The 8 Most Annoying Things People Do With Their Phones

The ill-mannered use of mobile phones in public is infuriating. Here's what you can do about it.

I’m not entirely sure when it became acceptable to use a speakerphone in public, but in the last week I’ve witnessed three people hold entire conversations through the speaker on their mobile phone, without caring who was listening. In one instance, I was on the subway when the woman’s phone rang. She answered it, and began a discussion with the person on the other end about where they were going to dinner that evening. Just FYI, they decided not to go out. Amy had to study for a biology exam and her professor was being “an ass” this semester, so she expected the test to be especially difficult. Oh and John just asked her out, but he is Julie’s cousin and it’d be weird. Privacy issues aside, mobile phones and applications encourage rude, discourteous behavior.

Online travel site Expedia conducted a survey this year in which they queried almost 9,000 adults in 25 countries in an effort to identify our most annoying mobile phone habits. The number one complaint? Making calls on a speakerphone. Number two? Playing music, games, or videos without using your headphones. Here is the complete list:

  • Making calls on speakerphone: 53 percent
  • Playing music/games/videos without headphones: 47 percent
  • Taking photos/videos of strangers: 42 percent
  • Making calls while in a restaurant: 36 percent
  • Video calls/FaceTime/Skype: 27 percent
  • Loud mobile device alerts: 26 percent
  • Messaging/emailing at seated performance/activity: 24 percent
  • Photographing food during meal: 18 percent
  • Cellphones, and other mobile technologies, are a significant part of our lives. Indeed, some 43 percent of adults live in a cellphone-only household, so it makes sense that we would use our phones frequently throughout the day. The Pew Research Center recently reported that 92 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone, and 90 percent of them claim that it is frequently with them. Whether that is a good thing or not seems up in the air. A number of researchers point to the pervasiveness of cellphones as a mechanism to drive us apart, while others claim, conversely, that they bring us closer together. No one can seem to decide. What’s more frustrating is where and when we think it is acceptable to use them.

    Three-quarters of smartphone owners claim it is appropriate to use a cellphone while walking down the street, on public transportation, or while waiting in line. Many of us have texted, emailed, or spoken on our phones in each of those situations, but according to Pew, over half of all Americans hear or see intimate details of other people’s lives while they are using their cellphone.

    While the ill-mannered use of a mobile phone in public can be infuriating, online rudeness is increasingly ending many friendships as well. Social networks can be unfriendly places. Polarizing discourse, uninformed opinions, and aggressive commentary are commonplace on many social platforms. In an effort to bring us together, social networks seemingly push us apart. Facebook, Twitter, and others give us an ability to broadcast our views and opinions in such an uncivil way that two in five social media users report ending a friendship over a virtual squabble. In a 2013 survey, corporate training firm VitalSmarts found that:

  • 76 percent of users have witnessed an argument over social media.
  • 19 percent of users have decreased in-person contact with someone because of something they said online.
  • 88 percent of users believe people are less polite on social media than in person.
  • 81 percent of users say the difficult or emotionally charged conversations they have held over social media remain unresolved.
  • “Social media platforms allow us to connect with others and strengthen relationships in ways that weren’t possible before. Sadly, they have also become the default forums for holding high-stakes conversations, blasting polarizing opinions and making statements with little regard for those within screen shot,” says Joseph Grenny, co-author of Crucial Conversations. “We struggle to speak candidly and respectfully in person, let alone through a forum that allows no immediate feedback or the opportunity to see how our words will affect others.”

    In a recent article, researchers studied the personality types of people who enjoy arguing online. Called trolls, these folks enjoy writing incendiary posts to inflame and intensify online conversations. According to the researchers, “cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism” and correlates positively with psychopathy.

    Sherry Turkle, MIT professor and author of Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, contends that we argue more online because we don’t see the physical reaction of the individuals we’re debating and, therefore, tend to dehumanize them. Turkle claims that when we post from a smartphone, we don’t feel like we’re doing anything of consequence. "You are publishing, but you don't feel like you are," she says. "So what if you say 'I hate you' on this tiny little thing? It's like a toy. It doesn't feel consequential."

    So where does this leave us? Many of us use our devices in ways that annoy and irritate others. We use them at unsuitable times to do inappropriate things. That’s not going to stop. But, as Turkle hints at, if we can make rude behavior consequential, if we can explain to people the outcome of their actions, we might stem the rise in offensive mobile phone conduct.

    The first step? Tell them they’re rude.


    Jason is Chief, Innovation for Thomson Reuters Special Services where he facilitates, oversees, and executes long-term solutions to emerging technology challenges. He works closely with governments, the private-sector, and non-governmental organizations to identify opportunities that will shape the future. The views expressed are his alone and do not necessarily represent the views of Thomson Reuters or Thomson Reuters Special Services.

    Big Think
    Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

    Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

    As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

    Keep reading Show less

    Essential financial life skills for 21st-century Americans

    Having these financial life skills can help you navigate challenging economic environments.

    Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash
    Personal Growth
    • Americans are swimming in increasingly higher amounts of debt, even the upper middle class.
    • For many, this burden can be alleviated by becoming familiar with some straightforward financial concepts.
    • Here's some essential financial life skills needed to ensure your economic wellbeing.
    Keep reading Show less

    New study finds the egg may actually 'choose' the Sperm

    Here's the first evidence to challenge the "fastest sperm" narrative.

    Keep reading Show less

    New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

    Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

    Surprising Science
    • The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
    • Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
    • These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.

    Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.

    A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.

    Rethinking humanity's origin story

    The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

    As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.

    David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.

    The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.

    Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"

    He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

    It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.

    "Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."

    Migrating out of Africa

    In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.

    Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.

    The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.

    The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.

    Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.

    Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.

    Did we head east or south of Eden?

    Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.

    Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.