Throughout history, technology changes and implements itself in our daily lives faster than past generations can keep up. For example, people born after 2000 won’t know what it’s like to live without commercialized WiFi [1]. Because an average person’s day includes some type of communication, it is no far stretch to say that technology affects how humans interact with themselves and the outside world. But is the change for the better or the worse?
( Pexels | Pixabay )
Technology has been debated for years and continues to be a staple for scholarly deliberation. In general, a list of debate topics will include at least one related to technology in the top ten and in some cases, even the top 6 when linked with privacy rights[3][4].
Unfortunately, observations are made in an attempt to link technology with the decline in verbal communication during an age of digital mass networking. Excluding Facebook, Instagram, or any other social media, the internet can be generalized as a way to articulate one’s ideas to a larger audience, whether it be facetime, texting, email, or even online publishing sites. The problem skeptics are quick to point out is that with a device on your person, verbal and human interaction is limited.
A similar idea exists in economics known as a Production Possibility Frontier (PPF). These PPF’s graphically show tradeoffs between two related products our outcomes such as verbal or digital communication similar to the one below:
(Production Possibility Frontier | Policonomics)
Essentially, the PPF can vaguely represent two different types of communication. If we want to maximize verbal communication (Y) we have to sacrifice some online communication (X), and vice versa. Thus, the idea of technology limiting traditional communication is a widely accepted position with a plethora of support ranging from teenage tech habits to studies on employees in the workforce, all of which builds a case for technology’s negative effect on communication.
That being said, a less common stance is to argue for technology’s positive effect on communication, which can be backed by more than studies and surveys; facts and history.
In the past, advances in communication made the literal difference between life and death. To be specific, during World War I soldiers were tasked with laying ‘com lines’ which were wires for the base to send directions and orders to the infantry on the frontlines. This integral part of battle during the war was so important, opposing sides would send troops to ‘cut’ the lines and leave the division stranded[6]. Now, countries can fight wars on other continents from a laptop in a secure building somewhere else.
These major advances in literal communication techniques can be traced directly to progression in technology. The average user utilizes the internet for conversational purposes. During the holiday season (when most people are expected to buy gifts), “53 percent of Internet users sent greetings through e-mail, 32 percent sent e-greeting cards […] Only 24 percent purchased gifts.[2]”
Although technology benefits national and international conversing, the real benefit lends itself to helping the individual.
In today’s world, citizens tend to lean more towards comfort rather than practicality. Some teens and college-age students look for comfort in their social lives. For example, when a situation gets awkward or uncomfortable, technology allows for a brief escape on Facebook or similar apps[7]. We allow people to do this because most of the time they are communicating in some way shape or form.
Of course, there are exceptions to this escaping behavior such as, extroverts, who would rather embrace the situation. For those that apply, technology gives them a voice when they would have previously been rendered silent by their circumstance. More specifically, 63.9% of college students reported having a fear of public speaking [8]. Technology allows for a smooth conversation to exist in each citizen’s comfort level.
The most important example of giving someone a voice is Minspeak. Minspeak (minimal speaking) is a device created by Dr. Bruce Baker to help those speak who couldn’t do so for themselves. The device uses a multi-meaning icon language system to make the language easier and faster (up to 70%)[1]. There are fewer than 100 buttons that allow the user to form full, complex sentences with only 1 to 2 buttons.
The company that created Minspeak, Semantic Compaction Systems, markets its products to children and adults with physical disabilities such as cerebral palsy or learning disabilities such as autism. Both demographics struggle with the idea of learning a language, better yet speaking and communicating their needs to aids or other members of society. The technology allows for an electronically generated voice to physically speak for the user.
Technology positively affects the everyday lives of those who struggle with language and provides the added ease for those who don’t. Although technology can be negatively attributed to a measurable lack of verbal communication on a global scale, it doesn’t come close to the Technology changes communication on a major scale when looking at the longterm effects of its benefits.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know as there!
____________________________________________
- Minspeak | a way of representing language through icons
- Generation Blog | Nicholas Carr
- Debate Topics – ProCon.org
- 25 Controversial Topics to Help You Start Your Research
- The History of WiFi | Purple
- WWI Military Communication
- Alone in the crowd
- Fear of Public Speaking: Perceptions of College Students and Correlates
