Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Music Fridays: Rock the House Party Edition Previous entry: Please stop with the giant bellies. Please.

The internet is good for offline living

I'm usually a fan of Good's 30-Day Challenges.  I particularly liked the challenge to keep your trash to one bag a week, which I was even able to accomplish for most of it!  (Cooking from scratch as much as possible helps, as does living in a city that has a huge recycling program.)  But now that their 30-Day Challenge to unplug from the internet at 8PM at night is over, I have to admit that I rejected the challenge from the get-go, because I rejected the premise of the challenge.  

The idea behind the challenge is that people are "addicted" to the internet, and that it's somehow interfering with our real life relationships.  I think that's a very 2004 way of thinking.  Now that it's 2011, I think it's troubling to continue with the assumption that there's a meaningful distinction between online and offline life.  And it's particularly troubling to believe that time online is time spent away from our loved ones or time spent away from engaging meaningful with people. One thing that comes to mind is how often, after 8PM during this challenge, I would be sitting right next to my boyfriend on the couch, with both of us playing in the same room in Turntable and bonding over that.  How is that somehow less meaningful than watching TV or even going out to dinner together?  I didn't experience it that way, and I would also point out that we did those other things, as well.

Beyond that, people use the internet to enhance their social life more than to escape it.  I keep in touch with friends and family better because of it and have met some of my best friends through the internet.  But it's more than that---the way that the internet and real life blend makes "stay off the internet" just plain stupid some times. Cord Jefferson, writing about the challenge, explained how silly it got:

There's no getting around the fact that computers make life easier. Asking people to get offline at 8 p.m. means asking them to not use Google Maps to find directions to a party or Yelp to pick a restaurant. It means sending them to a tangible newspaper to get movie times and to the phone book for the number to a hardware store. Some people don't even receive phone books anymore! What makes the internet simultaneously so great and so awful is its ease of use: It's made life eminently simpler, but it's also created a generation of people who rely on it to solve practically everything at all times of day.

Positing that there's something purer of spirit about using a newspaper or a phonebook rather than the internet is like suggesting someone is better-read if they read by candlelight instead of use a bedside lamp.  It's just plain dumb. 

And that's just it.  I probably get out more because of the internet, because it's simply easier to find shit to do and to coordinate people to do it with. I remember the bad old days before people used the internet to conduct their social planning, and there was no benefit to the old way.  One person would pick something to do, and then they would have to call each person they wanted to come individually, or at least farm that out to others to do.  If one person in the chain had a conflict, that meant another round of phone calls to figure out if rescheduling was an option.  I would often hang up with one person, call another, call the first back, call the second again, and it would take 20 fucking minutes just to get 3 people on the same page.  And that was a best case scenario.  Often people would be forgotten in all the melee and feelings would get hurt. 

Now you just send out an email to everyone all at once.  People can hash out any scheduling conflicts amongst themselves.  Because it takes less time to organize--much less research what to do in the first place---people are more willing to do it.  I definitely see people more often because of all this.  Online tickets help, too.  I remember the bad old days when you had to go to the record shop to buy tickets and wait in line and all that jazz.  Busy people don't have time for this shit and their social life suffers.  Setting up a Facebook party account, however?  Takes no time at all.

And let's not even talk about how people used to get lost in the bad old days.  Yes, lost.  I spent a lot of my youth driving around trying to figure out where the fuck I was going.  Cell phones helped, but I even remember the days before them when you would just drive around and around while the people waiting for you began to get worried.  There was literally no upside and it strained instead of helped social relations.

So seriously, let's stop with the false assumptions that being online is somehow anti-people.  In many cases, it's made being around people exponentially easier. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:01 PM • (77) Comments

Hear, hear! The internet is great, and it makes life an awful lot easier. I’m a bit tired of hearing all the whining about the good old days of not being able to find stuff out, not being able to contact people, not being able to get a clue. I don’t even feel left out of pop culture anymore. Someone makes a reference, I google it, then I pretend I have a clue. It’s a lot easier than actually following pop culture. It’s amazing!

Comment #1: Kaleberg  on  09/01  at  07:43 PM

Thank you! I’m beginning to think that stuff like this challenge is a new-rising form of Get Off My Lawnism.

Comment #2: Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist  on  09/01  at  07:47 PM

For me, spending too much time on the internet has been a negative in my life, perhaps not net negative, but I seriously get to the point where I’m trying to read the entire damned world.

And there are things to do.

Comment #3: shah8  on  09/01  at  07:50 PM

I don’t own a car, but the internet allows me to order groceries to be delivered to my home.  30 days without the internet would mean genuine hardship for me, as there’s no food store within any reasonable walking distance from where I live.

