I've noticed lately a habit that I don't like. It's a common habit, I think, resulting in some unseemly conduct, especially among younger generations. I have termed this habit "Talking To My Phone." When I'm texting someone, or messaging them, or commenting on something, I've taken to simply talking, rather than talking to him or her, to that person specifically.
Now, this does mean each of my messages very accurately conveys my thoughts and, in a way, my tone of thinking. Actually, it's very similar to the way I write on this blog. For other people, who perhaps don't have a cordial "tone" of thought, this may produce rather nastier texts. I think this is why we're always warned to conduct deep conversations, or conversations that are possibly hurtful, in person, because it is so much easier to say rude things over the internet. Rude messages, in my opinion, arise from people not censoring their thoughts as they would in person; people don't censor as they would in person because they aren't in person, they're talking to their phones.
However, I would go even farther than "make sure you don't say rude things over the internet." I would say we need to consider how we're talking to each person using our electronic devices, even when the conversation is light and pleasant. When we speak in person, we alter our behaviours depending on the other person's personality. Not that we wear masks, simply that we may be more talkative with one person, more reserved with another. Yet this gets lost when we aren't face to face. Perhaps that's a good thing - we get to see different sides of one another - but I think it takes with it some of the individuality of each relationship.
I've decided to try (no gaurantee on success, this is only a few weeks old) to imagine each person as I text him or her. I can often visualise a person's facial expressions, even call to mind what someone would sound like in speaking the words of the message. When I remember to do this, it has, thus far, made a significant difference in my final sent message. Perhaps it's also because I'm taking more time to devise each text, but I think I'm responding more to the person than to the words on my phone. And I think that's a good thing.
Now, this does mean each of my messages very accurately conveys my thoughts and, in a way, my tone of thinking. Actually, it's very similar to the way I write on this blog. For other people, who perhaps don't have a cordial "tone" of thought, this may produce rather nastier texts. I think this is why we're always warned to conduct deep conversations, or conversations that are possibly hurtful, in person, because it is so much easier to say rude things over the internet. Rude messages, in my opinion, arise from people not censoring their thoughts as they would in person; people don't censor as they would in person because they aren't in person, they're talking to their phones.
However, I would go even farther than "make sure you don't say rude things over the internet." I would say we need to consider how we're talking to each person using our electronic devices, even when the conversation is light and pleasant. When we speak in person, we alter our behaviours depending on the other person's personality. Not that we wear masks, simply that we may be more talkative with one person, more reserved with another. Yet this gets lost when we aren't face to face. Perhaps that's a good thing - we get to see different sides of one another - but I think it takes with it some of the individuality of each relationship. I've decided to try (no gaurantee on success, this is only a few weeks old) to imagine each person as I text him or her. I can often visualise a person's facial expressions, even call to mind what someone would sound like in speaking the words of the message. When I remember to do this, it has, thus far, made a significant difference in my final sent message. Perhaps it's also because I'm taking more time to devise each text, but I think I'm responding more to the person than to the words on my phone. And I think that's a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment