I am not in agreement with this statement, but I can see where he is coming from. Perhaps he means, since it is easier to communicate people will say more and mean less. Or perhaps listen less to what is being communicated to them. I can see this very possible in today's mass media with blogs, microblogs, self news reporting like Reddit, social media outlets like Facebook, Google+, and linkedin. People can now post about mindless meaningless things such as how large that bowel movement was they had this morning, and even post a picture of it for all to see and comment on, or even 'like' if you are on facebook. But to take his statement from a very broad sense, we are communicating more. People read this stuff, people comment on our pointless facebook posts and hit that 'like' button. We enjoy the trivial one-liner posts that our friend from college posted. It helps us stay, or at least feel, connected to people we like and love. No longer do we need to sit down and write out a huge letter discussing an overview of what has gone on in our lives for the past six months in that family Christmas news letter. We can now get micro updates and single sentences that say, 'Jenny likes the new kitten toys at her local petsmart.' I can quickly glance at them at my work or school, in just a brief second I know, Jenny probably has a new kitten and just went to petsmart, she will also most likely upload new pictures of her new kitten playing with some new toys when she gets home. Then I can 'like' that comment or post something really quick. Now we are connected even if Jenny is 6,000 miles away. Perhaps Joseph Priestly was concerned about what was being said, and felt all communication needs to be profound? We do not always need or want everything to be profound. Sometimes we want the small trivial things which make up our daily lives.
I agree with the above statement, that we are in a broad spectrum, communicating more, because really we do have more means with which to do it. But on the same token, it doesn't necessarily mean that we are communicating "better." A big example is texting. We do it all day, everyday. But I imagine 80% or more of the time, it is used in lieu of a phone call. The same goes for email. We feel bolder, more confident when someone doesn't have to hear our voice or see our face. There are less consequences that way.Less awkward pauses. But the down fall of that is that a lot of the time, because we can't convey tone or emotion all that well in emails and texts, most statements can be taken the wrong way or just not understood at all. Despite this consequence though, it just seems to be easier to communicate quickly and electronically. Without voices or faces. Which explains the small panic attack when forced to order a pizza or call the cable company; wait I have to TALK to a human person!?. I do too see upsides in more communicative technology. Skype, for example is great. Being away from friends and loved ones for an extended period of time is hard on anyone. Having a way to not only speak to, but also look at them, is to me, amazing. Overall though, while communicating has more outlets, it is less personal. Things like a Face Book message instead of a letter is one that I've heard a few times. I think the last time I sent a hand-written letter to someone I was around 13. So, good, bad, personal and detached, I suppose it depends on how it's used.
Communication has changed during the last 15 or more years because of the rising popularity of the Internet. With it we can now enjoy the sharing of experiences by means of pictures, sound, video or text. Socially impaired people have found ways to overcome their so-called deficiencies through the use of social media and the ever growing internet. This has intertwined personal users and networks across the globe with the idea of growing and developing human communication to a new era. Programs such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc... have advanced our means to communicate with each other on inter-personal, group, and mass communications.
Yet, not everything in this new form of communication leads to positive results. Many people are slowly losing face to face human interaction. Younger generations prefer to use social media, where every post, tweet or message can be saved, viewed and/or morphed by others. The consequences of this never-ending sending and receiving of messages by countless users will continue to haunt the next generations because of the timeless thread of personal information tied to them. Our culture, in America, has grown quite accustomed with this new elaborate form of communication. Because of this it is vital for the public to understand the limits to our types of mass communication, and its capabilities.
There is more to the communicating process than just the exchange of information. While advancements in the methods in which we can deliver information have increased do to technology; communication appears to be less personal in nature. There is so much more to communication then just the exchange of information from one person to another. Yes, texting and email have their advantages and applications, but something is lost in the exchange. These methods are passive or linear as opposed to personal communication which is interactive and dynamic. Communication should include non-verbal actions, emotions, and in settings other than from behind the screen of an electronic device.
I believe this new form of so called comunication is slowly degrading the true sense of what communication is susposed to be in humans. My background as a fire investigator requires me to interview individuals to gather information in regards to an incident. I have found that some people 30 years old and younger find this increasingly more difficult to do as opposed to older interviewees. I suspect that this is due to the fact that this age group may deal with conflicts or uncomforable encounters by using electronic means instead of face to face. I have also noticed it as well with my own children that they seem to have diffculty in carrying on a inperson conversation that requires personal interaction skils. People must be able to communicate with each other in a manner that doesn't include hiding behind a screen and using a keyboard to relay their message.
I believe that nowadays, communicating has not the same meaning as it did before. I think that what this phrase means is that we are not exchanging words and that human interaction in conversation has been reduced to almost non-existent. I believe that with the invention of smartphones, social network pages, blogs and everything that is virtual we have left behind that important part of communication which is to have an actual conversation with someone who is infront of you. Even though I think these other virtual kinds of communication have made it easier to be in touch with someone who is in another country or just far away, I believe that we are loosing that human interaction. We are taking that as the most important thing and we are missing what we have infront of us. It is very difficult for me to enter to a coffee place such as Starbucks and see that half the people there, that are sitting with another person, are on their phones or tablets and completely ignoring who are they with. I think it is very important to retake this true way of communicating and start talking!!
