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.

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.

 

The Tyranny of PowerPoint

Screen shot 2014-10-01 at 17.36.08

I’ve reached the end of my template. I’m bored stupid with PowerPoint. Various people have said they are now using Keynote, but this seems like a similar punishment. Interestingly, I did a speech in Brussels a while back and didn’t use anything. Neither did the two speakers before me.

The problem is twofold. With PowerPoint the audience has to make a choice between reading the slides and listening to the speaker. You cannot properly do both. For the speaker the issue is between following the audience and the slides. More problematically, when you are writing a PowerPoint presentation the logic of your argument is fragmented by the need to switch from one slide to another.

Contrast this to writing something with word (or whatever). If all you have is a blank screen or a white sheet of paper you are forced to think about what it is you are trying to say and you tend you end up with a single idea or argument that flows across the page and even onto the next page without interruption.

Why have I suddenly thought about this? Because I’ve recently done a couple of lectures using Power Point and it was fairly obvious that the audiences were not listening. This was probably a good thing because I wasn’t paying much attention either. Power Point is too easy and as a result you become lazy.

Death to Power Point.

Slow media

Screen shot 2014-06-30 at 08.46.10

Writing in my book Future Minds, which was published in 2010, I stated that a “Slow Thinking Movement will emerge, with people celebrating slow reading, slow writing and other forms of old-fashioned paper-based communication.” (Page 171). Seems that it’s here already. First there’s Delayed Gratification, a slow journalism magazine, which is like The Week, but slower and which takes it’s cues not from the previous week’s news but from the previous month’s reflections. Now I see British Airways has announced that passengers bored with the latest Hollywood movie can watch a train journey from Bergen in Norway to Oslo, second by second for a full seven hours. It’ called “Slow TV.”

Slightly reminds me of the VHS tapes that you could buy in the 1990s that ‘played’ a fish tank or a crackling log fire.

So what else that’s fast could we make slow? How about a slow sex movement?

Thinking about thinking

I’ve got an after-dinner speech coming up at a Cambridge college, but the audience are Chinese and my 20-minute talk has to be translated. This means that after I say something I pause whilst it is repeated in Mandarin. This means I actually have 10 minutes to explain what I think is going to happen to the world over the next 50 years. Anyway, the funny thing is that I’ve spent the best part of a week trying to write 2 pages, all to no effect. But this morning I started at 8.30am, drank 2 coffees and 2 cups of tea (Yorkshire blend) and managed to do it in 35 minutes.

Why might this be so?

The reason, I think, is that one of the biggest problems with solving problems is that people give up too soon. We think about things, we think some more, and then quit – because nothing appears to be happening or because the process is frustrating.

Idea or solution generation tends to proceed through three clear stages. The first stage is education, the second stage is incubation and the final stage is illumination. The first stage is deeply demanding. You need to think, a lot. You need to be become conscious of the issues and become sensitive to the broader context. In short you need to become receptive and focus your attention on the problem at hand. Personally I believe that relaxation (a sense of mental calm and physical quiet) is essential during this stage, although I am aware that other people would disagree with me on this.

The second stage is then deeply unnerving, largely because it doesn’t obviously exist or because we cannot directly control it. However, to think that nothing is happening would be a giant mistake. It’s just that all of the work occurs in your unconscious so it appears as though nothing is going on. Eventually something will pop into your head, usually unannounced, and at this point the flow of ideas can often turn into a flood, when all of the individual elements start coming together.

Or it could just be the caffeine.

Screens Vs Paper (and comprehension)

IMG_1636

 

I’ve just (almost) completed some scenarios for the future of gaming so I’m back in the office scribbling like a demon. The latest scribble is a map of emerging technologies and it occurs to me that I am never happier than when I’ve got a sharp pencil in my hand and a large sheet of white paper stretching out in front of me.

Thinking of this, there was an excellent piece this time last year (22/29 December 2012) in the New Scientist on the power of doodles. Freud, apparently, thought that doodles were a back door into the psyche (of course he did – a carrot was never a carrot, right). Meanwhile, a study by Capital University suggests that the complexity of a doodle is not correlated in any way with how distracted a person is. Indeed, doodling can support concentration and improve memory and understanding. Phew.

While I’m on the subject of paper by the way, there’s an excellent paper on why the brain prefers paper in Scientific American (issue of November 2013). Here are a few choice quotes:

“Whether they realise it or not, people often approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conductive to learning than the one they bring to paper.”

“In recent research by Karin James of Indiana University Bloomington, the reading circuits of five-year-old children crackled with activity when they practiced writing letters by hand, but not when they typed letters on a keyboard.”

“Screens sometimes impair comprehension precisely because they distort peoples’ sense of place in a text.”

“Students who had read study material on a screen relied much more on remembering than knowing.”

Don’t just do something, sit there

While I’m on the subject of digital detox (previous post), a few of you might have school age kids on holiday at the moment. Chances are you are frantic trying to organise things for the little darlings to do. Don’t. Read this instead.

