Of all the things that have been and will be said about the latest in our cycle of prime ministerial changes, it is this quote by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (get used to that) that defines what this is all about.
Read it again.
'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'
If you need to know how politicians treat their position, there it is. It is not about serving in office, as decided by the people; it is about 'winning power', about being in front at all times, regardless of what that means for the nation in the long term. It is about style over substance, even if that requires using the idea of substance as your style, as Turnbull seems eager to do.
There is plenty more that can be said about this event. As I type, the Prime Minister has claimed that he is 'humbled' by his party's choice. This is hardly a shining example of humility. But, also occurring as I type, Turnbull is making clear that he desires a traditional Cabinet style of government. If he manages to balance the modern stylism with traditional Cabinet government, he will have done well.
But it is curious to claim that this was not about leadership style tonight, but instead about internal culture, after claiming only hours ago that the Australian people had pronounced judgement on the government...which is primarily, today, a matter of style.
'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'
I suspect Turnbull will be hoping this quote disappears into the ether. He must demonstrate that his government is not purely guided by the polls, if he is truly about 'the future'.
Monday 14 September 2015
Sunday 6 September 2015
Is online interaction any replacement for talking to someone face-to-face?
I am a fan of the internet.
This is hardly an outrageous opinion. Most people, certainly those who actively use the internet for activities such as this, would claim to be fans of the internet, and of the opportunities it provides.
Of all the changes that the internet has brought to our day-to-day lives, none seem to me to be as important as that of the way it has changed human interaction with one another. For most of human history, the only way to regularly interact with someone was to do so face-to-face. Letters were written, but the expense of doing so meant generally only the wealthy and/or the important would write letters, and would do so rarely. If the letter was particularly important, such as that from one king to another, it would also be presented by a dignitary from the country of the writer. We also know from ancient letters, such as those found in the Biblical New Testament, that the writers of these personal letters did so essentially as a stop gap solution, as they all write how much they wish to see the people they are writing to face-to-face.
The first revolution in communication came with the telegram. In and of itself, the telegram wasn't necessarily doing anything new. It was really just carrying on from optical telegraph systems that had been appearing across Europe from the late 18th century onwards. But optical telegraphs were costly and hard to use, and therefore unlikely to be used by anyone outside of the government. The electric telegraph, on the other hand, was relatively cheap and extremely efficient. With the ability to cable under the ocean, messages could be sent vast distances very quickly indeed. But the telegram was never intended to convey long messages or aid conversation. The quickly developed standard was that of Morse code, which made it necessary to be as efficient as possible with the language used in each telegram - as did the price, which, while not expensive, was still costly enough that a long message would be better sent via letter.
Next was the telephone. While the telegram was a way of getting short messages across long distances quickly, the telephone was intended to be more personal. Unlike the telegram, it was based around voice. Speaking to another person is necessarily more intimate than reading off a sheet of paper, and the location of telephones (in the home) meant it was a device well-suited to personal conversation. But the effort of being in the place where the device is, at the right time for long enough to have a genuine conversation meant that talking over the phone would often be a concerted decision that was made because no other option was available. Most likely, it was a matter of distance, with the two people wanting to speak to each other being far enough away that talking face-to-face was not practical. In any case, talking over the phone is not the same as talking face-to-face. Humans use a great deal of body language - much of it so subtle we don't consciously recognise it - that cannot be picked up over the phone. We are, of course, capable of conveying extra meaning with just our voices if necessary, but it isn't the same. Personally, I dislike talking over the phone, I suspect for this very reason.
The mobile phone eliminated one of the difficulties with the telephone by ending the need for a person to be in the location of the phone. Now the phone could be with the person, wherever that may be. But the cost of these early phone, along with the bulkiness, meant that it was really only the rich (particularly businessmen) who could be bothered to get one. Once they slimmed down, gained a screen and were connected to the global satellite network, they gained a more important communications function: the SMS. This was essentially a new form of telegram, with the same advantage that the mobile already had over the landline phone. Anyone could send anyone else an instant telegram at a low cost, wherever they were. This necessarily reduced the importance required for messaging one another, and the naturally personal and discreet nature of using the mobile for messaging meant it became far easier to use the written form for conversation. But the character limits of texts also meant that any such conversation would be unlikely to be particularly enlightening, and would still probably only be a gap-filler during the time that friends do not see each other face-to-face.
