I don't like to have e.g. a walking meeting for a discussion that I would like to be able to reference later. Memory is way too lossy of a format to rely on. Yet people just feel better about in-person meetings, phone calls etc. - where means of recording are usually medium, unless you literally record the audio. This is the case even in situations where the relationship is well-established, friendly and interaction repeating - so with little reason to worry about misunderstandings or personal offenses taken.
It's costly to the collective because it stifles coordination, especially if it's not just a 1-1 relationship but exchange has to include 3+ people across various media.
Is this really just because meetings make people feel better? How malleable is this preference?
Does waiting on answers make them anxious otherwise? And people just haven't learned to deal with notifications sustainably?
Or are people (unconsciously) so much into ambiguity that they prefer all parties involved to have altered memories of statements within minutes? Allows more room for political manoeuvres or reinterpretation in a way that is less costly to the individual?
Or is this purely cultural?
Am I underestimating the barrier that writing poses to many?
Who's writing about/researching this?