A Better Pencil

[cos]

Is the Internet melting our brains? - Salon book review / interview:

By now the arguments are familiar: Facebook is ruining our social relationships; Google is making us dumber; texting is destroying the English language as we know it. We're facing a crisis, one that could very well corrode the way humans have communicated since we first evolved from apes. What we need, so say these proud Luddites, is to turn our backs on technology and embrace not the keyboard, but the pencil.

Such sentiments, in the opinion of Dennis Baron, are nostalgic, uninformed hogwash. A professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Baron seeks to provide the historical context that is often missing from debates about the way technology is transforming our lives in his new book, "A Better Pencil."

[...]

I start with Plato's critique of writing where he says that if we depend on writing, we will lose the ability to remember things. Our memory will become weak. And he also criticizes writing because the written text is not interactive in the way spoken communication is. He also says that written words are essentially shadows of the things they represent. They're not the thing itself. Of course we remember all this because Plato wrote it down -- the ultimate irony.

Normally I'd post something like this on coslinks but I wanted to quote all of that, and I don't write more than a couple of lines beyond the link on coslinks. So I'll add this: A lot of the criticims I've heard over the years of things like LiveJournal or text messaging, have often made me think, "I bet this is the sort of stuff people said about telephones or postal mail when those were new."

I could just imagine people recoiling at the thought of having phones in every house because calling someone on the phone is such alower-quality act than dropping by their house for a chat. Which may be true, but misses the point: it looks at a new communication technology as if it were a mere replacement for something older, and is supposed to do the very same things. Compounded by the fact, of course, that when a form of communication is really new, people don't know how it's going to be used, they're still trying it out and figuring out the possibilities. And those who have partly figured it out can't easily convey what they've found to those who haven't used it that way yet, because it's an experiential sort of figuring out.

[ Though it does puzzle me when people who don't text, compare texting disfavorably to voice-calling. Yes, those are things typically done using the same device, but I should think the difference between them would be obvious. I'd expect people who don't text to compare it disfavorably with email, or instant messaging, or something like that. ]

Comments

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

Most people see text and voice calling as "ways to reach anyone at any time", and email/IM as "ways to reach people who are at computers". I think the people I know, at least, who compare texting disfavorably to calling, do so on the basis that "if you wish to reach me when I'm not in front of a computer, there are two ways to do it, and I would like you to do it using the one that does not irritate me / cost me money."

[cos]

I've heard that too, but it's kind of beside the point, since it's not about the relative merits of communications forms, it's about the vagaries of billing plans. It does, however, relate to my point indirectly: most people who say this actually pay much more for phone service than they'd pay for texting. Their reasons for that decision may in many cases be part of what I'm talking about here (though not in all cases).

[gwillen.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I think the vagaries of billing plans are a perfectly good reason to complain about a medium which is only available in an extortionately-billed way. (I.e., what do you mean, "point"? :-)

I think the vagaries of billing plans in general also prevent paying "much more for phone service than they'd pay for texting" -- texting is only available as an add-on to existing phone service, so it will always be an "extra" which costs "more" until the vagaries of billing plans are fixed.

On the qualities of the media themselves, I agree with you; and because the plan I got happened (through vagaries) to force me to get 300 texts a month minimum, I happily text.

[cos]

I think the vagaries of billing plans are a perfectly good reason to complain about a medium which is only available in an extortionately-billed way.

I don't disagree with that statement, I just don't think it has much to do with what I wrote about here, or what this professor is talking about.

[ravenword.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. I find texts to be very useful in certain circumstances, but because I always get the absolute cheapest wireless plan possible, I'm billed for each text that I send or receive, and thus I bitch about people texting me.

"I Wish I Had The Fingers Of A 14 Year Old Japanese Girl"

[catness.livejournal.com]

For me, texting requires a lot more "exclusion of outside world" attention than a telephone call. I have to have both hands and eyes committed to dealing with a text vs. a phone call, plus a fair bit of concentration to get my thoughts focused long enough to deal with such a small and slow UI. Even for a very brief exchange of thought. A call requires one hand, for as long as it takes to answer it, and then not again until I disconnect the call. I find "thought ==> voice ==> other party" is way faster than "thought ==> hands ==> painstaking typing + correcting ==> no guarantee of timely transmission to other party".

As much as I hate the phone, getting texted while away from a computer usually takes much more time than a call, and can put me in a lot more danger. Lack of attention to surroundings has a lot of potential negatives that most people don't even understand yet.

(And yeah, I've seen mobile phone talkers be just as oblivious to the outside world as mobile phone texters, but I'm betting they don't have to be.)

IMO, cell phones are God's Gift To Predators of all types. But I admit that I look at the world slightly differently than most.

(Sorry about the edit; LJ took a return and turned into a submit comment.)

[cos]

Most people see text and voice calling as "ways to reach anyone at any time", and email/IM as "ways to reach people who are at computers"

P.S. I should add that that view seems like something inherent to not being in the habit of actually using texts, only imagining "what might texts be good for" from a non-user's perspective. So it's actually a reasonable example of the topic at hand.

For example, I might send a text to someone to give them an address or phone number or other similar thing that'd be handy to have for reference, and to avoid typos; or I might send a text to answer a question I know he/she had about this evening's plans at a time when I know they're in a meeting or at an event or something, with their phone ringer off, but I'm going to be busy when their thing ends and texting is the most convenient way to give them a bit of practical info that they'll see later when it's convenient; or I might use texting with someone I planned to meet up with at a noisy event once we're both there and trying to find each other; etc.

The dichotomy of "ways to reach anyone at any time" vs. "ways to reach people who are at computers" might make sense when contrasting email/IM to calling cell phones, but applying that categorization to texting says to me that the person thinking that way just doesn't get it about texts, probably though not using them much.

[cos]

... where you'll notice the author making almost the very same point you are :)

[randomorbit.livejournal.com]

reminds me of a joke I heard. Nasa spent millions of dollars designing a pen that would write in the cold gravity free environment in space. The Russians used a pencil.

I don't believe the internet is making us stupid, but it sure does give us ample opportunity to both exploit and publicly display stupidity.