It is the internet which has brought the greatest change to the way we communicate. The crux of basically everything to do with the internet is simple this: there are no limits. It is both an extension of existing society, and a new society in and of itself. It can be used for whatever purpose we choose to use it for. In the case of communication, there have been two paths which have now converged to form one all-encompassing communication method. The first path was that of the internet forum. These existed well before the world wide web came about, through the use of bulletin board systems as well as the massively influential usenet. These allowed individuals, who would often but not always use their real names, to post about subjects that interested them in particular. The ability to talk about specific topics, especially ones that would be obscure to the wider community, was naturally attractive, and allowed users to be able to explore their topic of choice as though they were discussing it at one of the old coffee houses in 17th century London, or a French salon in the 18th century. There was, though, a rather large barrier to entry in that you needed to have the technological know-how to operate a computer in such a way that you could access these forums, but if you were able to do this chances are you would be really interested in talking about your interests with others who share them. The introduction of the web allowed today's forums to displace the old boards, and with them came the rise of anonymity and the expansion of those who could use such forums. But forums still tend to build communities in much the same way, being designed, above all, around a point of interest. For many, the people they discuss topics with on these forums are people they would not otherwise have ever met.
The second path communication took on the internet was that of instant messaging. Unlike previous written forms, IM (as provided by MSN and AOL in particular) had no conceivable limits. It did require you to be in the right place, but once you were there (probably hidden away in a corner of a room) you could stay there for as long as you liked, in a place of relative quiet, able to 'talk' for as long as you pleased without much interruption. You could even express emotions via the use of emoticons :). It is not too surprising that children and teenagers were most likely to use such technologies, as a) they found it easiest to embrace new technology and b) it allowed them independence from their parents in an age where parents were becoming far less likely to allow their kids to stay outside for most of the day. Thus, where once kids would go to one person's home straight after school and spend most of the day there before walking to their own home in time for dinner, now they would be more likely to be picked up from school and go straight on to the computer, where they could spend hours in conversation with whoever they wished. Naturally, this meant that although conversation was theoretically without limits, you were unlikely to find particularly high-level conversation. While kids are always smarter than they are given credit for, they tend to prefer basic conversation until they're a bit older. Over time, the ability to instantly message has expanded, as internet speeds have become faster and hardware more capable. Now, we can choose precisely which method on instant communication we want: text, audio, or even audio-visual. But even today the latter two, especially audio-visual, rely on us being in one place. Generally, this is through the use of a web-cam, and if we are going to the effort of using such a device, it is for the same reasons people used the telephone: a long conversation that was not practical face-to-face.
But now, in the year AD 2015, we find that these two paths have managed to branch but together in that monolith we call Facebook. I can use any method of instant communication I want on there to converse with someone. Those who grew up with IM are now older, and are able to use the limitless method of conversation to its full extent if they so wish, with Facebook posts able to go into thousands of words. The only real limit is that we can choose who our 'friends' are, but once we do this, these people can see what we are doing whenever we share it. Thus, someone can come to 'know' us in a way never before possible, simply from our posting of photos, videos and stray thoughts onto our Facebook page. Once we 'know' them, we can personally converse with them in any method we wish, as quickly as we wish, for as long as we wish. This is extraordinary. We can spend far more time 'talking' with someone over the internet than we ever do in real life. It has, I suspect, therefore become very easy to fool ourselves into thinking that this is normal, and even moreso that it is no different to meeting in-person.
But we should not fool ourselves like this. It is not the same. There is something naturally different about face-to-face conversation. It has a flow to it. It comes to us in fits and spurts, taking some time to get into and then eventually fading. It is not naturally instantaneous in its beginning and end. We don't decide which emotion we are going to show through the use of one face. We don't even need to say anything to express what we are thinking, especially with others that know us well. There is something slightly unnerving about attempting to enter discussion with someone else in real life when you have spent time in conversation with them over the internet. The longer the conversation, the more unnerving. It is as though you have to unlearn your method of interacting online, while simultaneously telling yourself that this is the same person. Your mind does not naturally know this, after all - all it sees are words.
