Are Our Communications Killing Our Ability to Communicate?

Screen shot 2014-08-19 at 16.42.17

 

Crowd of One is an interesting book by John Henry Clippinger, a senior fellow at the Beckman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. One of the central thoughts of the book is that people only become themselves through their relationship with others. If we become isolated our growth becomes stunted. Critical to this thought is another, namely that technology is changing our territorial and psychological boundaries.

This point is picked up by Sherry Turkle at MIT who argues that: “what people mostly want from public spaces these days is to be left alone with their personal networks” and that a new “state of self” is now developing whereby people can transport themselves somewhere else at the touch off a button.

I think I’ve witnessed this first hand. First on holiday where numerous couples were sunbathing next to a swimming pool, each of them on some kind of portable electronic device. What were they doing? I have no idea but they certainly weren’t talking to each other. They were undoubtedly connected to something but I couldn’t tell you whether their ‘self’ was developing or not.

The second instance was when I took my brother’s kids to an indoor playground. Soon after I sat down a couple in their late twenties sat down next to me with a girl aged perhaps six years of age. The girl was dispatched into the safe play area and both parents took out Blackberries and proceeded to check email. They did this for over sixty minutes without once speaking to each other or acknowledging the presence of their small daughter. Again, they were certainly connected but to what and for what reason I’m not sure.

It’s the same at work. Ten or fifteen years ago people didn’t take calls in the middle of meetings. Today it’s commonplace. I was in a meeting with News Corp not so long ago when someone from their ad agency took a call and the rest of the room was put on hold for almost ten minutes until the call had ended. You can see this teleportation process in operation in countless restaurants too where couples are talking to each one minute and then divert to receiving phone calls or checking emails the next.

Back in the day this would have been considered rather rude and people would have switched these devices off or hidden them under the table. These days it’s just considered normal and these devices are proudly and openly on public display.

In short, we are becoming so tethered to our electronic devices that we never entirely switch off and escape from the presence of others. Now this may be a very good thing in terms of the development of individual identity, because we are constantly connected to other people, but I wonder what it’s doing to the quality of our thinking.

Firstly, our connectedness to others through digital networks means that a culture of rapid response has developed in which the speed of our response is sometimes considered more important than its substance. We shoot off email mails that are half thought out and long-term strategic thinking is constrained by a lack of proper thinking time. We are always responding to what’s urgent rather than what’s important. I could have probably put all that together a lot better but I’m pushed for time and really can’t be bothered.

This connectedness is constant but our full attention is only partial as a result. Linda Stone, an ex Microsoft researcher, coined the term Constant Partial Attention to describe the fact that we feel some kind of need to scan electronic and digital environments to ensure that we are not missing out on something more important. We don’t want to be left out of the loop. As a result, nobody feels secure enough to leave these electronic devices off for an hour during a meeting, let alone for a week when they are sitting next to a pool on holiday.

But it’s not necessarily speed that worries me. There is evidence from Malcolm Gladwell and others that many of our best decisions are made when we have little or no time to think. We can probably get away with this for a while, especially when the decisions that need to be made are fairly unimportant, but sooner or later I suspect our lack of aloneness and reflection will catch up with us.

We just don’t switch off, ever, which means we never truly create the time to properly reflect. We scroll through our days without thinking about what we are really doing or where we are ultimately going.

Lost Connection

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 12.32.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The world is more talkative now than at any time in its history, but this is increasingly at the expense of meaningful conversation. We are talking at rather than to each other, at least that’s the view of Sherry Turkle, a Professor at MIT’s Media Lab and author of the book Alone Together. Mobile devices, especially smart-phones, have invaded formerly quiet and/or private spaces and we appear to be spending more time looking downward (at screens) that outward (at each other or our environment). Friendship, even love, are being mediated through screens and the real world is increasingly being looked at second-hand and through filters.

In an article in the Huffington Post, the photographer Babycakes Romero points out that there is “symmetry” to individuals on mobile devices and that couples and even groups are: “locked simultaneously yet separately into the same action.” He also comments upon the: “sadness to the proceedings”. Some individuals remove themselves further, wearing headphones to cut out auditory distractions or virtual reality headsets to remove other people altogether.