Boredom is beautiful. Rumination is the prelude to creation. Not only is doing nothing one of life’s few remaining luxuries, it is also a state of mind that allows us to let go of the external world and explore what’s deep inside our head. But you can’t do this if ten people keep sending you messages about what they are eating for lunch or commenting on the cut of your new suit. Reflection creates clarity. It is a “prelude to engagement of the imagination,” according to Dr. Edward Hallowell, author of Crazy Busy. It is a useful human emotion and one that has historically driven deep insight.

Boredom hurts at first, but once you get through the mental anguish you can see things in their proper context or sometimes in a new light. Digital technology, and mobile technology in particular, appears to negate this. If you are trying to solve a problem it is now far too easy to become digitally distracted and move on. But if you persist, you might just find what you’ve been looking for. So don’t just do something after you’ve read this chapter, sit and think for a while.

Faced with nothing, you invent new ways of doing something. This is how most artists think when faced with a blank canvas. Historically, children have operated like this too. They moan and groan that they are bored, but eventually they find something to do—by themselves. Boredom is a catalyst for creative thought. Only these days it mostly isn’t. We don’t allow our children the time or the space to drift and dream. According to the UK Office of National Statistics, 45 percent of children under 16 spend just 2 percent of their time alone. Moreover, the amount of free time available to schoolchildren (after going to school, doing home- work, sleeping, and eating) has declined from 45 to 25 percent. Children are scheduled, organised, and outsourced to the point where they never have what New York University Professor Jerome Wakefield calls a chance to “know themselves.” It’s the same with adults. Our minds are rarely scrubbed and dust builds up to the point where we can’t see things properly.

Not only is it difficult to become bored, we can’t even keep still long enough to do one thing properly. Multitasking is killing deep thinking. Leo Chalupa, an ophthalmologist and neurobiologist at the University of California (Davis), claims that the demands of multitasking and the barrage of aural and visual information (and disinformation) are producing long-lasting and potentially permanent damage to our brains. A related idea is constant partial attention (CPA). Linda Stone, who has worked at both Apple and Microsoft Research Labs, knows about how high-tech devices influence human behaviour. She coined the term CPA to describe how individuals continually scan the digital environment for opportunities and threats. Keeping up with the latest information becomes addictive and people get bored in its absence.

In a sense this isn’t anything new. We were all doing this 40,000 years ago on the savannah, tucking into freshly killed meat while keeping keeping a look out for predators. But digitisation plus connectivity has increased the amount of information it’s now possible to consume to the extent that out attention is now fragmented all of the time. This isn’t always a bad thing, as Stone points out. It’s merely a strategy to deal with certain kinds of activity or information.

However, our attention is finite and we can’t be in hyper-alert, “fight-or-flight” mode 24/7. Constant alertness is stressful to body and mind and it is important to switch off, or at least reduce, some of the incoming information from time to time. As Carl Honoré, author of In Praise of Slow, says: “Instead of think- ing deeply, or letting an idea simmer in the back of the mind, our instinct is now to reach for the nearest sound bite.” We relax by cramming even more information into our heads.

Chalupa’s radical idea is that every year people should be encouraged to spend a whole day doing absolutely nothing. No human contact whatsoever. No conversation, no telephone calls, no email, no instant messaging, no books, no newspapers, no magazines, no television, no radio, and no music. No contact with people or the products of other human minds, be it written, spoken, or recorded.

Have you ever done nothing for 24 hours? Try it. It will do your head in for a while. Total solitude, silence, or lack of mental distraction destroys your sense of self. Time becomes meaning- less and recent memories start to disappear. There is a feeling of being removed from everything while being deeply connected to everything in the universe. It is fantastic and frightening all at the same time. But don’t worry, you soon feel normal again. Return to sensory overload and deep questions about a unifying principle for the universe soon disappear, to be replaced by important questions about what you’re going to eat for dinner tonight or how you’re going to find that missing Word file.

Consider what Bill Gates used to do. Twice a year for 15 years the world’s then richest man would take himself off to a secret waterfront hideaway for a seven-day stretch of seclusion. The ritual and the agenda of Bill’s think weeks were always the same: to ponder the future and to come up with a few ideas to shake up Microsoft. In his case this involved reading matter but no people. Given that Gates has been instrumental in the design of modern office life, it’s interesting that he felt the need to get away physically; one would expect him to inhabit a virtual world instead.

I once received a brief from the strategy director of a FTSE 100 company who wanted to take his team away to do some thinking. When I suggested that we should do just that—go away for a few days, read some books, think, and then discuss what we’d read— he thought I’d lost my mind. Why? Because there was “no process.” There were no milestones, stage gates, or concrete deliverables against which he could measure his investment.

The point of the exercise is this. Solitude (like boredom) stimulates the mind in ways that you cannot imagine unless you’ve experienced it. Solitude reveals the real you, which is perhaps why so many people are so afraid of it. Empty spaces terrify people, especially those with nothing between their ears.

But being alone and having nothing to think about allows your mind to refresh itself. Why not discover the benefits of boredom for yourself?

Thinking outside the box

This is fun. In a study of the physical embodiment of metaphors conducted by Angela K.-y. Leung of Singapore Management University, people who literally sat “outside the box”—a box made of cardboard and plastic pipe – produced 32% better answers to a test than people sitting inside the box.

Source: HBR/ Embodied Metaphors and Creative “Acts”