I don't know anybody that assumes that unless you let it go for days. Texting is asynchronous just like email, for a reason.

It's possible you two just hang out in social groups with different norms.

What I meant was that while I'm sure some people do think that, it's unreasonable. That's the same person who send multiple text messages "are you there?" "where are you?" "I need you" "call me" etc minutes or seconds apart. It hasn't occurred to them that the phone is off or silent or in another room or notifications are off or they've been explicitly muted.

You are both right, it just depends on the situation.

> However, the expectation is someone will respond with ~"Thx, in meeting"

If you check your phone in a meeting, and you don't have a family member in the hospital, you're wrong. It's discourteous in the extreme to check a smartphone (or noodle around on a laptop!) when meeting with others.

We have a rather family friendly attitude at work so the norms are probably a little different. There is no way to know ahead of time if someone is in the hospital. Now someone is stilling there holding the phone and looking at it, taking an extra ~15 seconds to respond is not a big deal. Now, if someone is going to respond in depth the expectation is they will leave.

Also, there are more and less formal meetings, but in a technical meeting checking some point online with a laptop or phone occurs on a regular basis. It seems much more productive than having people just say random things that don't match up with reality.

OK, in a theoretical world where meetings aren't hours long with no agenda and tons of circular, pointless discussion, I agree.

> OK, in a theoretical world where meetings aren't hours long with no agenda and tons of circular, pointless discussion, I agree.

Well, an agenda is part of the courtesy the meeting convener owes the participants, and a well-run meeting is part of the courtesy the chairman owes the participants.

Meetings are incredibly expensive: everyone owes it to their organisation, one another and themselves to make that expense worth it.

Or we can get work done during the parts of the meeting that sent relevant to us, drastically decreasing the meeting cost.

If you shouldn't be in the meeting, leave. If you should be, stay. If the meeting should be split up, then advocate for it to be split up. If it should be structured differently, then advocate for it to be structured differently.

You owe attention to your fellow participants.

Yeah, that would be nice, but I'm not going to change the world just by thinking so.

> Yeah, that would be nice, but I'm not going to change the world just by thinking so.

Then take action! You are not a passive victim of circumstances: you are an active participant in, among other things, meetings; demand that your fellow-participants behave politely.

Take responsibility for your destiny.

I'm frankly shocked that so many people seem to disagree so strongly with my belief that texting in a meeting is rude, discourteous and unprofessional.

Many people believe that what is important is getting stuff done, not social status grooming with shows of allegiance in meetings.

Is there any practical reason, that makes texting rude, discourteous, and unprofessional, besides that it unflatters someone's ego?

I'd like to draw a distinction here between unflattering someone's ego and being disrespectful to that person.

I, personally, don't think I'd be affected by "unflattering". In many circumstances, though, noodling around on a laptop in a meeting is communicating to the presenter that their presentation is unworthy of your time or attention - that is to say, you are disrespecting the presenter.

I think it's a moving scale, though, dependent on the importance of the subject of the meeting and the relationship of the attendees. In a casual meeting between friends, with low-importance subject matter, I would consider undivided attention unnecessary (and therefore exceptionally respectful if given). In a business environment, where the subject is business related, I would consider it necessary (and therefore the opposite is exceptionally disrespectful).

> Many people believe that what is important is getting stuff done, not social status grooming with shows of allegiance in meetings.

It's not about shows of allegiance: it's about being present for your fellow-participants.

> Is there any practical reason, that makes texting rude, discourteous, and unprofessional, besides that it unflatters someone's ego?

Human beings can't multitask: every second you're texting is a second of meeting content you're missing. It is rude, because it says to those speaking, 'what you are saying is not as important as what I am reading or typing.' It is discourteous, because it wastes their time. It is unprofessional, because a professional would do others the politeness of turning down the meeting if he doesn't believe his presence is needed, rather than attending and ignoring.