To some extent we are now using smartphones and other devices much in the same way that we used to use cigarettes, to pass the time or to hide our social awkwardness, but perhaps it is the devices themselves that are causing this awkwardness. You might argue that in a culture dominated by individuals and personalization there is less common culture to talk about, or perhaps we are using our devices to hide our fundamental loneliness or insecurity. Hence our endless quest for validation and approval.

Our devices are certainly inducing silence, although we have simultaneously become less able to deal with it. We have lost, or we are losing, both the ability and the desire to be alone. Hence, mobile devices are providing an excise for people, especially couples, to withdraw rather than engage in conversation and to keep the world (and each other) at a controllable distance.

Whether or not there is an emerging etiquette regarding mobile device use is uncertain.

A few years ago the answer would have been no. But now some people are beginning to understand that the use of certain devices in certain situations is either rude or awkward. But these people remain an exception. Even using phones during funerals (“RIP, innit”) is not quite as frowned upon as it once was.

Another of Babycake Romero’s observations is that when people are engaged with a mobile device they don’t seem mentally present and are not enjoying the moment or other person for what it or they are. This is especially apparent in restaurants where the “dining dead” (his phrase) can hardly look at each other, such is the pull of the prospect of incoming information.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 12.37.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly what we are really saying here is that I like you, but that you could be trumped at any moment by something or someone else. This can hardly be good for our self-esteem so, in an ironic twist, we are more likely to turn to our mobile devices and cyberspace to satisfy our hunger for connection. An endless cycle of disconnection and connection.

A final, but important, point is that when we do present ourselves through mobile devices (and social media in particular) our identity is contrived. It is rarely the real us. Instead we use a fake identity that is consciously manipulated and manicured. Through our screens we appear happier, more optimistic and more successful than we really are. The nature of these on-screen conversations also favours showmanship and extroversion.

The end result is that our connections are partly based upon false information, but also that we end up believing our own false PR. This situation can endure for a long time, but at some point we will be inevitably be mugged by reality.

Images: Copyright Babycakes Romero (with thanks)

References: Huffington Post (UK), 27 October 2014, ‘Photographer Babycakes Romero caputures the death of dining’ due to smartphones’ (P. Bell). See also ‘The flight from conversation’ by S. Turkle, New York  Times (US) 21 April 2012. and ‘Saving the lost art of conversation’ by M. Garber, Atlantic Monthly (US) January 2014.

Are we confusing connectivity with communication?

IMG_0240

 

I’d like to talk about talking.

About six years ago I was in a restaurant at Bondi Beach. Just as the menus arrived so did a couple in their twenties. They were seated at the window table opposite and after about fifteen minutes the man brought out a box containing a ring and proposed. There were some tears, some kissing and some conversation, which went on for maybe two minutes.

Then there was a rather awkward silence and each reached for their mobile phone. The next hour or so, until the bill arrived, was spent frantically texting, telling friends and family the happy news, I presume.

I think we can excuse this couple, up to a point, but what really concerns me is the increasing numbers of people – husbands and wives, couples, friends and rooms full of strangers that use mobiles to hide from each other or prevent communication. You can see this everywhere – in cafes, on buses, at the beach, at conferences – and once you see it it’s very hard to stop seeing it.

It’s as though talking to someone, even someone we know very well, has become too difficult without digital filters or perhaps it’s that information about what’s happening elsewhere has created in us a fear of missing out, which means we are never fully present anywhere or with anyone.

In short, we are becoming ill at ease in the physical presence of other human beings and when we do communicate face to face with other people it is only with the tacit acknowledgement that our mobiles are left switched on and that any conversation may be interrupted at any moment.

This is fine on one level, but surely what we are saying here is that any device, or more specifically any information conveyed on that device, is more important than the person we are physically with, which can make us rather insecure.

