I recently had lunch with someone who mentioned that he had forbidden his teenage daughter from text messaging. I asked why. "Well, have you ever seen them? They don’t say anything. Text messages are content free. If she wants to communicate, she should call, or at least send a properly written email."
What this father seems to fail to understand is that not all communication is about information - content isn't king. Following his example, I have banned people from hugging me as such interaction is "content free". They should at least send a properly written email.
Not that I see txting as a replacement for physical contact - hugging is good (provided it's not some fetid hippy grabbing you - "I must share the love with you, my poor lost friend!!!"). But it's a handy augmentation. Lots of txting (& twittering & whatnot) is phatic. The human equivalent of monkeys grooming each other.
It's handy for co-ordination & timeshifting too - as this second post from TE notes.
However it also provides a fertile environment (or should that be abyss) for misunderstanding especially in emotionally-charged or high-context situations - as I know from recent experience. It's like trying to reproduce the Sistine Chapel with texta pens.
We need to be thoughtful when we key in txts & generous when we read them.
c u l8r
Posts
2 comments:
Interesting anthropological take on texting Matt.
I see plenty of benefit for abbreviated communication through things like twitter.
For me, the quality of the content comes through the context it's received in. Texting is fine when it's through a time/space limited environment like SMS or Twitter - but by god, people who use it as a replacement for written language in email or IM need to be strung up and forced to read William Strunk Jr!
Looking forward to your next post on the dangers of drunk texting! lol rotflmao
Drunk txting?
i dn knw wt yr tlkg bt. i nvr NVR txt whhillleee drnk u bstrds.
*Ahen*
Matt's a bit tired and emotional now everyone. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
Post a Comment