My thoughts are that it is a pointless article because technology isn't going to just vanish.
And I guess we'll ignore the fact that they've been interacting with people in person their entire lives with their family, and going to school. Kids go to malls to shop and what not still, so there is more.
I don't know about you, but I haven't lost the ability to tell when someone is angry by the tone of their voice or any other cues.
So until we live our lives in pods, it's basically a moot point in my opinion.
Edit:
"Older employees might well accept such a ban, but younger ones might not understand it. Reading a text message in the middle of a conversation isn't a lapse to themit's what you do. It has, they assume, no nonverbal meaning to anyone else."
I think that is a stupid statement because it implies that they can't tell when something is appropriate. If it is a casual conversation and you get a text, I think both parties would automatically assume that reading it isn't an interruption. Because it is a CASUAL conversation. Now if you are in a meeting where this problem apparently occurs and you read a text in the middle of your boss or supervisor speaking, it's a wonder you made it through the interview to get the job in the first place.
And I know people still grasp the concept of when something is appropriate and when it isn't. I've heard maybe 1 or 2 people who talked on their cell phones during a movie, and the last time it was an adult.
rabble rabble rabble
Over all Pendlum,
I thought you brought up some interesting points. And since you are far closer in age to the group they are speaking about then myself, it would be safe to say that you also share similar (if not the same) view points as the group in question. Which leads me to the excerpt you quoted from the article.
What interest me most about what you quoted, was not the part you actually quoted. It was what you did not quote; the part right before- which established the context in which the quote applied/was framed. May I quote, lol (major points emphasized in bold)...
"In Silicon Valley itself, as the Los Angeles Times reported last year, some companies have installed the "topless" meetingin which not only laptops but iPhones and other tools are bannedto combat a new problem: "continuous partial attention." With a device close by, attendees at workplace meetings simply cannot keep their focus on the speaker. It's too easy to check email, stock quotes and Facebook. While a quick log-on may seem, to the user, a harmless break, others in the room receive it as a silent dismissal. It announces: "I'm not interested." So the tools must now remain at the door."
So the point was in fact related to certain individuals inability to focus in a specific social context (i.e. a professional company meeting), and not just any arbitrary or casual conversation. Further, these "topless" meetings- as they call 'em -were not instituted by your typical brick and mortar establishments. It was by companies in Silicon Valley which, when last I checked, were at the very heart of this technological revolution. So if they seem to be observing behavior that is not conducive to their business practices (and feel they have to enact policies to ablate them), I do not understand how bringing those same issue to light, is a moot point.
However, I digress. The New York Times article had less to do with the above, and more to do with "silent-language acquisition in a digital environment". This is why the author brought up the works of anthropologist Edward T. Hall. Specifically how potentially reckless ones inability to asses "body language, facial expressions and stock mannerisms" can be, in various situations, and when such cues are crucial (as was noted in the diplomatic example). Verbal communication- after all -does not just involve the words coming out of our mouth. But none verbal mannerisms juxtaposition to words, as the author quoted, also.
Beyond that, how do we as a society (composed of multiple- and often times divergent -generational/acculturation methodologies) find the common thread between traditional communication and social interaction, with the ever evolving technological forms- in this modern world? Because technology is not just going to vanish (as Pendlum noted); but neither are other people.
Regards,
T.D.
Ciao-
