When did it become so normal to use so much technology?

[Daft]

That's probably the best thing you've ever posted. 10/10 - would Thank again.

[Diageo]

Meaningful interactions are ones with people you care about that involve talking, making eye contact, touching each other, reacting to real stimuli presented from genuine human interaction. These things tell you more about another person, more about what they are genuinely feeling, what they feel for you and allow you to immerse yourself in a real world interaction.

 

I can tell far more about a person's actual feelings by observing their body language, eye movement and facial expressions than I ever could from a line of text on Facebook or in an IM.

 

I think you can have interactions with other people that you can find meaningful without many or all of those things. It's all dependent on where a person finds meaning and importance. You can't say that is important for everyone. Just because you get more information doesn't mean it's more meaningful, it makes it richer in information and quicker in the exchange of information, doesn't make it more meaningful unless that is specifically where you find meaning.

 

And are you saying if someone gives you a line of text very eloquently describing their thoughts and feelings, and then you saw a tape of them saying those things on mute, you would get more from the tape? Because while it can be the case sometimes, it won't be all the time.

 

 

 

Physical relationships are meaningful, they complete you. Taking things a step further with someone you love or care for - holding their hand in the park, putting your arm around them when they are sad, cuddling them on a cold day or feeling their lips pressed against yours on a romantic evening.

 

These are all good, healthy and natural things. Things that make you alive. Sat behind a computer you can't have this level of interaction.

 

Sure those are great things, but you can still partake in healthy and engaging activities that make you feel alive through video calls and such. If they want to interact with just technology, that's their choice. Maybe they have a very good reason to, maybe they don't. Doesn't make them unhealthy. Also whether it's natural or not means nothing.

 

 

Some time ago family units were strong. They sat around the dinner table and held conversations. They talked about their day, what they had done, what they achieved. Strong family units are strengthened further by getting to know one another, by learning about what each other goes through and by conversing in a more meaningful form. To suggest that the increasingly 'broken' family unit where a family will all sit together in the same room barely uttering a word to one another is a good thing is nonsense.

 

What is the point of being close to someone if you are actual miles apart - just sat there physically but mentally in your own world?

What about when families sat around just watching TV and not talking to each other, or when they all sat around reading books without talking to each other, or when they watched a play without talking to each other. Family interaction is the problem, not the fact they have technology. Parents could use the technology to engage and interact with their children, but they don't. The problem is with the people not trying to interact with each other, which they could both online and offline.

 

A family could be just as strong if they posted what happened to them in a forum, commented regularly and supported each other. It's an interaction problem not a technology problem.

 

Technology has the power to enrich our lives. But instead for many it is doing the opposite. It is replacing the deep and meaningful interactions that make us feel human with the vain and pointless pursuits of 'social networking', 'selfies' and false personas people adopt on the internet.

 

In turn this makes us less connected and for some less able to connect. It causes a type of withdrawal where people live in their own world or private fantasies that they project to hundreds of 'anonymous' followers.

It's doing the opposite because of the way they interact with it. We need to teach people how to use technology appropriately and positively. Not say technology is the problem. The problem is not that we have too much technology, it's that people either don't know how to use it positively or get enjoyment out of using it negatively.

 

Does posting selfies make us less connected. You really need to cite something to make a statement like this. I don't care if you think it's common sense. Humans have been vain all their lives, technology just makes it easier to see those people.

 

I don't need to cite some great scientific text as a source for this. You see it everywhere. Couples who have to conduct their entire relationships through Facebook as if they are starring in their own subpar version of Hollyoaks. Friends sat in a bar all tapping on phones rather than talking to each other. People who believe they are 'in a relationship' with someone they've never even met but have chatted to online. It's all pathetic and deeply removed from healthy and natural relationships.

 

You may not think so, but when you make these sweeping generalisations that people are worse off in so many ways because of their habits with technology then yes you do. What if a study said that people in online relationships have fewer disputes, and were happier as a whole? Would you just discount it because your anecdotal evidence says otherwise? If you're gonna say that something is detrimental to society as a whole, you'll need something to back that up.

