technology sometimes detrimental to our families, social lives

[bcbm]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-technology-detrimental-families-social.html

[William Howe]

Of course it can be detrimental. Computers can make you go blind, TVs can take family togetherness away, video games can make you a shut-in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And cannabis turns you into a psychotic serial killer. I mean, seriously. Sounds like yet another scaremongering work about how some new and/or little understood pursuit (in this case, consumer electronics) is destroying the happy, harmonious, socially-approved nuclear family that, in all honesty, never really existed in the first place - it's a fiction created by the effect of older people being overwhelmed by the changes that have occurred and looking back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles.

Does anybody here seriously think that if Facebook and texting had never existed, that the people who shut themselves away to pursue such activities would not find some other excuse to avoid social contact?

[bcbm]

um the article isn't about "people who shut themselves away," did you read it? judging by the "sounds like..." in your post, i'm going to guess not... looking at some of the consequences of new technologies on social interaction isn't "scaremongering"

[gorillafuck]

I'm by no means hostile towards technology but I don't like the uncritical approach to technology that some people here have. I'm saying that as someone who has somewhat of an internet addiction, btw.

[Ocean Seal]

And cannabis turns you into a psychotic serial killer. I mean, seriously. Sounds like yet another scaremongering work about how some new and/or little understood pursuit (in this case, consumer electronics) is destroying the happy, harmonious, socially-approved nuclear family that, in all honesty, never really existed in the first place - it's a fiction created by the effect of older people being overwhelmed by the changes that have occurred and looking back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles.

Does anybody here seriously think that if Facebook and texting had never existed, that the people who shut themselves away to pursue such activities would not find some other excuse to avoid social contact?
The irony is that you see them as viewing the world through their rose-tinted spectacles, but technological growth does have its disadvantages. It shouldn't be feared, and the answer isn't to go back to the past, but the answer is to address the issues of now. Increased technology does have its drawbacks, and in refusing to accept them, merely causes them to become larger.
Its like saying that asbestos doesn't hurt anyone because of the fact that it can save lives by keeping people warm. It was a new technology a while back, but its use should have been closely monitored. An uncritical approach does a lot of damage in the long run, and its sad to see an uncritical approach on revleft.
Moving forward with technology is always a positive and necessary thing, forgetting that every new stage in technological development has its growing pains is always a negative thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The irony is that you see them as viewing the world through their rose-tinted spectacles, but technological growth does have its disadvantages. It shouldn't be feared, and the answer isn't to go back to the past, but the answer is to address the issues of now. Increased technology does have its drawbacks, and in refusing to accept them, merely causes them to become larger.

Is the problem due to the technology, or are people turning to technology as they do to drugs? I think it's also important to establish why people appear to be increasingly choosing to mediate their social reactions through technological means. Perhaps people desire a greater sense of control in an increasingly hectic world? Deeper socio-economic reasons have not been ruled out.


Its like saying that asbestos doesn't hurt anyone because of the fact that it can save lives by keeping people warm. It was a new technology a while back, but its use should have been closely monitored. An uncritical approach does a lot of damage in the long run, and its sad to see an uncritical approach on revleft.

The dangers of asbestos are obvious to anyone with a microscope:

http://1.2.3.13/bmi/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Ferruginous_body.jpg/529px-Ferruginous_body.jpg


Moving forward with technology is always a positive and necessary thing, forgetting that every new stage in technological development has its growing pains is always a negative thing.

But it hasn't been established that technology is the culprit here.

[kitsune]

The thing to remember is that the same technology that can be used to increase isolation and alienation can be used to increase connection and involvement. It's misuse reveals an underlying flaw in society. The question is not "why is this technology isolating people" but "why are so many people using a technology that could bring them together in a way that isolates them?"

[Ocean Seal]

Is the problem due to the technology, or are people turning to technology as they do to drugs? I think it's also important to establish why people appear to be increasingly choosing to mediate their social reactions through technological means. Perhaps people desire a greater sense of control in an increasingly hectic world? Deeper socio-economic reasons have not been ruled out.



