Have Smartphones Killed the Art of Conversation? (theguardian.com) 78
An anonymous reader shares a report: Not quite, but it's certainly more than a blip in the cultural history of communication: in 2017, for the first time, the number of voice calls -- remember, those things you did with your actual voice on your actual phone -- fell in the UK. Meanwhile, internet addiction keeps growing, presumably because we haven't quite worked out what to do with all those hours we're saving on talking.
More than three-quarters (78%) of British adults own a smartphone, and we check them on average every 12 minutes. That adds up to 24 hours a week online via our phones -- much of that time swallowed up by modern-style chat on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, with some left over for texting. It has taken a toll on talking, sure, but few smartphone users might claim to feel less connected as a result.
Now, the idea of ringing someone for "a chat" has a quaint, retro quality. I can, and will, talk you under the table, but phone calls are a luxury usually reserved for about five people: my mum, my sister, two best friends and my editor, obviously. Even then, I'm rubbish at picking up. Much is made about smartphones leading to dumber conversation -- amid claims that the art of chatter has been lost. Arguably, however, conversation has simply been rebooted and reconfigured. Take the myriad ways in which we can and do communicate now. It's a given that I will spend an embarrassing portion of my day glued to a screen (It's work!) and much of that will be chatting (again, it's work!).
More than three-quarters (78%) of British adults own a smartphone, and we check them on average every 12 minutes. That adds up to 24 hours a week online via our phones -- much of that time swallowed up by modern-style chat on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, with some left over for texting. It has taken a toll on talking, sure, but few smartphone users might claim to feel less connected as a result.
Now, the idea of ringing someone for "a chat" has a quaint, retro quality. I can, and will, talk you under the table, but phone calls are a luxury usually reserved for about five people: my mum, my sister, two best friends and my editor, obviously. Even then, I'm rubbish at picking up. Much is made about smartphones leading to dumber conversation -- amid claims that the art of chatter has been lost. Arguably, however, conversation has simply been rebooted and reconfigured. Take the myriad ways in which we can and do communicate now. It's a given that I will spend an embarrassing portion of my day glued to a screen (It's work!) and much of that will be chatting (again, it's work!).
Means to an End (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know, have typewriters killed the art of penmanship?
People who lose the sight of the "end" (that is, maintaining a relationship with people you love) for the "means" (particular mechanisms by which you do it) annoy me. There are harms done by smartphones, but "killing the art of conversation" isn't one of them.
Re:Modding killed conversation at /. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference isn't moderation, it was that the other sites evolved to allow moderation for all. Digg added conversation for all with user posting. Reddit then added subdivision - the subreddit idea. Digg learned this the hard way - when they took away user moderation, they collapsed and Reddit became the beneficiary.
Whether it's for good or ill, who knows? It's different. I'm active on Slashdot, and Reddit. I was vaguely active on Digg but more a lurker than anything else. Slashdot still mostly stays with on topic conversation and hasn't devolved into the predictability of the Reddit response, but then again on Reddit I can talk about a wider amount of things and post my own questions to smaller audience that's just about the topic at hand. There's room in the world for both.
Re:Means to an End (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know, have typewriters killed the art of penmanship?
Absolutely, yes.
I rarely write anything by hand any more and as a result, my handwriting is terrible compared to what it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
And unless you are into calligraphy, this does not matter.
My writing in my native language is horrible, because over the last 20 years, I have almost exclusively been using English (both in speech and writing). And absolutely nothing of value was lost by me not being able to write beautifully in my old mother tongue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's got more than an element of "Fahrenheit 451 [wikipedia.org]" about it. The book, not the film - I think. (I can't remember seeing the film, but I've read the book a couple of times.)
Re: Means to an End (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m not so certain of that. I have seen instances where somebody needed to reach somebody else, and lamented that they havenâ(TM)t responded to a text message yet. I suggested actually calling the individual but was met with a puzzled look. âoeWhat do I say?â
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. It is utterly impossible to ignore a phone-call ring the way you can ignore text or email notifications. Clearly, the iPhone user's superior reasoning and intellect has won the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
People who lose the sight of the "end" (that is, maintaining a relationship with people you love) for the "means" (particular mechanisms by which you do it) annoy me.
In communication and especially conversation the means is often the end.
There are harms done by smartphones, but "killing the art of conversation" isn't one of them.
I see you've not eaten out in a while.
Then again... (Score:3)
More than three-quarters (78%) of British adults own a smartphone, and we check them on average every 12 minutes.
I only check mine a few times a day, if that. Then again, I'm old(er) and not British.
Re:Then again... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 67 and check my smartphone about every 30 minutes, about twice as often as I think of sex. Imagine how often I would check if I were in my teens!
Cell phones hadn't been invented yet when you were in your teens. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phones hadn't been invented yet when you were in your teens. :-)
You may be off by several decades. Wireless telephones were available to German train passengers in the mid-1920s. A similar service, for car-based telephones, was made available to Americans in 1949. The Soviets had a system of their own introduced in the 1960s. (More here.) [wikipedia.org]
(Technically, "cell phone" refers to the "cellular" distribution of the towers in hexagonal areas, with alternation of frequencies between each area to prevent crosstalk. This design was proposed in 1947 but only built in 1979.)
Re: (Score:2)
How old are you and what race?
Nope. Economics did. (Score:2)
Economics is based on what folks feel they can get out of other folks.
Technology makes people able to spend their time in a more organized, efficient manner.
In eras where a US president might take a large part of a week getting to a location, they would have a large amount of time to mull over a speech and its many implications.
Now, our president has a few minutes during his TV time to think up the equivalent speech, which he is expected to make impromptu every night.
The trick is setting expectations for yo
Re: (Score:2)
txt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You fail it. [xkcd.com]
Yes. (Score:1)
I'm tired of telling people that "irregardless" is not a word.
When people stay connected all the time to other people who are also connected all the time, they aren't connecting with some of the brightest minds in the world, they're connecting with like-minded maroons. The result is an amplifying effect where they reinforce each others poor reasoning and language skills.
The result is a bunch of poorly-socialised people who don't know how to spell "lose", use "irregardless" in every conversation and think th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when you didn't know who was calling you on your landline phone?
(Also remember when having a phone number with low digits was good so people could dial it quicker?)
Re: (Score:1)
What's killing phone calls is that 95% of incoming calls are robocall spam. Here in the US, many people simply don't both answering their phone anymore.
The above is so STUPID and so logically flawed it is tragic.
Caller ID takes care of the imaginary problem you pose above, which is not a problem for anyone with even a slight amount of sense. If you recognize the caller ID, you can safely answer the phone. If the call is from a legitimate person you will want to speak with, they can leave a message and call you back.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Caller ID takes care of the imaginary problem you pose above
Many landline subscribers opted out of Caller ID because telcos charged an extra $100 per year to add Caller ID to a line.
Yes, we check our phone every 12 minutes (Score:2)
Nonetheless we don't pick up when you call us.
If you want to talk to me, you'll do it when _I_ have time ( and the inclination) and not interrupt me just because _you_ have time.
Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
Judging from the woman with the impressively-painted nails who sat in front of me on the subway in Chicago a few weeks ago, I would have to say no. Although I do hope that she eventually learns that you can use your indoor voice when you're on your smartphone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Are you sure? This [wikipedia.org] seems to suggest that cellular phones are designed with sidetone.
Re: (Score:2)
not buying it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The developing world has smartphones too.
Yeah, no (Score:3)
What's changed is that conversation now happens via text messages, the only phone calls I get are scammers.
Or are they just not making voice calls? (Score:2)
I can't speak for the UK, but there are plenty of other ways to talk to a person (via voice) than making a phone call.
Did they count FaceTime, Skype, Facebook Messenger, and all the other video chat apps? I see plenty of people using those. Heck, I was chuckling the other night when I went to the local Vietnamese Street Fair and found plenty of people using their phones to video chat and show off the street fair with friends who lived elsewhere.
I don't know the cost in the UK, but if I have an unlimited (
Letters (Score:1)
Depends, if the people have an actual personality (Score:2)
graph (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to paint a graph here, maybe one day, slashdot?
With the invention of technology, things become possible that were not before, and things become easier. People certainly wrote less when it meant putting chisel and hammer to stone. They certainly wrote more when clay tablets were invented, and more still with modern writing tools (papyrus I'll leave open to discussion).
Then there is a tipping point. At some point, technology becomes too convenient and too fast and depth is lost. Certainly when meeting someone meant travelling for days, you would make the most of that meeting. Now if you forgot something you can just recall. So there is less incentive to be thorough, but also less need.
However, a certain amount of depth is necessary to get to anything meaningful. A meme is not a philosophical discourse. Aphorisms have their place and always had, but they should be the result of a long, in-depth discussion.
This is not smartphone-specific. In management today, thin-slicing, the bullshit-bingo term for cutting through the crap, getting to the core of the problem fast, is one of the most vital skills. But you can not spend your entire day thin-slicing. Some problems actually are complicated and require taking into account all the small details. Knowing when to use thin-slicing and when to sit down and do a proper analysis is what differentiates good managers from great managers.
The same with conversations. There are many moments were a short back-and-forth on the phone or in text does the job. When you are just reconnecting with someone, you don't need the full details of their day. "What's up?" is exactly the level of conversation needed. But if someone needs a life advice, or when a serious relationship needs saving, or a mourning friend needs a shoulder, cutting to the core quick and applying a band-aid doesn't do it, and you still need that skill of long, deep conversation. In person, by voice or by text doesn't matter.
Smartphones, and that is their downside compared to other technology, don't really allow for that, they are designed for the short, fast interaction. I cannot imagine writing even this comment on a phone, much less a deep-meaning letter. Even for voice communication, for some reason, looking back, I've had longer conversations on landline phones than on mobile phones, despite the convenience factor that would suggest the opposite. There just is something in the technology that gently guides it toward the shallow, quick, the way post-it notes or index cards make you write shorter notes than a full-size notebook, even if you have enough of them that a novel would fit before you run out.
Re: (Score:2)
Even for voice communication, for some reason, looking back, I've had longer conversations on landline phones than on mobile phones, despite the convenience factor that would suggest the opposite. There just is something in the technology that gently guides it toward the shallow, quick, the way post-it notes or index cards make you write shorter notes than a full-size notebook, even if you have enough of them that a novel would fit before you run out.
You probably just want to get back to using it as a smart phone.
Have you seen the 'quality' of voice calls ? (Score:2)
Voice calls are horrendous and you can tell the conversation goes through hundreds of conversions, codec changes, A/D and D/A conversions along the way.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For those phone addicts, yes (Score:2)
Sure has.
Example 1: I saw a couple waiting for the Metro, sitting on a stone bench, she was leaning on him... and both were oblivious to anything but their phones.
Example 2: my son tells me for thirtysomethings and younger, if you go somewhere, and you see someone you'd like to meet/talk to, you can't: you have to pull out your phone, pull up tinder, set it to super local, and scroll through to see if you can find them....
Freakin' addicts. At least junkies go off in a private corner....