Some of our habits and worldviews are immediately impacted by technology. Babies trying to use books and magazines as if they were touchscreens and the introduction of the internet to the Marubo people, an indigenous ethnic group in the deep Amazon (a great read!) are excellent examples. Others, less visible to the naked eye but even more impactful, manifest in ways that we do not always quickly notice. One of the latter is explored by Jonathan Haidt's latest book, The Anxious Generation, which quickly became a bestseller because it really touched a nerve, in spite of legitimate criticism. Another, which seems to be little discussed, is how the role of silence, especially in instant messaging, has changed our way of communicating.
Instant messaging conversations on mobile platforms, particularly in a country like Brazil where WhatsApp dominance is absolute (on 98% of phones!), are continuous, almost always with no closure. Often there's "hi," but very rarely a "goodbye" or "we'll talk later" — silence, for an indefinite period, can come at any moment. This is in stark contrast to other types of social contact. People generally do not leave social situations without saying goodbye—and leaving silently is often seen as rude. In phone conversations, people say goodbye — and hanging up abruptly is openly hostile. Even in instant messaging via PC from the youth of today's thirty and forty-somethings, being offline meant being unavailable and it was common to say goodbye at the end of a conversation. Silence was predictable and agreed upon; conversations had an end.
Brazilians were recently mentioned by Mark Zuckerberg as the most frequent users of WhatsApp audio messages in the world, four times more than in other countries. An empathetic view would emphasize accessibility issues (physical difficulty in reading or typing) and educational issues (functional illiteracy, low writing fluency, and text interpretation ability). While this view is legitimate, these are characteristics we share with many other developing countries with similar problems, where this heavy use of audio does not happen. A more cynical but not untruthful view would emphasize prioritizing one's own convenience, and in turn, signaling the recipient's convenience matters less ("I'll send a voice note because it's easier" — easier for whom?), reinforcing the lack of civility that unfortunately characterizes us as a culture. What seems certain is that the absence of universal etiquette in this type of communication creates tension and frustrates both senders and receivers — the latter seemingly more so.
This absence of etiquette seems to be problematic not only in Brazil and it’s clear relying on common sense is not enough. Several countries around the world, including many in the European Union and Latin America, such as Germany, Portugal, Spain, Argentina, and Chile, prohibit bosses from sending messages to their employees outside of working hours or exempt the employees from responding without any type of punishment, in what is called the "right to disconnect."
There are also no explicit or implicit codes about response time or about whom we actually need to respond to. Basic rules of human courtesy simply have not translated to instant messaging. Dealing with the other people’s unexpected silence without explanation or any expectation management has become routine.
When silence becomes unexpected, it is easily used as a weapon or misinterpreted.
The very wave of terms to describe problematic online behaviors has unwanted or unexpected silence as a central theme. Ghosting (leaving the other in permanent silence suddenly, disappearing like a ghost), orbiting (those who signal interest with online interactions but instead of getting closer, remain silent — i.e. "sends fire emojis on my stories but makes no concrete move"), breadcrumbing (keeping the other interested with as little effort as possible, using silence tactically) — are fundamentally about silence.
Many of these terms appeared in the context of romantic relationships but also apply to family and friends or even professional relationships. You know that friend who likes every one of your posts but never invites you for anything? Or the one who takes weeks to respond to a message? And that client who never gets back to you about the proposal you spent the entire week working on?
From the silence of others comes uncertainty, lack of closure, and different interpretations of the situation of a relationship — From the recipient’s perspective, silence is a Rorschach test (you know, the one where you say what you see in inkblots?) — it reflects our fears and expectations more than the actual meaning and does not necessarily express the senders' intention. "No" or an open rejection often feel better — at least we’re rid from doubt.
In a way, the unpredictable silence of others is the price we pay as individuals for the right to be unavailable whenever we want since perpetual connection is the rule. Was that worth it?
In relationship games, those who intentionally make themselves less available inflate their perceived value. The timing and circumstances of this availability is a powerful non-verbal language, depending on the maturity and interest of those involved. Being able to afford not to respond to a particular person also has an aspect of power asymmetry and hierarchy. A candidate not responding to a company during a selection process is disqualifying, the company not responding to a candidate is practically standard. A client not responding to a supplier may be okay circumstantially, but how do we treat a supplier not responding to a client?
The problem with indefinite silence being the new standard is that it is harder to give others benefit of the doubt. The way we interpret silence shapes our expectations and reactions. Are they playing us? Are they treating us as inferior? Are they still invested in the relationship? Is this making us more paranoid, insecure, and anxious? And on the other hand, how do we signal others that we are just silent or temporarily unavailable but we care?
WhatsApp has allowed marking messages as unread since 2016, but the feature to filter unread messages was only introduced this year. Gmail sometimes highlights messages you received or sent that have not been responded to. LinkedIn recently started showing reminders about unanswered private messages, certainly for improving response rates for B2B outreaches, a fundamental part of its business. These features make failing to respond to others due to disorganization or accident harder, but much more can be done in user experience to prevent unintentional "ghosting." It is incredible how small adjustments like these change social dynamics and the lives of billions of people and the weight of the responsibility of taking care of such widely used products.
At work, it’s a good time to reflect on coherence and treat others as we would like to be treated, sending or receiving. You should not complain about being approached too much on LinkedIn and approve telemarketing campaigns that call people multiple times a day or at very inconvenient hours. You should not complain about the silence of other people if you send generic outreach messages and follow up in 2-3 days, with the terrible subtext for your recipients that your time is more valuable than theirs — the truth is quite the opposite. It is another effect of the McNamara fallacy in action — these are things that seem reasonable just looking at the numbers because we do not measure how they make people feel.
On a more individual front, we need to reflect on the impact our silence has on others, assuming it is easier to be misinterpreted. In a context of increasing loneliness, fewer close friends and deteriorating mental health, communication that is more mindful of the expectations of others can make silence what white space is to design — the frame that provides contrast and allows the content to shine, not a source of anxiety and insecurity.