The dangers of asbestos are obvious to anyone with a microscope:

http://1.2.3.13/bmi/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Ferruginous_body.jpg/529px-Ferruginous_body.jpg



But it hasn't been established that technology is the culprit here.
Right it is the misuse of technology, that breeds isolation and problems like this. However, the misuse of technology comes as a result of mismanagement of technology. I wouldn't argue that a faster internet speed or an increased number of transistors is the cause of isolation. And yes, there are socio-economic ties that go into this, but technology can't be exempt from blame. We should look at increased isolation as something which deters a greater social conscience, and we should present that while new technology can prove useful, everything should be done in moderation, and that in all cases there is a trade-off. All I'm saying is that if there is a problem, we shouldn't turn away from it, instead acknowledging it is the first step. Whether or not the problem is a direct result of technology, it is enabled by technology and we should try working towards fixing it.

[bcbm]

i didn't think the idea that technology, especially social technology, might have social impacts was particularly controversial.

[Dr Mindbender]

I have the internet to thank for my marriage, so in my case its hardly been detrimental to my family.

[Vanguard1917]

Does anybody here seriously think that if Facebook and texting had never existed, that the people who shut themselves away to pursue such activities would not find some other excuse to avoid social contact?


Exactly. Blaming the internet for people being socially reclusive is akin to blaming guns for gun crime. A lifeless object is ascribed powers which apparently override real-life social causes.

[Dimentio]

It is ultimately a personal choice to have a computer or a TV. If you don't want to have it, don't have it. No one is going to force you.

[bcbm]

Exactly. Blaming the internet for people being socially reclusive is akin to blaming guns for gun crime. A lifeless object is ascribed powers which apparently override real-life social causes.

so where did anyone do that?

[Rafiq]

Since when do we care about Family morals?

[bcbm]

i give up

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

so where did anyone do that?

The very first sentence of the linked article calls upon the reader to keep an eye out for those lazy shiftless yobs who happen to be looking at their phones instead of their children - it's quite obvious that technology itself is the focus of the article, rather than the social forces that drive its use.

[bcbm]

comparing the article to the language you use, i'd say you're the one scaremongering here. the article is mild, goes out of its way to point out that the author is not against technology and, indeed, recognizes many benefits to a connected world, while you're trying at every step to paint it as demonizing technology users and using incredibly biased language that doesn't fit the tone of the article at all:

"widespread rethinking of the way we use cutting-edge technology"
"the use of technology is shaping social norms, rather than the other way around"

not that technology is the devil and destroying all of our lives, but that technology seems to be having an impact on our society and its social functions and that this is worth examining and rethinking. the worst it says is basically "if you can't partake in activity because you're too involved with texting, get a grip," which is hardly calling anyone a "lazy shiftless yob." and yes an article about a book about technology is mainly about technology, not social forces. hardly a shock. but i'd be happy to read some articles you have to offer on the subject?

and my point in the bit you quote was that the article isn't even about being "socially reclusive." if technology isn't the culprit than what exactly is there to fear from looking at how technology impacts our social lives? how is critically examining developing technologies the huge scaremongering judgmental smear campaign you conjure up?

[Hexen]

The article is pure pseudoscience (and obviously reactionary) crap.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

comparing the article to the language you use, i'd say you're the one scaremongering here. the article is mild, goes out of its way to point out that the author is not against technology and, indeed, recognizes many benefits to a connected world, while you're trying at every step to paint it as demonizing technology users and using incredibly biased language that doesn't fit the tone of the article at all:

Read between the lines. First impressions count, after all, and the article was not written by the author of the book discussed. I've no reason to be suspicious of Turkle's intentions. But a scholarly study of the interaction between society and technology makes for boring headlines. So I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Dizikes played up the negative aspects for good copy.


not that technology is the devil and destroying all of our lives, but that technology seems to be having an impact on our society and its social functions and that this is worth examining and rethinking. the worst it says is basically "if you can't partake in activity because you're too involved with texting, get a grip," which is hardly calling anyone a "lazy shiftless yob." and yes an article about a book about technology is mainly about technology, not social forces. hardly a shock. but i'd be happy to read some articles you have to offer on the subject?

It's a common trope of reactionary hack journalism to "focus on the family". We are given anecdotes (all negative) about the effects of technology, rather than a sample of any data that Turkle gathered. For example, it's not discussed how representative Turkle's 450 subjects are. Without knowing that, no meaningful discussion can be had on the significance of the findings. But then, a simple breakdown would have required research, something that journalists are notoriously allergic to these days.


and my point in the bit you quote was that the article isn't even about being "socially reclusive." if technology isn't the culprit than what exactly is there to fear from looking at how technology impacts our social lives? how is critically examining developing technologies the huge scaremongering judgmental smear campaign you conjure up?