I’d certainly call it a “challenge” though.

Comment #4: damnedyankee  on  09/01  at  07:58 PM

If you travel a lot, or have a spread out family/group of friends, the internet is the best and sometimes ONLY way to keep in touch.  Not to mention that if you’re stuck living in a place where everyone thinks you’re a freak, the internet IS your social life.  The argument that the internet is taking the place of social interaction is complete BS.

Comment #5: nico  on  09/01  at  08:18 PM

I pretty much tune out when I get a sense someone is drawing a sharp distinction between the internet and real life.

Not that I don’t sometimes fall into that trap, at (just shy of) 33. But I can’t imagine telling my teen stepdaughter “get off the internet and talk to your friends” because I recognize that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Comment #6: Hershele Ostropoler  on  09/01  at  08:22 PM

Wait… you have a boyfriend!?! But you’re an angry feminist - you’re not supposed to like men!!!

Comment #7: Geocrackr  on  09/01  at  08:26 PM

I take that challenge for me personally to mean: sign out of work email at 8 PM and don’t sign back in until the next morning (unless there’s a pressing deadline I know before 8 PM I need to work on). I’m a lawyer and we as a breed tend to be vastly over-connected to our work email. I’m trying to kick the habit.

Comment #8: Ladyshalott  on  09/01  at  08:34 PM

I’d also point out that “switch the internet off after 8pm” is anti-night-owl-ist. If I did that, I couldn’t work, since I generally work from midnight till 4-7 in the morning, and often need the internet to do so. I’d also not be able to be in contact with the boyfriend if i went offline at night, since the boyfriend works graveyard shifts and we use google messenger to talk to each other when he’s at work.

Comment #9: jadehawk  on  09/01  at  08:38 PM

oh! and one more thing: I’m taking 3 online classes this semester. how am I supposed to do my homework and contribute to class discussion when I can’t be online during my waking hours?

In other words, this is a luddite challenge, and completely pointless.

Comment #10: jadehawk  on  09/01  at  08:39 PM

I’ve actually run into several people lately who, upon finding out that I use a web-dating-thingy and have met several friends on it, got all patronizing and snotty about it. “Oh, I guess you could meet nice people that way, but it’s just better to meet people organically,” one of them opined. When pressed, he explained that ‘organically’ could mean meeting a person at, say, a concert or at a social event like a mixer. The weirdest part of it was that I found myself agreeing, oh, yes, it’s much better to meet at a social event held for the express purpose of meeting new people rather than use a fairly sophisticated matching site designed for the express purpose of introducing new people. What? No. The internet is real, ya’ll, not some silly fad.

Comment #11: the duck-billed placelot  on  09/01  at  08:46 PM

The internet has helped my social life drastically in two ways:

1) I keep in touch with friends from college who live far away from me.  I would probably not talk to as many of them without the internet.  To me, a google chat is no different than a phone conversation.

2) I use the internet to meet friends with similar interests.  I have an odd combination of interests and I also moved to a new city after college.  I went online and found groups for the exact things that I like and made some great friends that way.  Without the internet, I would have a much harder time meeting people, especially people who share my interests.  So without the internet, I would actually be going out less often.  I wouldn’t even know how to find friends in a strange city without the internet, except taking a class (that I would register for online), being forced to befriend my coworkers, or to hang out in some random bar.  It’s so much easier to just find a group online that I don’t have to pay to participate in.

This distinction between online interaction and phone interaction is as artificial as the distinction between talking on the phone and meeting in person, which I’m sure was a big debate when phones first became popular. 

The internet isn’t even anonymous in the same way that it was just 10 years ago.  Most people use the same or similar name across several blogs, especially ones that use an external commenting system that you have to register for, like Disqus which is used on multiple blogs.  While my online persona isn’t attached to my real identity, I still have consistency across blogs and I know that I encounter some of the people here in other places as well.  This makes it harder to lie and troll because I have an online reputation.  People have to spend a lot of time developing their online reputation and regular commenters will be taken much more seriously than new names that we’ve never seen before.

Comment #12: bananacat  on  09/01  at  09:10 PM

I agree that there’s not much reason to give up on google maps and yelp and the really indespensible tools of the internet for any length of time (except for the fact that sitting down to check one of these makes me extremely likely to check twitter and facebook too), but I feel undeniably, profoundly, tangibly more calm, laid-back, and better able to focus if I’m away from the Internet for a few days. Since discovering this it’s something I try to self-impose one weekend a month.