In other words, while we believe that mobile devices facilitate connection, in reality they are doing the opposite. Modern communications are destroying meaningful communication. They are also isolating us from each other and the world at large. On trains and buses we no longer look out of the windows, but look down at our knees. Prams, which interestingly look outwards nowadays from the child’s perspective, are pushed by parents connected not with their child, who is right there in front of them, but with other people who are not.

I’m sure we are all familiar with the number of people worldwide that now own mobile devices. In the UK, almost 10% of five year olds now own a mobile phone. By age ten it’s 75%. But the word ‘phone’ is rather misleading.

Using a phone to speak to someone is becoming the exception. Globally, communicating via voice is falling through the floor, while communicating via data (text and pictures essentially) is going through the roof. Text became popular because it was cheap, but we soon worked out that text-based communication offered a greater level of control too.
We can choose when to respond to a text message or to totally ignore it.

Does this matter? I think that it does on some levels, because with text it’s very difficult to convey tone and even if you do pick up a phone to talk, it’s impossible to pick up on body language. Using something like Skype or Facetime can improve the situation slightly, but even here we can lose important elements of communication due to poor visual representation. According to some commentators, once we step away from physical face-to-face communication, we can lose as much as 90% of the clues that reveal the unspoken intentions or feelings of the other person.

So yes, we are communicating more than ever before, which is a good thing, but I wonder how much of substance is being said and, critically, how much is really being listened to or understood.

Left unchecked, this situation may result in a growth of major misunderstandings and mistakes. At the extreme, it might mean we all become increasingly fragile, nervous and insecure, partly because large parts of our identities will have been created externally by the affirmation and validation of others and will be subject to the whims of the weak ties found on our online networks.

I share therefore I am. Nobody has ‘liked’ my photographs, therefore I do not exist.

I think there are essentially three broad themes here.

The first, as I’ve said, has to do with how communicating by text in various forms is different to communicating face to face and may be resulting in a decline of empathy, an increase in fragility and the growth of misunderstanding.

Don’t get me wrong. I text. I email. I Skype. All of these technologies are very useful, but in my view, all should only be used to enhance, not replace, face to face communication and relationships.

The second theme has to do with interruption. We have somehow become uncomfortable with ourselves and others to the point where we can never be alone long enough to dig deep into our souls due to various flashes, vibrations, beeps, pings and rings.

Why might this be so? How can it be that a brief two-line text can be more alluring than the person seated opposite in a fancy restaurant in Bondi, the one with whom you plan to share the rest of your life?

I think the answer has to do with our Stone Age brains.

When we receive messages or mail someone is thinking about us. We feel important, wanted or at least feel as though we exist.We also feel good about ourselves because each tiny communication is accompanied by an attachment in the form of a shot of dopamine, which as you probably know, is a pleasure chemical released by the brain to reward certain kinds of behaviour. And guess what? The dopamine system is most powerfully stimulated when the information coming in is a bit of a tease, modest enough to intrigue, but not large enough to satisfy.

Also, when we receive information through our mobile devices it’s essentially unpredictable, which is again alluring. If we knew the character of a tweet or text in advance, it obviously wouldn’t be interesting. It’s as though every incoming update or message is the sequel to the best TV series we’ve ever seen and we still don’t know how it ends. Hardly surprising, in this context, that a company built on 140 characters or less can be worth $27 billion.

The third theme, and it’s intimately connected with the first two, is thinking.

Clearly we are becoming very good at finding things very fast. To have the world’s information at our fingertips is a wonderful thing. It’s become easier to share things, especially ideas and information. I’m excited about this. The prospects of increasing collaboration, not only in science, but in politics, media and just about everything else is a wonderful development.

But my worry is deep thinking.

Screens, as I’ve said, are great for finding, filtering and evolving things, but I think the price we are paying for this is the erosion of sustained, focused, contextual and reflective thought. In other words, deep thinking.

Part of the problem here is simply finding enough quiet time to really think. Another is finding inputs that are original. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of information around and some is original. But because we are in a constant rush, we end up doing what’s most convenient, which is looking in the same place, which is page one of Google results.

Using an internet search to look up the telephone number of Icebergs restaurant in Bondi is absolutely fine, but if we are trying to increase the sum of all human knowledge then surely we shouldn’t all be looking in the same place. If it’s that easy, don’t do it.