Because in this case, the "critical examination" appears to be taking place from a bourgeois perspective, and the ruling class wastes no opportunity to moralise at the peons.

[Dimentio]

I don't understand what the big deal is. If you don't like technology, you could form a community with another level of technology or no technology whatsoever. As long as you don't try to forcefully stop others to live as they choose, it's alright.

[Hexen]

Because in this case, the "critical examination" appears to be taking place from a bourgeois perspective, and the ruling class wastes no opportunity to moralise at the peons.

It's also the same tactic that feudalism used the "Seven Deadly Sins" and the "Seven Heavenly Virtues" to scare people from enjoying life which this is just a secularized version of it.

The basic translation of this is basically "Now get the fuck back to work slave or else...!".

[Fabrizio]

It is ultimately a personal choice to have a computer or a TV. If you don't want to have it, don't have it. No one is going to force you.

This is a bit simplistic. It's a competitive system. Try getting a decent job now if you don't have regular email access. The guy who made use of technology will get it instead. To this extent we aren't in charge of the pace of technological advance, rather slaves to it.

Not that I am complaining - as a whole I am of the communication age, and take it with its drawbacks rather than not at all, as I couldn't now live without email, cheap flights and the video of the monkey that scratches his ass, smells it and faints. But still, it's a treadmill we aren't in control of and you have to keep running to not fall off - that's bound to have psychological damage on people.

[Ravachol]

I don't understand what the big deal is. If you don't like technology, you could form a community with another level of technology or no technology whatsoever. As long as you don't try to forcefully stop others to live as they choose, it's alright.

This is ridiculous. We might as well say 'if you don't like capitalism, you could form a community which isn't capitalist as long as you don't try to forcefully stop capitalism from functioning elsewhere'. :rolleyes:

What I don't get is the starry-eyed celebration of technology for the sake of it on here. Honestly, to me it seems some people are so addicted to their iPads, 100Mbit connection and flatscreens that they sing 'hail to the king' for everything that's got a least one bloody IC on it.

This discussion has been had over and over again but meh. Technology isn't an abstract, idealist construct. It's a material process originating in real existing social instutitions. Technology is the body of knowledge and artifacts produced by the plethora of social institutions, from private research labs to public universities, existing under Capital's dominance. All of these institutions exist firmly within the framework of Capital's logic and as such produce according to principles and goals within this framework. Research that benefits these goals, from the increased accumulation/circulation of Capital to techniques of social domination, observation and crowd control to the endless stream of consumer ever-slicker artifacts with high sign values within commodity society, all of this is produced with certain intentions and set goals. None of this is neutral. This doesn't mean that every piece of technology starting from stone hammers is some kind of original sin but it does mean that the process of development isn't a 'neutral' process.

The consequence of this is that we shouldn't embrace every technology uncritically as 'the next step towards the singularity' or whatever. It means we should observe and treat the often bitter fruits of technology as all terrain arround us, as shaped by Capital. This goes for stuff like urban design as well. For example, after the revolt of the Paris Commune, Paris was redesigned to have broader roads which were easier to access for artillery and cavelery regiments. The development of roads of this kind in Paris was thus guided by a certain need and people ought to be aware of that at that given moment in time. All terrain around us has insurgent potential, as I said in other threads, technology can be used for our own benefits but this often involves a radically different application of the artifacts and technology around us.

Also, people should really get over the 'enlightenment' and 'progress'. Honestly...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is a bit simplistic. It's a competitive system. Try getting a decent job now if you don't have regular email access. The guy who made use of technology will get it instead. To this extent we aren't in charge of the pace of technological advance, rather slaves to it.

Don't you have computers with internet access available for use in public libraries where you live? You don't have to have a BlackBerry or even a net-connected computer at home in order to apply for jobs posted online.

Besides, if one wants to live like the Amish, I doubt one would be applying for the kind of jobs one finds online.


Not that I am complaining - as a whole I am of the communication age, and take it with its drawbacks rather than not at all, as I couldn't now live without email, cheap flights and the video of the monkey that scratches his ass, smells it and faints. But still, it's a treadmill we aren't in control of and you have to keep running to not fall off - that's bound to have psychological damage on people.