I heard a cool NPR piece about this a while back http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129384107

I think it’s social networking that’s the addicting thing, and the endless cycle of stupid shit that’s always refreshing and ready to eat an hour or two of your time before you know it. I think it’s legitimately harmful because you can’t just eat one potato chip, so to speak. And I think the bouncing around and multitasking constantly can affect your ability to focus when done in excess.

Comment #13: artdyke  on  09/01  at  09:11 PM

It’s early 1990s stuff, and it wasn’t even accurate then.  It’s like TV sitcoms where the characters talk about going to Vegas for incredibly cheap buffets.  1980, yes, 2000s, no.  And those shows are done by people in LA who probably head to Vegas a couple times a year.  There’s a serious problem with stories that depend on being both wrong and seriously out of date for their basic premise.

Comment #14: QrazyQat  on  09/01  at  09:17 PM

I think it’s social networking that’s the addicting thing,

So ironically, the internet is addictive because it provides so much social interaction.

Comment #15: bananacat  on  09/01  at  09:20 PM

@16, Technically yes, but there’s a huge difference between talking to someone right in front of you, including really getting into topics in depth in ways that it’s almost impossible to do via social networking sites, and compulsively refreshing your facebook news feed and updating twitter with whatever pops into your head.

It’s great for keeping in touch with long-distance friends and family, but it’s still a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction, and is not emotionally satisfying in nearly the same way. The little snippets of connection are more like a dog getting a treat (which of course just leaves it wanting more) rather than feeding the dog a satisfying meal.

Comment #16: artdyke  on  09/01  at  10:27 PM

To me, it boils down to a question of balance. In that sense, internet use isn’t any different than any number of other activities that take up our time. There are healthy and unhealthy ways to use it. It’s no doubt made a lot of tasks much easier than they once were, including certain kinds of social interaction, and those interactions are real, even if they’re electronically mediated. On the other hand, it’s certainly made for a greater number of distractions for me, and that’s been a challenge to deal with.

Comment #17: Linnaeus  on  09/01  at  10:29 PM

Technically yes, but there’s a huge difference between talking to someone right in front of you, including really getting into topics in depth in ways that it’s almost impossible to do via social networking sites, and compulsively refreshing your facebook news feed and updating twitter with whatever pops into your head.

It’s great for keeping in touch with long-distance friends and family, but it’s still a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction, and is not emotionally satisfying in nearly the same way. The little snippets of connection are more like a dog getting a treat (which of course just leaves it wanting more) rather than feeding the dog a satisfying meal.

There’s also a huge difference between a private IM between two friends and constantly refreshing Facebook to see old high school classmates’ status updates.  If you feel that there’s just no substitute for seeing someone in person, please feel free to continue to arrange your own social interactions that way.  Lots of people (me included) find it easier to open up when they are not face to face, especially with new people.  It is certainly still satisfying to make a connection with another person if they are not sitting right in front of you.  And feeling that it’s easier to write out what’s on your mind is a position that long predates the internet—ever see someone advised to write a letter if they can’t bring something up in person?

Comment #18: themmases  on  09/01  at  10:40 PM

I pretty much tune out when I get a sense someone is drawing a sharp distinction between the internet and real life.

Not that I don’t sometimes fall into that trap, at (just shy of) 33. But I can’t imagine telling my teen stepdaughter “get off the internet and talk to your friends” because I recognize that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Comment #7: Hershele Ostropoler on 09/01 at 08:22 PM

I agree and I am significantly over 33.  It’s as if someone said you can’t really communicate over the telephone or in a letter.

I suspect many people who say this kind of thing just aren’t familiar enough with social media to use them effectively, and assume the problem is in the medium and not in their ineptitude with it.

there’s a huge difference between talking to someone right in front of you, including really getting into topics in depth in ways that it’s almost impossible to do via social networking sites, and compulsively refreshing your facebook news feed and updating twitter with whatever pops into your head.

It’s great for keeping in touch with long-distance friends and family, but it’s still a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction, and is not emotionally satisfying in nearly the same way. The little snippets of connection are more like a dog getting a treat (which of course just leaves it wanting more) rather than feeding the dog a satisfying meal.
Comment #17: artdyke on 09/01 at 10:27 PM

If you only use short-form internet media then yes, your communications will probably be unsatisfying.  I have friends I’ve known for 15 years mostly via email lists, having met them on USENET.  I have kept up with only one of my earlier FIDONET friends, but when I was there, I definitely thought of the groups I frequented as social groups, and the people on them as people, not snippets of robot conversation. 

Today, commenters on blogs sometimes get to be friends, too, or at least get to know each other.

Comment #19: oldfeminist  on  09/01  at  10:55 PM

Let’s all shut off our electricity for 30 days. That’ll teach us to appreciate what lazy, pampered poodles we are.