 

Sure some people overuse technology in a detrimental way, everything falls on a bell curve. Too much meaningful social interaction can be bad too. People sometimes say you shouldn't live with your friends because you'll get sick of them from seeing them too much.

 

I agree that not interacting with other people is detrimental. I agree that overuse of technology is detrimental. What I don't agree with is for you to say that all people should interact more and that technology is used too much overall. Those statements need a lot of references to be said to be true.

 

I also disagree with the opinion that seeing individuals interacting with technology instead of each other on one occasion is detrimental to the people involved. Just because they don't interact with their family at dinner because they are on their phone doesn't mean they don't interact with their family at all or don't get enough human interaction. Especially amongst teenagers, not wanting to hang out with parents has occurred well before the dawn of smartphones and computers.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Diageo

[MoogleViper]

What about when families sat around just watching TV and not talking to each other, or when they all sat around reading books without talking to each other, or when they watched a play without talking to each other. Family interaction is the problem, not the fact they have technology. Parents could use the technology to engage and interact with their children, but they don't. The problem is with the people not trying to interact with each other, which they could both online and offline.

 

Well people, society and the media did (and still do) complain about families sitting around the television. In fact there have been studies that show that children from families who don't have a sit-down family meal, without the television, are less successful in life that those that all sit around the table conversing.

 

As for the books/plays reference, that's just ridiculous. There's never been a case of families reading so much that they barely interact with each other.

 

And as for the play comment. Do you think families used to have plays staged in their dining room? Or maybe they had their family meals in the theatre?

[Kav]

@Diageo I don't mean this is any mock way and I'm not trying to cause offence or a dispute but I'd like to ask because I just want to know, do you honestly believe what you've posted?

 

I just can't see how one would. @Zechs Merquise is completely right here!

[Diageo]

Well people, society and the media did (and still do) complain about families sitting around the television. In fact there have been studies that show that children from families who don't have a sit-down family meal, without the television, are less successful in life that those that all sit around the table conversing.

 

As for the books/plays reference, that's just ridiculous. There's never been a case of families reading so much that they barely interact with each other.

 

And as for the play comment. Do you think families used to have plays staged in their dining room? Or maybe they had their family meals in the theatre?

 

Well that's correlational study, which doesn't show that television causes less success, just that families that tend not to watch television during meals also tend to be more successful. But you could say it's because the family was close in the first place, that they didn't feel the need to watch tv. The TV is a symptom and not the cause.

 

Doesn't have to be at home, if they go to a theatre to watch a play, they're not expected to talk, both because of other people but also because they're watching a form of entertainment. TV watching is also a form of entertainment, doesn't mean they have to talk during it.

 

And yes KAV I do believe what I'm saying. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion.

 

Here's the main thing I have a problem with. People are saying that families aren't interacting because of technology, that people aren't interacting with their friends because of technology. But you can't say that. If you don't get on well with your parents and don't want to talk to them already, you might play a lot of video games. If your parents don't try to engage with their child's interests but instead talk about Mary down the road, then the child will want to watch TV instead of talk. It's not necessary that technology is causing people to be anti social, but people are using technology because it's more engaging than the social interaction they would have.

 

The other problem I have is that people are saying that seeing couples on their phone, or friends on their phone, is a bad thing. But that's not necessarily true. While on this occasion those people aren't having enough of what you call meaningful interaction, it doesn't mean that they don't get enough meaningful interaction in their day to day life. People don't need to be having only meaningful interactions wit their friends, as long as they have an amount that satisfies them it's fine.

 

Also relationships are just emotional associations between people. People can have emotional associations through video calls, and they might even meet once in a while. But even if they don't, who are you to say their connection isn't real, their relationship isn't real just because there's no physical contact. Relationships aren't just about physical contact. It might not be the best relationship but it's still a relationship.

[Kav]

There's nothing more to add from what Zechs said, he said it perfectly. I'm just at a loss as to how you can view things like that... I can't have anything to add because I'm so lost for words. Do you not get the meaning in the feeling of physical touch?