 

We need to talk – but we no longer do

Last century the invention of the telephone created a revolution in how people communicated with each other, although it was initially marketed as being exclusively a business tool. Fast-forward to the present day and people are starting to hang up. The use of telephones (landlines, mobiles and smart-phones) to make or receive phone calls is trending rapidly downwards, both at home and at work.

Why is simple. Teens discovered some time ago that communicating by text is far cheaper than making voice calls. But it’s less awkward as well. Text based communications can be controlled more easily and can be ignored too. Voice calls, in contrast, can be awkward and intrusive. Text is therefore perfectly suited to a society where everyone is in a rush and wants to communicate instantly, but nobody has the time to listen attentively to what anyone else is saying.

Voice suits meaningful conversation whereas text facilitates superficial connection. I should immediately point out that I am aware that you are reading this as text, but my response is that it’s not text per se that’s the issue. Rather it’s the fact that text is becoming so dominant and that the ways in which it is now delivered encourages an instant response rather than thoughtful questioning, analysis or reflection.

As to where things will go next it’s anyone’s call. For example, how do you convey tone with text and how do you pass on important information when your message gets caught up with things that are trivial and mundane? It’s difficult, which partly explains why text communication tends to be so focussed and why people increasingly text to ask if it’s ‘OK to call?’

The reality is that we will do more and more by text or email, but I suspect that we will soon start to realise that we need to offset some of the negative consequences. One solution could be text-based.

One of the biggest issues surrounding our use of digital devices is that our conversations are becoming mediated and meaning is therefore becoming diluted. Text tends not to reveal our true feelings, whereas social networks tempt us to massage our identities. Neither is reality. 

A recent study revealed that the happiest people tend to be those that engage in deep conversation, so perhaps it’s time for us to stop telling the world how and where we are and to start asking the world, who are you?

Perhaps we can do this by text, but I suspect that it would be done much better by voice, and ideally, in person. If we used our mobiles less, we’d talk more.

Typewriters vs. Computers

I like this (from Ryan Adams, the songwriter/musician).

“Your critical mind is an interrupter of your inspired true self. If you are daydreaming and you are in that zone, you have the 300-mile gaze, stuff is coming through, it’s like a scroll. It’s like dictation, it’s an act of faith, it’s like letting myself feel it. On a typewriter, it’s below chest level; you are looking through and beyond the dimension of the page.

On a computer, you will never not look at the screen. You will always follow the cursor. It’s a trap. You are a cat and your computer is a f—ing laser pointer, and you are just following your own trial.”

Daily Telegraph 4 September 2014 (page 25)

Idea of the month

Screen shot 2014-08-20 at 17.03.53

 

 

 

 

This is interesting. Text streaming technology. Not sure if I want to do it, but it’s certainly radical. Interesting implications for libraries, publishing, education and, of course, reading.

What is it? The company explains it this way:

“The time consuming part of reading lies mainly in the actual eye movements from word to word and sentence to sentence. In addition, traditional reading simply takes up a lot of physical space. Spritz solves both of these problems. First, your eyes do not have to move from word to word or around the page that you’re reading. In fact, there’s no longer a page – with Spritz you only need 13 total characters to show all of your content. Fast streaming of text is easier and more comfortable for the reader, especially when reading areas become smaller.”

Thanks to Luke who put me onto this.

http://www.spritzinc.com/

“Hell is other people” (Jean-Paul Sartre)

Screen shot 2014-07-24 at 09.31.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was going to save this for my Web Sight (sic) of the month in my brainmail newsletter, but it’s just too (LOL) good to wait. Sent in by Matt Doyle in Robertson, Australia. I think we can all assume this will feature in my next book too. Link here. Explanation below.

“Sometimes, everybody needs a break from everybody. Enter Avoid Humans—a web-based app that combs data from Foursquare and Instagram check-ins, giving you the nearest places in your area with the least amount of humans. The app is divided into four categories-nightlife, food, coffee and refuge—and each location is color coded to indicate the current level of human presence.”