Comment #20: junk science  on  09/01  at  11:41 PM

It’s great for keeping in touch with long-distance friends and family, but it’s still a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction, and is not emotionally satisfying in nearly the same way.

It may not be as satisfying for you personally, but plenty of people consider the distinction artificial and are satisfied by it.  You shouldn’t assume that everyone feels the same way you do.

Comment #21: bananacat  on  09/01  at  11:42 PM

To be fair, not staring at a bright computer screen right before bed could help you sleep. And if most of your timewasters tend to be online it might help you prioritize. Whether your online useless time gets replaced by offline useful things or offline useless things is another question, though.

Comment #22: cadaeib  on  09/02  at  12:49 AM

Technically yes, but there’s a huge difference between talking to someone right in front of you, including really getting into topics in depth in ways that it’s almost impossible to do via social networking sites

it’s not impossible to have in-depth conversations on social networking sites (except maybe twitter, due to character limit). I’ve had plenty of those, that went on for several days and included citations (now there’s something you I’m sorely missing from meatspace interaction: the ability to call bullshit via citations)

but it’s still a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction, and is not emotionally satisfying in nearly the same way.

says who?

Comment #23: jadehawk  on  09/02  at  06:21 AM

I met my boyfriend playing WoW over the intertubes.  Then I met all his long-time friends from childhood on WoW.  Now we all meet up two nights a week to raid and have a generally good time.  I’ve never had so much fun with any group of people.

Comment #24: speedbudget  on  09/02  at  08:11 AM

“What makes the internet simultaneously so great and so awful is its ease of use: It’s made life eminently simpler, but it’s also created a generation of people who rely on it to solve practically everything at all times of day.”

What the fuck does this even mean?  Was the previous generation somehow superior because they had to waste a lot of time trying to solve things with a variety of (frequently unreliable) sources during banking hours only?

Comment #25: preying mantis  on  09/02  at  08:20 AM

I met my boyfriend playing WoW over the intertubes.  Then I met all his long-time friends from childhood on WoW.  Now we all meet up two nights a week to raid and have a generally good time.  I’ve never had so much fun with any group of people.

I met my sort of boyfriend doing arenas on WoW.  If we don’t get gladiator I’m dumping him.

Comment #26: Toitle  on  09/02  at  09:22 AM

Comment #18: Linnaeus - I agree it’s about balance. Setting a challenge to turn off the internet after 8 pm full stop is silly, but for some people the internet could actually be hampering their face-to-face social lives. So, for them the challenge might be good. For instance, if I came home after work and went straight to FB or some on-line game and spent hours there in lieu of talking to my husband or playing with my daughter, that would be a bad thing. But, if I go home and husband and I decide to go out to eat so we look up a restaurant and directions, but otherwise stay off the net, no problem.

And as much as I agree that the internet makes getting together with friends easier, I can’t help but roll my eyes every time I see a group of people at a restaurant and nearly all of them are looking at their phones.

Comment #27: Livi  on  09/02  at  09:24 AM

I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve reconnected with a few people that I knew long ago and who live far away because of social media.  I was never a letter-writer as a kid and get anxious on the phone even with family, so communicating via the internet has been a real positive for me.  Of course with some folks, they remain more acquaintances rather than friends, but a couple have become friends once again.

Comment #28: RonO  on  09/02  at  09:44 AM

Another thing: I was in a long-distance relationship for eight months. If I turned off the internet I’d have had to either call her or not interact with her. I’m not sure why instant messaging is worse than those other options.

Comment #29: Hershele Ostropoler  on  09/02  at  11:06 AM

“What makes the internet simultaneously so great and so awful is its ease of use: It’s made life eminently simpler, but it’s also created a generation of people who rely on it to solve practically everything at all times of day.”

“What the fuck does this even mean?  Was the previous generation somehow superior because they had to waste a lot of time trying to solve things with a variety of (frequently unreliable) sources during banking hours only?”

No, but I see the point there.  Until technology reaches the point where internet is available everywhere absolutely all the time, you need the life skills to work around it not being there.  I teach at an impoverished university where wireless access is spotty in some buildings and unavailable in others, and I’ve seen students freak out when technology that they expected wasn’t available.  In that sense, I guess every generation is superior in its ability to adapt to the technology of its time.

Comment #30: sherunslunatic  on  09/02  at  11:23 AM

“No, but I see the point there.”

I saw the point there for about two seconds, before I thought about what it was like trying to do the stuff I use the internet for now before the internet.  It fucking sucked.  It was unreliable, took up a lot of time, randomly generated pain-in-the-ass factors that were unknowable until they happened, and generally made life way more difficult than it had to be.  Technology doesn’t completely obviate it, but it does mitigate a lot of it just by giving us more sources, more quickly.