 

I just, yeah, I'm at a loss.

[Diageo]

That's a very tiny facet of the whole conversation that you're focusing on. All I said was that an online relationship, good or not, is still a relationship. It may eventually turn into a physical relationship, it may not. This point was me just being pedantic about what you call a relationship.

 

But let's say you a homosexual living in a country where they'll kill you for being physical with another homosexual. All they can do then is have an online relationship. It might not be the optimal but it's the best they've got and they still get support and affection, it's still a relationship.

 

Do you think I'm saying that people should only have online relationships because if so, you're clearly not reading what I'm saying.

[Josh64]

It's not bad just checking your phone every now and then, but I'll agree that if you're out with someone and they spend loads of time on their phones it can be annoying. I spend as little time as possible on my phone if I have company, even if it means not responding to a text right away (which I don't think is a bad thing either, but people can get so funny if I take a few hours to respond to a text which is probably a good example of people being too hooked on technology).

 

But I'll agree that I probably use technology too much, which has good and bad effects. Take work for example, right now I hate every aspect of it, so on my breaks I tend to sit by myself and get lost in my phone. This is good in a sense because it takes me out of my shitty situation but in a way, it just makes me even more disconnected from the workplace and the people I work with and in the long run is probably having a much worse effect on me.

 

Like anything, it's all about how much you use it and how often. On a whole, obviously technology is a good thing, I've met some of the best people through the internet (and a lot of cases on this very forum) but it's all about how and when you use it.

[jayseven]

In my own life I have found that I've been in situations where someone has asked me "how's your day been?" over an after-work pint, and as soon as they finish wording the question they peer to their screens and tap and swipe away. This means one of two things. Either they don't really care about the response, or there is something more pressing and important on their little device.

 

I've been there -- talking to someone then the girlfriend texts me or the landlord or the boss. But I am able to verbally enter my communicante into the contract of life and say "hey sorry I gotta take this" -- so this sort of behaviour is not part of my problem, as anyone with a good sense of manners will not merely assume the other parties know that they NEED to check their phone.

 

Alternatively, as shorty said, they ask the question but don't actually give a crap about the answer (or, to expand on his point - someone is wattling on far too much and, by checking one's phone, one hopes to signal a distinct lack of interest and/or attention in the current 'topic' that the speaker is droling on about), in which case why ask at all?

 

There's a complete smorgasboard of situations that we have all endured and accidentally created thanks to technology. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing -- just that we are still learning the boundaries of social and/or moral acceptable behaviour in relation to it. The moral code of the dining table is practically written in stone - fork in the left hand, elbows off the table, don't burp in people's faces (I hold my fork in the other hand and generally eat off my lap or out of a cardboard box, so we agree it varies) but the point is that technology forces us to change, and the immediate response is that this is a bad thing. It is not. But some people just have an innate inability to be polite or courteous - and even without a phone in their hand I think they'd still find a way to act disinterested in what one is talking about, accidentally or otherwise.

 

Rather than lamenting for the way that things were, why not see the present in a different light. The way everyone behaves today will be the subject of pretty much all of the next generation's jokes - so get ahead of the curve and lol at the moment as it passes. No point fighting technology!

[Marcamillian]

One thing I do worry about with the rise in connectivity in the world. The ability to find groups of people just like you.

 

This is no doubt an amazing thing but I fear that the power of finding people that validate your own world view is all too tempting. As Diageo says - its not technology itself that is doing the damage but it does change the choices we can make.

 

Sitting at home with your family watching TV you either talked to them or you didn't. It was less the case with single landlines in a home but with text/instant messaging on personal devices you have the third option of talking to your friends instead. People that more closely share your interests will be more appealing, I would imagine, to less communication with the people you live with / your family.

 

Beyond the family example - I worry that having the option to talk to people who you already identify with, not inherently because it isn't direct personal contact but by the greater choice afforded by technology, will make people less comfortable in talking with people they don't identify with. This could lead to poor conflict management (see: the internet) and generally a less interesting life by way of the fact that you arn't exposed to as many points of view.