This is not to say that using the internet for discussion is necessarily bad. As stated, the internet is whatever we decide to use it for. That is has given the opportunity for people across the world to discuss topics of interest with each other is no bad thing, and I have personally made much use of it. But this may have also made it more difficult for me to approach real-life conversation in the same way. Internet conversation also lacks the sense of community that is gained from being with another person, or a group of people. It is entirely reliant on some form of discussion taking place. There is no way for people to simply silently enjoy each other's company - after all, they are not actually in each other's company. Deep down, I think we all recognise that this is true. But we don't seem that eager to do anything about it.
Perhaps we should, before we forget what it feels like to be in community for good.
This is hardly an outrageous opinion. Most people, certainly those who actively use the internet for activities such as this, would claim to be fans of the internet, and of the opportunities it provides.
Of all the changes that the internet has brought to our day-to-day lives, none seem to me to be as important as that of the way it has changed human interaction with one another. For most of human history, the only way to regularly interact with someone was to do so face-to-face. Letters were written, but the expense of doing so meant generally only the wealthy and/or the important would write letters, and would do so rarely. If the letter was particularly important, such as that from one king to another, it would also be presented by a dignitary from the country of the writer. We also know from ancient letters, such as those found in the Biblical New Testament, that the writers of these personal letters did so essentially as a stop gap solution, as they all write how much they wish to see the people they are writing to face-to-face.
The first revolution in communication came with the telegram. In and of itself, the telegram wasn't necessarily doing anything new. It was really just carrying on from optical telegraph systems that had been appearing across Europe from the late 18th century onwards. But optical telegraphs were costly and hard to use, and therefore unlikely to be used by anyone outside of the government. The electric telegraph, on the other hand, was relatively cheap and extremely efficient. With the ability to cable under the ocean, messages could be sent vast distances very quickly indeed. But the telegram was never intended to convey long messages or aid conversation. The quickly developed standard was that of Morse code, which made it necessary to be as efficient as possible with the language used in each telegram - as did the price, which, while not expensive, was still costly enough that a long message would be better sent via letter.
Next was the telephone. While the telegram was a way of getting short messages across long distances quickly, the telephone was intended to be more personal. Unlike the telegram, it was based around voice. Speaking to another person is necessarily more intimate than reading off a sheet of paper, and the location of telephones (in the home) meant it was a device well-suited to personal conversation. But the effort of being in the place where the device is, at the right time for long enough to have a genuine conversation meant that talking over the phone would often be a concerted decision that was made because no other option was available. Most likely, it was a matter of distance, with the two people wanting to speak to each other being far enough away that talking face-to-face was not practical. In any case, talking over the phone is not the same as talking face-to-face. Humans use a great deal of body language - much of it so subtle we don't consciously recognise it - that cannot be picked up over the phone. We are, of course, capable of conveying extra meaning with just our voices if necessary, but it isn't the same. Personally, I dislike talking over the phone, I suspect for this very reason.
The mobile phone eliminated one of the difficulties with the telephone by ending the need for a person to be in the location of the phone. Now the phone could be with the person, wherever that may be. But the cost of these early phone, along with the bulkiness, meant that it was really only the rich (particularly businessmen) who could be bothered to get one. Once they slimmed down, gained a screen and were connected to the global satellite network, they gained a more important communications function: the SMS. This was essentially a new form of telegram, with the same advantage that the mobile already had over the landline phone. Anyone could send anyone else an instant telegram at a low cost, wherever they were. This necessarily reduced the importance required for messaging one another, and the naturally personal and discreet nature of using the mobile for messaging meant it became far easier to use the written form for conversation. But the character limits of texts also meant that any such conversation would be unlikely to be particularly enlightening, and would still probably only be a gap-filler during the time that friends do not see each other face-to-face.