I mean, I get that a person needs “life skills” in general, but “life skills” don’t necessarily help now any more than they did back in the day.  Road maps aren’t always right.  Businesses aren’t always open.  Your friends/relatives/grocers don’t always know how to properly prepare a food item.  Libraries don’t always have that book you need on the shelf.  It’s like “Oh, no, how will you get around if your car breaks down?  Better keep a horse around, just in case!” updated for the new century, with an equal unwillingness to acknowledge that horses sucked, too.

Comment #31: preying mantis  on  09/02  at  11:40 AM

Although the internet and social media has made a virtual library/social gathering place is a positive, there are a few issues which annoy me.  One big one is the increasing tendency of most people…in social as well as professional situations to expect you’d be available 24/7. 

Had to temporarily cut off communications for a few weeks to two friends because they didn’t seem to understand that I cannot be available to listen to them kvetch every day for 4-5 straight hours and they do not have carte blanche right to demand use of my time anytime they felt like it…..especially during working hours or when I am otherwise occupied with my own life. 

Also second comments from those who look askance at people who cannot put their cellphones/text devices down when they’re actually hanging out with friends IRL or worse….on a date with an SO.  There’s a saying about there being a time and a place for everything…...

  rolleyes

Comment #32: exholt  on  09/02  at  11:48 AM

I agree it’s about balance. Setting a challenge to turn off the internet after 8 pm full stop is silly, but for some people the internet could actually be hampering their face-to-face social lives.

I’m failing to see why you assume the face-to-face interaction is automatically better.

Sure, there are things you can still do better face-to-face than remotely, but some people don’t necessarily consider those things the most important in their social interactions.

Comment #33: KeithM  on  09/02  at  11:51 AM

It’s definitely a form of “get off my lawn” syndrome. I would never have met my best friend of 7+ years without the internet, a relationship I wouldn’t trade for anything. Said friend lives in an isolated rural area, with unreliable transportation, and is dealing with a lot of things in hir life, among them pretty severe agoraphobia. Zie has a support group that otherwise would simply not exist if zie didn’t have access to the internet, so anyone who tries to make it into some kind of “I’m more moral than you because I’m not chained to the internet” argument can kiss my ass.

Also, coming from a large, close-knit extended family and moving halfway across the country from them, Facebook and the like will save a hell of a lot of time that would otherwise be wasted on the “call up a few cousins and hope they call the rest of the cousins” every time I want to let them know what’s going on in my life.

Comment #34: Chantal  on  09/02  at  11:58 AM

Comment #36: KeithM, Um, did you read my example? I also included the very important phrase “some people” meaning not “all people” meaning, based on your comment, probably not you. If it’s not about you, don’t make it about you.

The whole point of my comment is that some (there’s that word again) people may be putting online interactions above face-to-face interactions which might harm their relationships with their loved ones. Maybe. Is that clear enough for you?

Comment #35: Livi  on  09/02  at  12:01 PM

One big one is the increasing tendency of most people…in social as well as professional situations to expect you’d be available 24/7.

I’ve actually had situation where someone has called me up, irate, because I didn’t answer the email they sent five minutes before, so there is that problem.

Of course, part of the issue is that you do, in a professional setting, often have to be available 24 hours just because of the way the world is. My office is at Mountain Time in the Americas. Some of the companies I deal with have offices scattered across the four major times zones in North America, so I can expect business communications to start at about 0700 (0900 Eastern) and end at 1800 (1700 Pacific), which is three extra hours in my day. And then I deal with companies headquartered in London, Brussels, Sydney, and Beijing. That said, most of the people I deal with have migrated to email specifically because of the time zone thing, so they don’t have to be up at 2am for a phone call.

Comment #36: KeithM  on  09/02  at  12:03 PM

as jadehawk pointed out @10 & 11, some of us have to be on-line at night as that is when we work (intermittent for me when I have a night install on a site somewhere, but pretty constant for some) and my daughter is taking 2 on-line classes this semster, meaning she only has to commute the 40-50 miles to campus on night a week. 
I really agree with nico @ 6 as many of my/myspouse’s relative we have regular contact with over internet and vertually none othrwise (thousands of miles, scattered directions, variable time zones - none of us are good at letter writing but ok at e-mail). 
Along the line of Hershele Ostropoler @ 32, I was in Arkansas for work for nearly a year while my family stayed in MA.  It was bad being away; it would have been 100x worse if I hadn’t had internet, including yahoo voice so that my spouse and I could talk, watch tv at the same time (despite different time zones), share photos, etc because of the internet.
Preying mantis - the hours no longer wasted running around from store to store looking for stuff you can check to see is in-stock before you go; major good thing.  Being able to order something no one in your area carries over the inter net; even better.

