digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at northwestern.edu

Rational or Random? Model Shows How People Send E-Mail

northwestern.edu — Do people act rationally, responding to the most important emails first? Or do they send emails randomly, without any regard to efficiency? After studying emails sent and received from more than 3000 accounts during a 3 month period, a mathematical model was created that shows people send email randomly, but in cycles. How do you respond to emails?

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 20, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

43 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+23im pretty sure i respond to the least important emails first
  • prefixmag, on 11/20/2008, -1/+22In general the longer the email is that I receive, the longer I take to respond.
  • NeoCortex, on 11/20/2008, -1/+21This isn't the kind of model I was hoping to see.
  • FirstDigg, on 11/20/2008, -2/+17The full study is published here, but the journal charges $10 to view it
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/11/18/08003 ...

    Abstract

    Patterns of deliberate human activity and behavior are of utmost importance in areas as diverse as disease spread, resource allocation, and emergency response. Because of its widespread availability and use, e-mail correspondence provides an attractive proxy for studying human activity. Recently, it was reported that the probability density for the inter-event time τ between consecutively sent e-mails decays asymptotically as τ−α, with α ≈ 1. The slower-than-exponential decay of the inter-event time distribution suggests that deliberate human activity is inherently non-Poissonian. Here, we demonstrate that the approximate power-law scaling of the inter-event time distribution is a consequence of circadian and weekly cycles of human activity. We propose a cascading nonhomogeneous Poisson process that explicitly integrates these periodic patterns in activity with an individual's tendency to continue participating in an activity. Using standard statistical techniques, we show that our model is consistent with the empirical data. Our findings may also provide insight into the origins of heavy-tailed distributions in other complex systems.
  • thelastcivilian, on 11/20/2008, -1/+12Here's what you need to know: "The answer, it turned out, was fairly simple: People don’t send e-mails when they are sleeping."

    Science. Ain't it beautiful?
  • Apophis574, on 11/20/2008, -0/+9LOL, at first I pictured a model in a bikini sitting at a computer demonstrating how to respond to e-mails. Then I read "mathematical model."
  • MajorDamage, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8In another case of making numbers say anything you want, this guy assumes that his method is the most efficient. And then goes about proving people don't do thinks the way he says. And got paid for it. SCORE!

    How hard would it be to think of a situation where a very important message comes in that gets you upset. You then answer other messages first so your emotions don't get the best of you and you write an intelligent message, rather than a rant, which would then spark more messages. How hard would that be to imagine ... oh wait...I just did.

    As it turns out, inter-personal communication is more complex than this guys abacus.
  • inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9I just get distracted and watch youtube videos :)
  • saejinn, on 11/20/2008, -2/+9Buried for not showing the model.
  • letuescarpe, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7This guy's big revelation is that people send more emails while at work?!? What an epiphany.
  • FadieZ, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Second article today which has me scratching my head as to how it ended up on the front page. This is what I got out of it until I stopped reading:

    -People don't send emails when they're sleeping
    -People send emails less often when they aren't working

    And I care why?
  • Smokeydabear, on 11/20/2008, -1/+6I just ***** respond to them, what difference does it make?
  • iconnor, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Or you can wait 6 months for the open access rules to kick in and read it for free:

    http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/journalinfo?qNum= ...
  • stephenmeb, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4utterly pointless/useless, science is ashamed
  • Splasm, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4So the scientist who said people respond to emails randomly was wrong, and this says that people send emails randomly, but only when they're awake? Students' tuition going to a good cause, obviously.
  • ruggerbear, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4That's like saying I only use my headlights when I'm in my car.
  • tonicboy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Actually I pictured a slutty school teacher bent over in front of a blackboard. TMI?
  • chaoswings, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Really? I thought most people responded to friends first and business second each more or less done in the order they were received.

    Also the article is confusing it rambles on in circles on a paradox saying people send e-mails randomly yet they do not.
  • TekTrixter, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2@tonicboy not TMI, please continue...
  • skjalff, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2this dude is a useless waste of students' tuition
  • pirategonzo, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2When they say a Model is going to show... (insert whatever)... I want to see a hot chic showing me something.
  • donkevin, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2So you pictured a model in a bikini and glasses (or with a calculator) sitting at a computer demonstrating how to respond to e-mails.
  • jerrod73, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Great Summation.
  • inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Who gives a flying *****.
  • Dustmuffins, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2ALL THE WORDS I CAN'T READ OH GOD HELP!
  • jrackow, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I was going to reply something similar. But was going to guess that since it was talking about human behavior being inherently non-Poissonian, that it (Poissonian) meant: to act like a fish.
  • stevenjchang, on 11/20/2008, -2/+3WTF
    reading this article made me stupider
  • d03boy, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2I respond to emails in this order
    1) I will respond to any emails right away that take little to no thought/time, just to mark them off my list
    2) I will respond to important/time consuming emails that I can handle quickest
  • leerayIG88, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1wow..you are hot. Counter-Strike grad from NYU? ....You are my perfect! =D
  • ibid49, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1People don't send emails randomly, your model is just too simplistic to fathom the pattern. If people sent emails randomly, it could occur at any point during the day, most likely interrupting something else you were do
  • jrackow, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I liked the part where he talked about when people are sleeping they don't send emails. Really great article. And then when they get to work, they do send emails. I think that sounds true.
  • StanDevia, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1The study is referring to the Poisson distribution, named after Siméon-Denis Poisson.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
  • Midorita, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1This won my Capt. Obvious Article award for the day.

    Congratulations, dear professor. You win nothing.
  • TheStrongForce, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Way to go Northwestern with the Quality Research.
  • StanDevia, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I'm wondering if "Luis A.N. Amaral" referred to in this study is the same "Luis A. (Amaral) Afonso" (aka "Licas", aka "The Moderator Destroyer") who posts/trolls regularly to the sci.stat.math Usenet group: http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.stat.math/to ...

    Circa 2006 the Usenet "Luis A. Afonso" and another statistician, Robert F. Ling (aka "Reef Fish"), engaged in some legendary flame wars in that newsgroup.
  • harmonicsgalore, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1I somehow feel that when I blog, I blog in cycles. There's either a spurt of activity or none. It applies to my emails too.
  • knowmad23, on 11/20/2008, -0/+0And also comming up, Why water is wet, and people are dumb.
  • Kzoo, on 11/21/2008, -0/+0I couldn't see the point of reading the whole article. Why is sending emails when you have time random? Isn't it more efficient to send email when you have time instead of sending it when you're busy on something? And why, exactly, is responding to the most important email first automatically efficient? Also, reading is not the same as replying, and as others have pointed out the ones that take the least thought are gotten out of the way quickly, where ones that are in depth and/or bring up strong emotions might be better left for after one has had some time to think about it. I think we need a sociologist and/or psychologist to do this study, rather than a bio/chemical engineer.
  • inactive, on 11/30/2008, -0/+0This goes to show why communicating via e-mail can be so frustrating. Despite all of its conveniences, it still leaves much to be desired in terms of etiquette and responsiveness. There are few established norms in terms of when and how to reply to a message, and people like me who tend to respond within 24 hours are prone to grow frustrated with those who take days or weeks. None of this research is too surprising, but it's funny that e-mail has been ubiquitous for more than a decade, yet there is little in the way of social or professional protocol.
  • rwf2010, on 11/20/2008, -2/+2hahaha..."poisson" means "fish" in French.
  • Sisyphus9, on 11/20/2008, -1/+0Interesting. Could be my statistics term project...
  • jpinsk, on 11/20/2008, -7/+2comment buried for word count > 30

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.