(1) There seems to be a curious perception that doing some task on a computer (esp. when it is a mobile device) constitutes ‘busying oneself with/interacting with the material object (that I see)’ rather than ‘doing some task (which one I do not know)’.
For example recently after a meeting a colleague commented on me ‘playing around with my iPad’. If I had taken my notes using other tools, he’d hardly have commented on me ‘playing around with a ballpoint pen and a block of paper’.
Or, some time ago my SO asked me to ‘stop busying myself with my iPad and start planning our trip’. If I had a printed rail timetable in my hands rather than planning the trip online she wouldn’t had said that.
So, doing something with a computer is perceived by others as interacting with the computer while I perceive it as interacting with the task.
(2) For a lot of tasks nowadays you can access reasonably reliable information online (if you choose the right method), or you can access outdated information and uninformed speculation face to face.
(3) Humans are social animals, true. We need a degree of social interaction. Often nowadays we get much too much of a good thing. I need leisurely conversation, at a pace suited to me, with people who are valued members of my social network, at occasions where I am not stressed by having to meet an inflexible schedule. What I don’t need is stressful interaction with strangers, conversation with people who don’t want to have a conversation but talktalktalk instead, etc. Even for people who I like to communicate with, time-delayed communication methods such as e-mail, texts etc. can set a less stressful pace.
Just because we want to interact in person with some people doesn’t mean we want to with everyone. Phones and computers are often used to avoid the social interactions we don’t really value.
Of course, they are also used to have more of the social interactions we do value. Even a shy person who uses the computer to talk to people is probably interacting with more people than they would have without a computer. They may be avoiding in-person contact, but they would have done that anyways, viewing any interaction they had to have as less desirable.
The Washington Post quote does sound tongue-in-cheek. But, even if you entertain the idea, I don’t agree with the premise.
In many cases, technology helps facilitate live contact, or at least more social contact of any kind. We use it to easily set up gatherings and meetings. The fact that you need to physically reach someone to have live contact can be limiting, so the freedom to send text, voice, or video to someone remote enables a lot of (non-live) social contact that otherwise wouldn’t be happening. I think that’s humanity’s drive for social interaction being fulfilled, not suppressed, by technology.
I don’t think it supplants human contact often, and even if it does, it’s not often driven by the thought “I don’t want to talk to someone or ask someone” but rather the idea that it’s exceptionally faster to find an answer quickly on the internet.
I think it’s a mistake to lump together in person interaction and talking on the phone. Of course, everyone alive today has grown up with phone conversations as part of their life. Texting is much newer - a life long option for young people and a relatively new development for older people.
But humans have been communicating for so much longer than telephones have existed. It’s a very new technology on a human history scale. It makes complete sense to me that as telecommunications develop, we’re realizing there are more and more situations where we don’t like making voice calls.
In other words, maybe a loud ringing sound followed by a conversation you’re not expecting or prepared for isn’t a great form of live contact after all, and it’s only natural it’s being sidelined.
Talking to people is hard work for me. I’m just not great with speaking off the cuff. People ask you a question and they want you to say something right away. And they don’t want to hear a bunch of stammering and hesitation. Plus, it’s hard to multitask while you’re talking to someone on the phone. People have a way of being long-winded and BORING. This can seriously suck if you’re the type of person who cares about social etiquette.
I agree. Phone calls can be so intrusive. They ring and demand that the person I am calling drop everything, RIGHT NOWWW!!! But a text can be received and answered at a time convenient to them. I am on the phone at work, all day, everyday. When I am at home, I don’t answer calls. You want to reach me? Text. Or hit me up on facebook. Or YIM. Or Skype. It’s not unplugging from my community. It’s unplugging from stress.
“Social Animal” means different things depending on which animal you’re talking about. Mice are social, colony animals for example. They like to sleep in a big pile with their brothers and sisters, even when they’re grown. For bonobos, “social” means “I greet my brothers, sisters, parents, best friends and anyone else who looks friendly by fondling their genitals.” For dogs, it means butt-sniffing.
I think just because many humans would prefer to text rather than talk on the phone or leave a voicemail, it doesn’t contradict being a social animal. Most humans would feel neurotic and isolated if they went days, months or years without contact (face to face or online) of any kind with another human. That makes us social, I think. A solitary animal is just fine and dandy if it meets others of its kind to mate once a year or so, then be off on its own way alone again.
It’s also worth noting that, while we evolved to be social animals, we also evolved in groups of only a dozen or so individuals, not in massive gatherings of a million or more people. People have been developing coping mechanisms for living in over crowded environments since the first real estate sign went up in Ur. Zeroing in on an iPhone to ignore the thousands of people around you is just the latest version of it.