Sitting at dinner one night in Durham, North Carolina, with the Chief Commercial Officer of Ridge Diagnostics, the lab manager and the medical director, we enjoyed east Indian food and discussed the progress that Ridge had made. We were intently engaged with each other, conversing in easy hand-offs, building on one another’s comments or questions. It was like watching four people build something in seamless coordination. That kind of interaction is only possible when all parties are completely present, aware of each other and intent upon keeping the connection strong.
At the table next to us were three people: two ladies and a gentleman. I noticed at one point that all three were effectively someplace else, even though they were speaking. One woman was talking while her thumbs punched out a text message to someone far away, the white glow from her phone making her face appear disconnected from the rest of her body. The man was looking up at the ceiling as he nodded. The second lady was talking at the same time while she rummaged through her purse. Probably searching for her phone so she could text her friend who was sitting across from her.
You’ve seen this before I’m sure. It’s the next level. The first level occurred when people started bringing their laptops to meetings and doing e-mail while in a conference. The third level will no doubt be implanted communication devices that allow us to control messages mentally so we can silently hold multiple conversations even when we are physically with only one person.
What is the effect of this trend on human relationships, on effective communication and on the results of working with other people? We need only look as far as the generation now coming into adulthood to see what has happened. The first thing you notice is that communication is abbreviated. Sentences are a thing of the past, as well as grammatical structure and traditional spelling. I sent a text message to a friend of my daughter’s recently. I used conventional language skills. The text I received back ignored my carefully crafted question, reading simply “Sup?” For those of you who do not speak Textese, this three-letter communiqué is translated as “Yes, I’ve received your message. What is the purpose of your contact?” Since I had used language composition that was not in Textese, the sender could not decipher my message and had to ask. If I had used the proper language of his generation, I would have texted the following: “Cn u call me 2nite? Nd hlp”. I can’t be certain of the impact of that syntax, not being a native speaker of Textese, but I believe it is close to the necessary composition to elicit the appropriate response.
The second thing you notice is that people are always mentally somewhere else than with the people who are physically proximal. Therefore, attention and awareness is projected into a virtual environment where identity is created in one’s imagination. As Marshall McLuhan taught us way back in the sixties, written communication is a “hot” medium, in that it requires full investment of imagination by the participant, whereas in-person communication is “cold”, since most of the information in the exchange is provided by the other person and the setting, e.g., words, context, tone, temperature, body language, smells, etc. A “hot” medium is rife with potential for misunderstanding, and a “cold” one is less likely to result in miscommunication. This disconnection with the parties who are physically present results in a disrespect, even disdain for personal interaction. If you are with someone who is texting someone else while you are talking to them, your defensive reaction is to think unconsciously, “Well, they don’t care enough to pay attention, so it’s okay for me to do the same. The first one to text someone else proves that he/she is more important than the other, so I might as well be first.”
The third thing that is evident is that no subject can be treated in depth. That would require vowels, at the very least, which if used would retard speed of response. So communication is superficial, yet laden with inference. “Like, I was all (expression or emoticon), and they were all (expression or emoticon), and it was, you know, so totally, you know what I mean?” Superficiality promotes relationships built on giving and receiving attention alone. Thus the currency of relationships becomes form over substance. And such bases are easily eroded, resulting in relationship shifting at a rapid pace. The bonds are weak, changeable. This dynamic causes relationship insecurity. Insecurity creates defensive behavior in its various forms: aggression or withdrawal, establishing alliances for mutual protection, parsing attention or information to control bonds, etc.
We can take steps to minimize the destruction caused to healthy and deep human relationships by refusing to participate in communication that includes fragmented attention.
Turn off the cell phone. Close the laptop. And, God forbid, use complete sentences.