Communication Breakdown Twenty years ago, literacy was defined as simply being able to read and write. But today, in the twenty-first century, literacy seems to mean more than just the consumption of text. To be literate today, we not only have to be able to consume text and understand it, but we must also have an appreciation for the diverse contexts that the text originates from.
“As in any perception, inferences in such [interactive] situations go beyond the information given, relying on the context rather than the stimuli only” (Hari and Kujala).In traditional literacy, such as the printed word, the entire context on the page is very explicit and mandated for us by the author; the context is generally familiar to us. In today’s literacy we have to understand the context from the location of origin, may it be geographic or cultural, of those people from all over the world who, because of technological advances, are now juxtaposed with us, making it a much more complex endeavor to reach literacy than it was in years past. Because of the rise in technology, it’s now easier to communicate and keep in touch than ever before in human history.The speed of communication and the amount of information we are able to exchange and share is at an unprecedented all-time high and is only going to increase as we press forward.
Yet this type of communication seems to come with some drawbacks, some of which people believe can actually be damaging to our social, communication, and language skills. Some researchers argue that there are very important differences between the reading of physical and digital texts. The kind of immersion that a physical book allows, such as the tactile hand and eye coordination, is not possible with digital materials.It’s been argued that this has immense implications for how deeply we read, how much information we retain, and how we can reflect on what we’ve read.
The transition to digital dominance in the twenty-first century has great repercussions on the communication within society. Anything that is excessive has the potential to be harmful. Because the world is now at our fingertips, it’s easier than ever to communicate with people across the world much faster. But an increase in quantity doesn’t always constitute an increase in quality, and communication is very much his way. If we objectively take a look back at some recent text-driven conversations and attempt to examine the depth and quality of the communication, chances are, they’re most likely going to be fairly low on both of these accounts. Now I don’t mean to say that one cannot have a meaningful, deep conversation through the use of technology, but it’s more unlikely to see deep, thoughtful conversation largely because of the amount of distractions we face while communicating with technology.
We’re a generation of multitaskers. Our minds are used to constant stimulation.Unless we are engaging in face-to-face communication with someone else, we are often not giving them our full, undivided attention. We’re browsing the web, playing a video game, doing homework, or maybe even engaging in conversation with another.
We send a text here, an instant message there; we’re constantly picking up our phones, pausing whatever we’re doing in the present moment to send a 160 character message only to re-engage in the previous activity. And what you’re really saying to that person is: ‘I care about you and what you’re saying so much that it’s not worth my full attention’. Humans typically carry out only one task at a time, and during dual tasks, the limits of attentional capacity are soon met” (Hari and Kujala). We’re beginning to use people in the same way that we use the multitabs on our internet browsers; they’re nothing more than time-fillers and distractions. We do this because we are so used to constant stimulation that we can’t handle downtime.
We say, “maybe I’ll chat him or text her”. We don’t really want to talk to them; we just can’t handle a downtime where we’re not engaged in a task.Distractions like this create a vicious cycle of desensitization. The human mind is very malleable and quite adaptable. If we are not conscious of what we are molding, shaping, and adapting our minds to, it will become invisible to us; it will become natural. It’s very much in our nature to fall into habit.
As we go through the day, certain tasks are completed almost unconsciously, like driving to work, for example. You know the route so well, you don’t even think about where you’re going. And this desensitization caused by overstimulation results in a general numbing of the nervous system.Without face-to-face interaction, this desensitization could lead to a loss in the ability to read emotions on a more personal level. “In face-to-face interaction, the brain reads a continual cascade of emotional signs and social cues, instantaneously using them to guide our next move so that the encounter goes well.
Much of this social guidance occurs in the circuitry centered on the orbitofrontal cortex, a center for empathy…But the cortex needs social information — a change in tone of voice, say — to know how to select and channel our impulses.And in e-mail there are no channels for voice, facial expression or other cues from the person who will receive what we say” (Goleman). Within social interaction, one is able to broadcast their feelings and attitudes with body language, such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and even posture. We recognize those we talk to based off of their so-called “motor expressions” and tend to mirror specific postures during conversation, which shows that human emotion and motor actions are very closely related.
It is clear that communication relies heavily on and inevitably implies the use of emotions and body language from both sides.A successful interaction calls for a common awareness and empathy. Conventional social exchanges often have opening and closing addresses to signal the start and end of the conversation, as well as a cooperative back-and-forth style comment and response. These are signaled by nonverbal prompts such as tone of voice, mutterings, hand gestures, postures, and pauses.