Maybe it's different where you are, but the only significant negative social effect is that the older generations are being left behind by the rapid evolution of consumer technology, and hence some of them don't have a clue how to send an email or remove viruses from their computer.


Also, people should really get over the 'enlightenment' and 'progress'. Honestly...

Missing feudalism, are we?

[Dimentio]

Sadly, since the 1970's, anti-technology focus has been more usual on the left than on the right.

[Jazzratt]

Going back briefly to the article, it makes a massive song and dance at the beginning about texting, which is quite a bizarre one to focus on: yes, maybe they're more distant from their family but they're evidently closer to someone. I can't say I find it all that distressing.

Also 450 people seems like a very slim group to be the basis for so many wild conclusions.


Sadly, since the 1970's, anti-technology focus has been more usual on the left than on the right. To the detriment, I think, of the left.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Going back briefly to the article, it makes a massive song and dance at the beginning about texting, which is quite a bizarre one to focus on: yes, maybe they're more distant from their family but they're evidently closer to someone. I can't say I find it all that distressing.

Ah but you see, texting someone isn't a face-to-face interaction, as if that somehow makes them superior (sure, you can see the expression on their face, but you're also within arm's reach if they want to harm you), and of course teenagers, a lot of whom can be taller than their parents, are all powerless to interrupt them or simply too proud to, because hey, teenagers are all sulking collections of ego, right?

[Ravachol]

Missing feudalism, are we?

Biggest logical fallacy so far.. But continue, please.

Honestly you guys keep on repeating "You're just anti-technology" like the mantra of a madman in the middle of a delirium. I'm not 'anti-technology', far from it. I'm just highly critical of ALL development under Capitalism, whether social or technological. But it seems the boner some people on here have for large collections of ICs is in the way of seeing the specific social structures that shape the form and content of technology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Biggest logical fallacy so far.. But continue, please.

Honestly you guys keep on repeating "You're just anti-technology" like the mantra of a madman in the middle of a delirium. I'm not 'anti-technology', far from it. I'm just highly critical of ALL development under Capitalism, whether social or technological. But it seems the boner some people on here have for large collections of ICs is in the way of seeing the specific social structures that shape the form and content of technology.

I accused you of yearning for the bad old days, not "hating technology". Not the same thing.

[Omi]

He is not yearning for the bad old days or something. This isn't mentioned in anything Ravachol posted in this thread.

The point is, Capitalism is an inclusive system. Technology and science is part of it's functioning. To reject every criticism on the current state of technological and scientific advancement on the basis that it always results in some sort of primitivist position is just wrong. I agree that the article in the OP is lacking scientific foundation, but the way science is portrayed as some sort of holy beacon of reason and neutrality within this capitalist wasteland is playing into the hands of the ''capitalism is progress'' crowd. It's a dangerous position.

We must analyse and examine every aspect of modern society in order to really overthrow this system. This also means examining where knowledge comes from and how it reinforces power relations already present within capitalism. This in no way means we should reject science, knowledge or technology in any way.

[Ravachol]

He is not yearning for the bad old days or something. This isn't mentioned in anything Ravachol posted in this thread.

The point is, Capitalism is an inclusive system. Technology and science is part of it's functioning. To reject every criticism on the current state of technological and scientific advancement on the basis that it always results in some sort of primitivist position is just wrong. I agree that the article in the OP is lacking scientific foundation, but the way science is portrayed as some sort of holy beacon of reason and neutrality within this capitalist wasteland is playing into the hands of the ''capitalism is progress'' crowd. It's a dangerous position.

We must analyse and examine every aspect of modern society in order to really overthrow this system. This also means examining where knowledge comes from and how it reinforces power relations already present within capitalism. This in no way means we should reject science, knowledge or technology in any way.

This, a thousand times this.

Also, NoXion, it would be nice if you didn't resort to strawmen and replied to the actual content of my post instead. Nowhere did I say or imply I yearned for 'ye olde days' or whatever.

When I say 'get over progress already' I mean we should critically examine 'progress'. The very word implies a qualitative advance for the better while the real-existing material and social processes underlying progress under Capitalism usually aren't 'advances for the better' with respect to our goal.

[bcbm]

Read between the lines. First impressions count, after all, and the article was not written by the author of the book discussed. I've no reason to be suspicious of Turkle's intentions. But a scholarly study of the interaction between society and technology makes for boring headlines. So I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Dizikes played up the negative aspects for good copy.

my first impression wasn't that they were calling them yobs, but asking readers to take another look at something that would normally be glanced over. and even if the negative aspects are played up, they still exist.


