Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryukoposting | Hacker News Reader

I didn't realize that research on this topic was so sparse, I just took it as a fact that people wearing airpods don't socialize in public.

When I was in college, the line "he can't hear you, he has airpods in" was a meme. It was used as a jab at someone who wasn't paying attention because they had wireless earbuds in. So I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

View on HN

I have a hard time understanding someone so oblivious as to need telling not to try talking to someone with earbuds in.

You can see them. Don’t talk to me. If you must, get my attention first with a wave or something - don’t touch me.

Do you apply this rule in reverse? If you need to speak to someone who isn't wearing earphones, do you wave at them first or do you just start talking to them?

I suspect the latter.

One can hear, the other can't. So not sure how that's a reverse rule at all, it's actually the same rule applied to the reverse situation. The reverse of the rule would indeed be talking to someone without earbuds in.

I use a verbal cue to get their attention before diving into my question, because their ears can hear me. In any case, you need to wait for people to register that they need to change contexts before engaging them.

Where did you find the three dollar discrepancy?

vs.

Hey, Barb. <wait for acknowledgement> Where did you find the three dollar discrepancy?

With earbuds or headphones, the method of attention getting has to change: something they can see (wave), or something they can feel (tap the desk, no touching them.)

Ultimately the point is you get their attention, then you engage with the subject. If you're oblivious to the fact that there's an audio barrier sticking out of their ear, don't be surprised when you get no response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com