“These fleeting, moment-to-moment facial expressions emphasize certain syntactic fragments, and they form and color the meanings of a verbal message that would otherwise be ambiguous.They also ask for, and elicit, mutual responses that often remain out of the conscious perception of the listener” (Hari and Kujala). One could argue that emotion can be conveyed through communication devices such as video conferencing and telephones. But only face-to-face encounters truly allow the nuances of feeling and emotion to come into the conversation. The nervous system and the brain are the sensory centers of our bodies. When they become numb, it makes it difficult to attain the richness and fullness of a sensory experience.
This applies directly to social interactions. “Senses are important for social interaction…A part of the social touch relies on thin unmyelinated fibers [within the brain]; their stimulation is associated with release of [a hormone] that is important for social bonding and trust” (Hari and Kujala). Technological communication lacks the voice tone and body language cues, leaving the text relatively void of emotion. Rather than simply interpreting a verbal message, those in conversation acquaint themselves with the other person’s frame of mind.This is part of the sensory experience, as this involves empathy and trust, because one participant is acknowledging and sympathizing with the other person’s mental and psychological state. Communication is the way to convey ideas and information; it’s how we learn.
There is a limit to what we can achieve without the help of others. It is in our human nature to be curious. The internet is a strong vehicle for this. But as humans, we are also social creatures that thrive on social interaction. What have we achieved from the interconnectivity of our world?We are desensitizing ourselves to interaction and ironically abolishing human qualities in the pursuit of being human.
Our technological advancements are ultimately what distinguish us from all other species; however we continue to expand them and double them every year to the point where we are beginning to see the downfall of the instinctive human needs that are communication and interaction. “The more time people spend using the Internet, the more they lose contact with their social environment . . .As Internet use grows, Americans report they spend less time with family and friends, shopping in stores or watching television, and more time working for their employers at home - without cutting back their hours in the office. A key find of the study is that the more hours people use the Internet, the less time they spend with real human beings” (Nie and Erbring).
Technology is becoming more and more convenient, which makes it much more demanding and that much harder to avoid. Are we willing to pay the price? Does accessibility and usefulness outweigh our own humanity?We will soon lose more life pleasures to technology, and those that we have lost will not be easily restored. We have substituted technology for our brains. It is now not merely a place to seek answers, but a place to do our thinking for us.
No longer do we need to inquire others about their interests; we can look them up on Facebook. Nor do we need to read anymore; we can just look up the summary on Sparknotes. For all we know, the internet may have already begun to replace the human mind, becoming the new dominant species.Bill Gates warned, “the greatest danger in modern technology isn’t that machines will begin to think like people, but that people will begin to think like machines. ” Our nonstop information-driven society is a derivative of the World Wide Web. We are products of mass communication and constant streams of information that are gradually losing our humanity.
No more can we discover without the help of technology. We recite what is already known in the name of discovery. We are at a point where we popularize messaging services that regulate how much you can say down to 160 characters or less.This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. The secret to understanding ourselves, the human race, lies within the realm of free communication. Humankind is in need of free thinkers and doers that base their thinking not on the dependence of technology, but on the dependence of others humans through meaningful interaction.
We are always on the edge of the unknown, the strange and the unfamiliar and technological advances will allow us to make these things known. But we need to acknowledge that though they may make great improvements within our lives, they will not always make great improvements within us.Works Cited Chappelle, Carole. English Language Learning and Technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003. Google Books.
Google. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
<http://books. google. com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=HNVWavVLTwkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=communication+technology&ots=XDWhZDb9OQ&sig=Iax13OWcryjqMNi5l8V00yjIEvQ#v=onepage&q&f=false>. Goleman, Daniel.
"Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-Mail Misbehavior. " The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 20 Feb. 2007. Web. 11 Feb.
2012. <http://www. nytimes. com/2007/02/20/health/psychology/20essa. tml>. Hari, Riitta, and Miiamaaria V.
Kujala. "Brain Basis of Human Social Interaction: From Concepts to Brain Imaging. " Physiological Reviews. 2nd ed. Vol. 89.
Bethesda, Maryland: American Physiological Society, 2009. 453-79. APS. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
<http://physrev. physiology. org/content/89/2/453. full. pdf+html>.
Nie, Norman H. , and Lutz Erbring. "Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. " IT and Society.
1st ed. Vol. 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 2002.
275-83. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
<http://www. vermario. com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch. php/internet_society_repor