It's a common trope of reactionary hack journalism to "focus on the family". We are given anecdotes (all negative) about the effects of technology, rather than a sample of any data that Turkle gathered. For example, it's not discussed how representative Turkle's 450 subjects are. Without knowing that, no meaningful discussion can be had on the significance of the findings. But then, a simple breakdown would have required research, something that journalists are notoriously allergic to these days.

well i wasn't posting the article to talk about the article, but what the article is talking about- the contents and conclusions of the book/author.


Because in this case, the "critical examination" appears to be taking place from a bourgeois perspective, and the ruling class wastes no opportunity to moralise at the peons.

yeah there's a real rush to stop the peons from buying iphones and laptops


texting someone isn't a face-to-face interaction, as if that somehow makes them superior

at least 60 to 70 percent of communication is done through nonverbal means, so face to face interaction does have a little bit of "superiority" over texting, yes.

[bcbm]

related articles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/22/social-networking-cyber-scepticism-twitter

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-24/romancing-robots-may-not-turn-out-to-be-such-a-great-idea-after-all-books.html

[ZeroNowhere]

We must analyse and examine every aspect of modern society in order to really overthrow this system.'We' aren't going to overthrow this system.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that the research in the OP has much to do with capitalism. I would hope that communism doesn't increase face-to-face interaction, we already have too much of that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He is not yearning for the bad old days or something. This isn't mentioned in anything Ravachol posted in this thread.

The point is, Capitalism is an inclusive system. Technology and science is part of it's functioning. To reject every criticism on the current state of technological and scientific advancement on the basis that it always results in some sort of primitivist position is just wrong. I agree that the article in the OP is lacking scientific foundation, but the way science is portrayed as some sort of holy beacon of reason and neutrality within this capitalist wasteland is playing into the hands of the ''capitalism is progress'' crowd. It's a dangerous position.

We must analyse and examine every aspect of modern society in order to really overthrow this system. This also means examining where knowledge comes from and how it reinforces power relations already present within capitalism. This in no way means we should reject science, knowledge or technology in any way.

How is this different from "accept science/technology/knowledge, but only insofar as it doesn't contradict my political beliefs"?


my first impression wasn't that they were calling them yobs, but asking readers to take another look at something that would normally be glanced over. and even if the negative aspects are played up, they still exist.

But do they exist to a large enough degree in a large enough segment of the population to be a salient issue? We don't know, because we are told next to nothing of the data gathered.


yeah there's a real rush to stop the peons from buying iphones and laptops

The vast majority of them can't afford the damn things anyway, so it's no great loss if they don't get ideas above their station, so to speak.


at least 60 to 70 percent of communication is done through nonverbal means, so face to face interaction does have a little bit of "superiority" over texting, yes.

People are generally just as capable of dissembling or hiding their true feelings through body language (in addition to the fact that some are terrible readers of same), so where's the "superiority"?

[bcbm]

But do they exist to a large enough degree in a large enough segment of the population to be a salient issue? We don't know, because we are told next to nothing of the data gathered.

must not be worth talking about then


The vast majority of them can't afford the damn things anyway, so it's no great loss if they don't get ideas above their station, so to speak.

i think you're reading far too much into this


People are generally just as capable of dissembling or hiding their true feelings through body language (in addition to the fact that some are terrible readers of same), so where's the "superiority"?

doesn't really address the issue at all, unless you think everybody is always "dissembling or hiding their true feelings" in most day to day interactions? nonverbal expression is a significant part of our communication as a species, sorry. if you read one of the other links i just posted, they talk about how robots designed to give comfort rely on a lot of these nonverbal ques to do their "job." if they could just as easily be texting, don't you think they'd do that first?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

must not be worth talking about then

Maybe it is, but there's not a hell of a lot to go on without reliable data.


doesn't really address the issue at all, unless you think everybody is always "dissembling or hiding their true feelings" in most day to day interactions?

You'd be surprised.


nonverbal expression is a significant part of our communication as a species, sorry. if you read one of the other links i just posted, they talk about how robots designed to give comfort rely on a lot of these nonverbal ques to do their "job." if they could just as easily be texting, don't you think they'd do that first?

