rude but your preference for reading isn't? And if you continually find reading more interesting than them, well... I think there's a problem.

If a friend is in distress, a good friend would surely put aside their reading to help. But you did not specify the relationship or situation, or any other factors really. This whole topic is rather vague.

Is your beef with reading specifically, or are you applying this theory to any hobby or activity one might be engaging in at the time said "distressed friend" needs to talk?

Part of being an adult, in my opinion, is learning to tolerate others and socialize when you might not feel like it.

I agree, one should learn to tolerate others and socialize when they don't feel like it. I've certainly had to. But that doesn't mean they must "prefer" it, or do it all the time, does it? As important as it is to make time for others, it is also important to make time for yourself, and to learn when to say no.

Daily life exhausts me, as does socializing. I need time to myself to regenerate, and I don't think there is anything rude about that. Reading is a perfectly legitimate way to spend that time, and I'm not really understanding why you would have a problem with that.

I hope I'm not coming off offensively, I don't mean to if I am. I guess I'm just not clear on your point.

But if people prefer to act like autistic children, that's their right I guess.

I am autistic. There are others on the forum as well, who might not appreciate that comment.

Edit: I was busy responding while you offered the apology above. Much appreciated.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Some people just don't feel like social animals.

As an introvert, I understand when someone just wants to be left alone. I've been in that place, too.