It is the internet which has brought the greatest change to the way we communicate. The crux of basically everything to do with the internet is simple this: there are no limits. It is both an extension of existing society, and a new society in and of itself. It can be used for whatever purpose we choose to use it for. In the case of communication, there have been two paths which have now converged to form one all-encompassing communication method. The first path was that of the internet forum. These existed well before the world wide web came about, through the use of bulletin board systems as well as the massively influential usenet. These allowed individuals, who would often but not always use their real names, to post about subjects that interested them in particular. The ability to talk about specific topics, especially ones that would be obscure to the wider community, was naturally attractive, and allowed users to be able to explore their topic of choice as though they were discussing it at one of the old coffee houses in 17th century London, or a French salon in the 18th century. There was, though, a rather large barrier to entry in that you needed to have the technological know-how to operate a computer in such a way that you could access these forums, but if you were able to do this chances are you would be really interested in talking about your interests with others who share them. The introduction of the web allowed today's forums to displace the old boards, and with them came the rise of anonymity and the expansion of those who could use such forums. But forums still tend to build communities in much the same way, being designed, above all, around a point of interest. For many, the people they discuss topics with on these forums are people they would not otherwise have ever met.
The second path communication took on the internet was that of instant messaging. Unlike previous written forms, IM (as provided by MSN and AOL in particular) had no conceivable limits. It did require you to be in the right place, but once you were there (probably hidden away in a corner of a room) you could stay there for as long as you liked, in a place of relative quiet, able to 'talk' for as long as you pleased without much interruption. You could even express emotions via the use of emoticons :). It is not too surprising that children and teenagers were most likely to use such technologies, as a) they found it easiest to embrace new technology and b) it allowed them independence from their parents in an age where parents were becoming far less likely to allow their kids to stay outside for most of the day. Thus, where once kids would go to one person's home straight after school and spend most of the day there before walking to their own home in time for dinner, now they would be more likely to be picked up from school and go straight on to the computer, where they could spend hours in conversation with whoever they wished. Naturally, this meant that although conversation was theoretically without limits, you were unlikely to find particularly high-level conversation. While kids are always smarter than they are given credit for, they tend to prefer basic conversation until they're a bit older. Over time, the ability to instantly message has expanded, as internet speeds have become faster and hardware more capable. Now, we can choose precisely which method on instant communication we want: text, audio, or even audio-visual. But even today the latter two, especially audio-visual, rely on us being in one place. Generally, this is through the use of a web-cam, and if we are going to the effort of using such a device, it is for the same reasons people used the telephone: a long conversation that was not practical face-to-face.
But now, in the year AD 2015, we find that these two paths have managed to branch but together in that monolith we call Facebook. I can use any method of instant communication I want on there to converse with someone. Those who grew up with IM are now older, and are able to use the limitless method of conversation to its full extent if they so wish, with Facebook posts able to go into thousands of words. The only real limit is that we can choose who our 'friends' are, but once we do this, these people can see what we are doing whenever we share it. Thus, someone can come to 'know' us in a way never before possible, simply from our posting of photos, videos and stray thoughts onto our Facebook page. Once we 'know' them, we can personally converse with them in any method we wish, as quickly as we wish, for as long as we wish. This is extraordinary. We can spend far more time 'talking' with someone over the internet than we ever do in real life. It has, I suspect, therefore become very easy to fool ourselves into thinking that this is normal, and even moreso that it is no different to meeting in-person.
But we should not fool ourselves like this. It is not the same. There is something naturally different about face-to-face conversation. It has a flow to it. It comes to us in fits and spurts, taking some time to get into and then eventually fading. It is not naturally instantaneous in its beginning and end. We don't decide which emotion we are going to show through the use of one face. We don't even need to say anything to express what we are thinking, especially with others that know us well. There is something slightly unnerving about attempting to enter discussion with someone else in real life when you have spent time in conversation with them over the internet. The longer the conversation, the more unnerving. It is as though you have to unlearn your method of interacting online, while simultaneously telling yourself that this is the same person. Your mind does not naturally know this, after all - all it sees are words.
This is not to say that using the internet for discussion is necessarily bad. As stated, the internet is whatever we decide to use it for. That is has given the opportunity for people across the world to discuss topics of interest with each other is no bad thing, and I have personally made much use of it. But this may have also made it more difficult for me to approach real-life conversation in the same way. Internet conversation also lacks the sense of community that is gained from being with another person, or a group of people. It is entirely reliant on some form of discussion taking place. There is no way for people to simply silently enjoy each other's company - after all, they are not actually in each other's company. Deep down, I think we all recognise that this is true. But we don't seem that eager to do anything about it.
Perhaps we should, before we forget what it feels like to be in community for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)