> It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.

> It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.

So, which is it (way to keep it classy, by the way)?

Do you think those are contrasting points? There is a subtle wording difference that means the world.

If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place.

I do think those are contrasting points.

No matter what subtleties you wrap the difference in, relative importance is what you're communicating to everyone else at the table whether you intend to or not. If that's your priority then so be it, but don't be surprised if people who prioritized being present at dinner aren't fond of your choice.

I'm not trying to change you though. Like I said before, I just wouldn't want to eat dinner with you if you couldn't leave the phone alone.

While having a phone out can be rude, I agree with huggyface that it's a statement about the importance of the conversation, not the person.

"If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place."

I think it is a confusion of expectations that creates the conflict. You expect it to be understood that this is how you prioritize. Others may not have expected the same priorities.

I've always thought its kind of a shame that mobiles mean we have to be on the job all the time. Every day.

I love putting my phone away at meals, it's a good time to be social and set aside the demands of professional life.