Comment #37: helen w. h.  on  09/02  at  12:04 PM

The whole point of my comment is that some (there’s that word again) people may be putting online interactions above face-to-face interactions which might harm their relationships with their loved ones. Maybe. Is that clear enough for you?

Perhaps had you mentioned that you were referring to people with whom there was already a pre-existing face-to-face social commitment to loved ones (said two words not having been in your original message), then you would have a point.

By the by, I love the leap you made that the people I was referring to “probably” included me. Because, it’s clearly unlikely for someone to consider the viewpoint of other people unless they themselves have that same view, right?

Comment #38: KeithM  on  09/02  at  12:09 PM

Comment #41: KeithM - Wow, reading comprehension fail. From my original comment “in lieu of talking to my husband or playing with my daughter”. If that doesn’t constitute a “pre-existing face-to-face social commitment to loved ones” I don’t know what does.

I made a “leap” no more than you did from my original comment. Which, based on two comments from you so far YOU HAVE NOT READ IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Comment #39: Livi  on  09/02  at  12:16 PM

Now you just send out an email to everyone all at once.  People can hash out any scheduling conflicts amongst themselves.

Even that feels a little clunky to me. I’m waiting for the killer app that makes it easy to set up a date with multiple people.  We’re close, such as with the appointment features in Exchange, but I haven’t seen something that makes it really intuitive.

[Livi] I can’t help but roll my eyes every time I see a group of people at a restaurant and nearly all of them are looking at their phones.

Me too, and that’s a facet of the “challenge” that I really understand.  The same devices that help us connect with each other in all the ways Amanda describes have this incredibly compelling pull to keep us staring at them even when we don’t need them.  I see some value in training yourself not to check facebook or read/send texts you receive while you’re in the company of people.  It gives the people you’re with the impression that you’re bored with them.

It’s just not conducive to a blanket “don’t use this at all” challenge.

Comment #40: Cris (without an H)  on  09/02  at  12:20 PM

Me too, and that’s a facet of the “challenge” that I really understand.  The same devices that help us connect with each other in all the ways Amanda describes have this incredibly compelling pull to keep us staring at them even when we don’t need them.  I see some value in training yourself not to check facebook or read/send texts you receive while you’re in the company of people.  It gives the people you’re with the impression that you’re bored with them.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about when I spoke about balance in my comment upthread. Internet activity is “real” and valuable for a lot of reasons, but I think we all try to find that optimal level of integration of the internet into our lives. This optimal level will of course vary from person to person, and another challenge is negotiating that in social interaction.

In the end, I tend to agree with Amanda that the premise in this particular 30-Day Challenge was flawed, but I do appreciate the sentiment behind it nonetheless. I think it’s generally a healthy thing to critically examine technologies and the roles they play in our lives, and when you do so, you need not create a narrative of “get off my lawn” or, on the other hand, one that is overly triumphalist.

Comment #41: Linnaeus  on  09/02  at  12:28 PM

The problem I have experienced with “the Internet” is that while it’s possible to use it to connect with friends and family, it’s also possible for the use of it to degrade relationships with friends and family.  If you’re looking at an electronic device in lieu of the people who are right in front of you (a table of people in a restaurant who are all checking their phones instead of actually talking to each other, for example, or if you’re surfing the net so much that you’re not actually having conversations with the people who live with you or it’s cutting into your ability to engage in other kinds of activities), then there may be a problem.  And I think sometimes we can underestimate how compulsive and compelling these devices can be.  But the solution isn’t to stop using the internet altogether, it’s to impose limits on how much and when and what kind of activities you use it for.

And it’s a separate issue from whether unplugging from work-related emails is healthy, which I think it can be.  If you don’t really need to be checking your email at 11 pm, don’t. 

The other thing is that not looking at a computer screen for an hour or so before bed really can help you sleep better.  The light from the computer screen mimics daylight in some way, and it can upset your internal clock and keep you awake. 

All that said, if you want to try to reduce your internet usage and/or impose no-internet hours on yourself, I can’t see that it would hurt, and it might be interesting.  Certainly you would probably learn something about what is really helpful about the internet to you and what is merely wasting time or cutting into the other parts of your life.  If nothing else, shaking up your routine a little every once in a while can be healthy.  I don’t see the challenge as being really offensive or stupid.