Comforting someone is only partly about communication. Indeed, someone may comfort themselves in ways that don't involve another human being, which would make the issue of communication moot. In fact, those robots prove my point because they're not even sentient, thus they cannot communicate anything original - producing the right signals (that is, non-verbal cues that are comforting) doesn't require any understanding on the part of the signal-emitter.

[bcbm]

Maybe it is, but there's not a hell of a lot to go on without reliable data.

i think its odd to focus this discussion around "well this article about a book doesn't have enough research"


You'd be surprised.

maybe i'm a weirdo, but i generally don't do that. and even if its true, it still shows that it is an important part of human communication.


Comforting someone is only partly about communication. Indeed, someone may comfort themselves in ways that don't involve another human being, which would make the issue of communication moot. In fact, those robots prove my point because they're not even sentient, thus they cannot communicate anything original - producing the right signals (that is, non-verbal cues that are comforting) doesn't require any understanding on the part of the signal-emitter.

i don't think it proves your point at all. they're still programmed to mimic human nonverbal cues, showing the importance of these to humans. even if the robot doesn't know why or what its doing, they are still being interpreted by the human as familiar communicate cues.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think its odd to focus this discussion around "well this article about a book doesn't have enough research"

I think it's even odder to disregard the importance of reliable data in sociological discourse, and to instead rely on shitty articles as conversation starters.


maybe i'm a weirdo, but i generally don't do that. and even if its true, it still shows that it is an important part of human communication.

How so?


i don't think it proves your point at all. they're still programmed to mimic human nonverbal cues, showing the importance of these to humans. even if the robot doesn't know why or what its doing, they are still being interpreted by the human as familiar communicate cues.

Important to the act of comforting yes, but it's a leap of logic to extend that to any and all communication.

[bcbm]

I think it's even odder to disregard the importance of reliable data in sociological discourse, and to instead rely on shitty articles as conversation starters.

i thought the article effectively introduced the book and some of its contents and offered a few questions that seemed like good conversation starters. i already pointed out a few of these and they still seem worth talking about instead of whether this qualifies as a sufficiently scholarly work to be worthy of your time (especially since you're spending so much to talk about how it sucks).


How so?

even if we're acting different than what we feel, we're still communicating nonverbally and of course this isn't always done effectively, which communicates more, etc.


Important to the act of comforting yes, but it's a leap of logic to extend that to any and all communication.

considering that its all face to face communication, not just the act of comforting, that involves a significant degree of nonverbal communication, i don't think there is much of a leap at all.

[Fabrizio]

[QUOTE]Don't you have computers with internet access available for use in public libraries where you live? You don't have to have a BlackBerry or even a net-connected computer at home in order to apply for jobs posted online.

The point stands - we're forced to be dependent on such technology because it becomes the only way most business will be done.



Besides, if one wants to live like the Amish, I doubt one would be applying for the kind of jobs one finds online.


Who said anything about living like the Amish? Maybe a thing called "balance" would be nice...


Ah but you see, texting someone isn't a face-to-face interaction, as if that somehow makes them superior

Well they are superior, clearly. If you have the chance to talk face to face to someone I'm guessing you don't text them (well I don't, and it's not because of the cost because I have free texts!:tt1:)

Most communciation between people is body langauge, tone and expression, so yes clearly face-to-face communication is superior, you could say it's the only form of full human itneraction. Obviously texting is good when that isn't possible, but if people are choosing virtual interaction to face-to-face then it probably isn't good for them.

[Jazzratt]

Most communciation between people is body langauge, tone and expression, so yes clearly face-to-face communication is superior, you could say it's the only form of full human itneraction. It's only "superior" if you want to convey an emotion. Conveying information doesn't require that one grasps the tone or body language in the communication - it's irrelevant. Face-to-face communication is only "superior" when judged by some arbitrary standard. I think it's quite silly to be making value judgements about a communication method based on things like this.


Obviously texting is good when that isn't possible, but if people are choosing virtual interaction to face-to-face then it probably isn't good for them. The thing is that the article doesn't mention people choosing virtual over face-to-face with like subjects. The mention is of people "ignoring" their family in order to communicate virtually, presumably with people they wouldn't otherwise be communicating at all. That's just coming back to moralising at the peons again: the only reason to be annoyed with these people is if you have to immediately assume they have to be more attached to communicating with their teenaged children than their like-aged friends. Or is it now the left's job to start throat-clutching over the breakdown of the family.