I am not in agreement with this statement, but I can see where he is coming from. Perhaps he means, since it is easier to communicate people will say more and mean less. Or perhaps listen less to what is being communicated to them. I can see this very possible in today's mass media with blogs, microblogs, self news reporting like Reddit, social media outlets like Facebook, Google+, and linkedin. People can now post about mindless meaningless things such as how large that bowel movement was they had this morning, and even post a picture of it for all to see and comment on, or even 'like' if you are on facebook. But to take his statement from a very broad sense, we are communicating more. People read this stuff, people comment on our pointless facebook posts and hit that 'like' button. We enjoy the trivial one-liner posts that our friend from college posted. It helps us stay, or at least feel, connected to people we like and love. No longer do we need to sit down and write out a huge letter discussing an overview of what has gone on in our lives for the past six months in that family Christmas news letter. We can now get micro updates and single sentences that say, 'Jenny likes the new kitten toys at her local petsmart.' I can quickly glance at them at my work or school, in just a brief second I know, Jenny probably has a new kitten and just went to petsmart, she will also most likely upload new pictures of her new kitten playing with some new toys when she gets home. Then I can 'like' that comment or post something really quick. Now we are connected even if Jenny is 6,000 miles away. Perhaps Joseph Priestly was concerned about what was being said, and felt all communication needs to be profound? We do not always need or want everything to be profound. Sometimes we want the small trivial things which make up our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above statement, that we are in a broad spectrum, communicating more, because really we do have more means with which to do it. But on the same token, it doesn't necessarily mean that we are communicating "better." A big example is texting. We do it all day, everyday. But I imagine 80% or more of the time, it is used in lieu of a phone call. The same goes for email. We feel bolder, more confident when someone doesn't have to hear our voice or see our face. There are less consequences that way.Less awkward pauses. But the down fall of that is that a lot of the time, because we can't convey tone or emotion all that well in emails and texts, most statements can be taken the wrong way or just not understood at all. Despite this consequence though, it just seems to be easier to communicate quickly and electronically. Without voices or faces. Which explains the small panic attack when forced to order a pizza or call the cable company; wait I have to TALK to a human person!?.
ReplyDeleteI do too see upsides in more communicative technology. Skype, for example is great. Being away from friends and loved ones for an extended period of time is hard on anyone. Having a way to not only speak to, but also look at them, is to me, amazing. Overall though, while communicating has more outlets, it is less personal. Things like a Face Book message instead of a letter is one that I've heard a few times. I think the last time I sent a hand-written letter to someone I was around 13. So, good, bad, personal and detached, I suppose it depends on how it's used.
Communication has changed during the last 15 or more years because of the rising popularity of the Internet. With it we can now enjoy the sharing of experiences by means of pictures, sound, video or text. Socially impaired people have found ways to overcome their so-called deficiencies through the use of social media and the ever growing internet. This has intertwined personal users and networks across the globe with the idea of growing and developing human communication to a new era. Programs such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc... have advanced our means to communicate with each other on inter-personal, group, and mass communications.
ReplyDeleteYet, not everything in this new form of communication leads to positive results. Many people are slowly losing face to face human interaction. Younger generations prefer to use social media, where every post, tweet or message can be saved, viewed and/or morphed by others. The consequences of this never-ending sending and receiving of messages by countless users will continue to haunt the next generations because of the timeless thread of personal information tied to them. Our culture, in America, has grown quite accustomed with this new elaborate form of communication. Because of this it is vital for the public to understand the limits to our types of mass communication, and its capabilities.
There is more to the communicating process than just the exchange of information. While advancements in the methods in which we can deliver information have increased do to technology; communication appears to be less personal in nature. There is so much more to communication then just the exchange of information from one person to another. Yes, texting and email have their advantages and applications, but something is lost in the exchange. These methods are passive or linear as opposed to personal communication which is interactive and dynamic. Communication should include non-verbal actions, emotions, and in settings other than from behind the screen of an electronic device.
ReplyDeleteI believe this new form of so called comunication is slowly degrading the true sense of what communication is susposed to be in humans. My background as a fire investigator requires me to interview individuals to gather information in regards to an incident. I have found that some people 30 years old and younger find this increasingly more difficult to do as opposed to older interviewees. I suspect that this is due to the fact that this age group may deal with conflicts or uncomforable encounters by using electronic means instead of face to face. I have also noticed it as well with my own children that they seem to have diffculty in carrying on a inperson conversation that requires personal interaction skils. People must be able to communicate with each other in a manner that doesn't include hiding behind a screen and using a keyboard to relay their message.
I believe that nowadays, communicating has not the same meaning as it did before. I think that what this phrase means is that we are not exchanging words and that human interaction in conversation has been reduced to almost non-existent. I believe that with the invention of smartphones, social network pages, blogs and everything that is virtual we have left behind that important part of communication which is to have an actual conversation with someone who is infront of you. Even though I think these other virtual kinds of communication have made it easier to be in touch with someone who is in another country or just far away, I believe that we are loosing that human interaction. We are taking that as the most important thing and we are missing what we have infront of us. It is very difficult for me to enter to a coffee place such as Starbucks and see that half the people there, that are sitting with another person, are on their phones or tablets and completely ignoring who are they with. I think it is very important to retake this true way of communicating and start talking!!
ReplyDelete