Comment #42: Kit-Kat  on  09/02  at  12:41 PM

Kaleberg@1, you remind me of the Jules Feiffer cartoon in which an intellectual took an office job to do research for his novel about contemporary life, but found that in order to talk with his office mates, he had to start watching television, following sports, go to movies, &c., and now he has no time to write—“But I’m communicating very well!”

Comment #43: Dr. Psycho  on  09/02  at  12:59 PM

The thing that really gets me about the challenge is that it completely ignores the people for whom the Internet has been a godsend. Not a useful thing that has made their life easier, not a nice thing that helps them keep in touch, but a TRULY AWESOME THING that their lives DEPEND ON.

Take me, for example. I am autistic. I exhibit a number of symptoms of autism that are considered odd or off-putting by the majority of society (I have trouble with eye contact, I flap my hands when I’m emotional, my vocal tones are unusual, brain-mouth filter that is configured differently from many peoples’, etc). As a result of both these and my memories of people’s negative reactions to these, I have near-crippling social anxiety.

But online? If I hadn’t just stated the above paragraph, NONE OF YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE OF ME. I could come in, offer a comment, have a conversation, maybe trade emails or handles on twitter or chat services and eventually become friends with people here. I could be pausing while typing every second to flap my hands and rub my nose, you could be naked, and neither of us would know (or care)!

I have heard variants of this from people who have various disabilities. This is FREEDOM. It isn’t perfect - accessibility online is an issue - but people want me to unplug and go back to being dependent on people being willing to “overlook” the fact that I’m flailing in face-to-face conversations? They want me me to be the odd person who talks funny and is “tolerated”? They want the person who has mobility issues to be stuck inside, alone? They want the Deaf person to be silent?

NO THANKS.

Comment #44: Esteleth  on  09/02  at  01:00 PM

Well said, Esteleth.  Very well said.

Comment #45: helen w. h.  on  09/02  at  01:22 PM

Might as well try the 30-day challenge to stop breathing after 8 pm . . .

Comment #46: rea  on  09/02  at  01:51 PM

Dammit, I *so* want to be on Team Cool Kids about this, but if I’m being honest, the internet has had a seriously detrimental effect on a lot of my life.

I wouldn’t say a blanket post-8pm ban is especially useful, but at least 60% of my internet usage after that hour is adding nothing to my life, and in fact making it harder to connect with the partner who is in the same damn room. It sucks away hours and then I have nothing to show for them. Not good ideas, not enlightening reading, certainly not exercise. Just random, moderately funny dreck that I forget in 10 minutes.

And while I am conscious of this, I am also really terrible at doing anything about it. And so the idea of a 30 day “reboot” does kind of appeal—enough time to cut out the dreck and figure out a better balance.

Comment #47: Well, what?  on  09/02  at  02:05 PM

No, but I see the point there.  Until technology reaches the point where internet is available everywhere absolutely all the time, you need the life skills to work around it not being there.

Honestly, this is just ridiculous.  It’s like saying that I need to learn how to cook over a fire in case I don’t have a stove available.  It’s like saying I need to learn how to sew by hand in case I can’t access a sewing machine.  It’s like saying that I need to learn to navigate by the stars and sun because some day I might not have a map with me.

These things are fine to learn as hobbies but not really a necessity or even beneficial for most people.  When we rely on technology (yes, stoves and maps are technology) the solution is to make that technology more easily available, not to make sure that we know how to survive with absolutely nothing available to us.  That’s why we invented smartphones.

Comment #48: bananacat  on  09/02  at  02:09 PM

I’m a junkie too. The primary downside I find to the type of reading I do online and with my interrupt-driven work life is that its getting harder and harder to read books other than novels. Anything that demands my attention for more than 3 sentences is getting challenging. I’ve got a plan to .... what was I saying?

Comment #49: ondrayah  on  09/02  at  02:10 PM

I suspect the major objection to social networking sites ultimately reduced to the fact that they provide a persistent record of how utterly “worthless” a lot of social interaction is with regard to anything other than being social interaction.

Social interaction has its own inherent value.  It doesn’t have to achieve something to be worthwhile.  Simply providing social interaction is a legitimate goal all by itself.  People aren’t robots and most of us need social interaction to have good mental health, even if that interaction is “worthless”.

Comment #50: bananacat  on  09/02  at  02:12 PM

I have similar feelings about this, Esteleth.  While it’s not as severe as yours, I also carry a lot of anxiety—mostly about all the logistics involved in going pretty much anywhere.  If I can’t know the hours of a place, precisely how to get there, that the Brown Line will still be running and is not currently delayed by anything, that it’s unlikely to be too crowded to be worth it, that I won’t be late, etc. then I probably will not go.  Today, Google Maps and CTA Bus/Train Tracker are my friends, and I can get out more and appear almost normal.

