One nice thing about being a "slow emailer" is that there's a big perceived difference between responding in 1 vs. 2 days, but a relatively small difference between responding in 1 vs. 2 months. Takes the pressure off old correspondence.
Conversation
It's something that'd vary enormously by role. I agree it's not something an investor or media person could generally do; I couldn't do it as part of a big team.
I'm sure some people get turned off by it, but in general I think it selects for the kind of correspondence I want.
1
3
Another related cost element I notice is that when I respond in (near-)realtime, I'm more likely to reply to low-effort/low-interest messages. But when those sit a few weeks, I'm more likely to shrug and archive or give a one-line answer.
Replying to
Huh. All of this suggests a delightful new kind of email client: one that runs a bunch of strategies in multi-armed bandit fashion on your senders, occasionally delaying things to see if you care that they were high-latency-the aim being to learn your revealed preferences.
2
3