Comment #51: themmases  on  09/02  at  02:14 PM

One big one is the increasing tendency of most people…in social as well as professional situations to expect you’d be available 24/7.

This is really a case of setting boundaries though.  A lot of people who are expected to return e-mails and calls all even would be the same people who would be forced to stay at the office until 10 p.m. if we didn’t have e-mail and cell phones.  So even though being contacted constantly sounds like a nightmare, it’s better than the alternative in some cases.  In the cases where a person wouldn’t normally have to work long hours, this is a problem with a bad boss.

For kids whose parents call them constantly to check up on them or have GPS installed, those kids would simply be forced to stay at home without the cell phone.

It’s not really fair to compare the worst cell/e-mail situation to the best case without it.

Comment #52: bananacat  on  09/02  at  02:23 PM

If you’re looking at an electronic device in lieu of the people who are right in front of you, then there may be a problem.

There may be a problem, but not always with the person using the cell phone.  Yes, I agree that it’s rude, but maybe the people they are with are just outright boring.  The only time I ever texted while in the company of others were times when I was already excluded from the conversation.  I used to have a boyfriend who let his family walk all over him and they would pop in during dates and talk to him in a language I didn’t understand.  So hell yeah, I found something to do on my phone.  And once I agreed to hang out with my best friend’s brother and his fiance and I was totally excluded from the conversation because they only talked about people that the three of them knew and I didn’t.  There are other rude things besides just texting, and lack of a good conversation isn’t always the fault of the person looking at their phone.

Comment #53: bananacat  on  09/02  at  02:29 PM

Esteleth, you made some very good points, and sort of the same point I was making above - my best friend would otherwise be very, very isolated in hir small, rural community. The internet is a HUGE positive force in hir life.

I think there’s still a lot of assumption going on that the internet is somehow “separate” - that it “cuts into other aspects of life” in a way that nothing else possibly could. Ignoring the fact that for more and more people, instead of something separate, it’s becoming completely integrated into their lives - and I count myself among this number. I use the internet for school, and work, and yeah, a lot of my social interactions take place primarily online - again, these interactions aren’t “less than” in-person socialization, they’re just a different way of doing it. Of course, everyone needs to prioritize their social interactions and figure out which ones are the most important in each situation, but I’m not going to tell anyone how to do that. Basically - I don’t think it’s the fault of the internet if someone isn’t prioritizing in a healthy way.

Comment #54: Chantal  on  09/02  at  02:30 PM

Basically - I don’t think it’s the fault of the internet if someone isn’t prioritizing in a healthy way.

No, it isn’t the fault of the Internet. Just as it isn’t the cigarette’s fault that it’s so fucking addictive, or that it’s bad for you. Nonetheless, if someone finds that smoking is negatively affecting their life, the solution to that problem is likely going to involve, you know, not smoking anymore. Or smoking less. So yes, for people who have a hard time prioritizing in a healthy way, a blanket internet ban might be useful.

Comment #55: Well, what?  on  09/02  at  02:43 PM

This conversation brings to my mind this Slowpoke comic* by Jen Sorensen.

*I realize that Sorensen goes a little over the top, but it did give me a chuckle.

Comment #56: Linnaeus  on  09/02  at  02:47 PM

Basically I feel like the whole “challenge” thing boils down to, “if it’s not about you, it’s not about you.” If you use the internet in exclusively meaningful and beneficial ways and it’s how you and your SO bond and it widens your world to the nth degree and exhilarates you, well fucking good and awesome, carry on, don’t take the challenge.

If, on the other hand, you find that it drains you, isolates you, stresses you out and fucks with your sleep and leaves you and your SO with nothing to talk about, then why not give it a shot? Or modify it so that it does what you want? I don’t see the point in rejecting it outright and declaring it Useless For Everyone.

Comment #57: Well, what?  on  09/02  at  02:50 PM

“For kids whose parents call them constantly to check up on them or have GPS installed, those kids would simply be forced to stay at home without the cell phone.”

I’m not sure I agree with that.  It’s possible that insanely overprotective parents would just lock their kids up,  but it’s also possible that the fact that you can call someone constantly to check up on them makes some people think that you should do that, whereas if it wasn’t possible, parents would just set curfews and tell the kid to call home if their plans changed.  Before cell phones and smart phones, there was no expectation that someone would be accessible 24/7.  Now that it’s possible, some people think that it’s not only desirable but necessary.  The technology shapes what we think is appropriate, and because technology creates the possibility of being plugged in all the time, some people think we ought to be plugged in all the time.  Like the “bad old days” where you had to have phone trees to make plans—I lived through those, too, and they weren’t all that bad.  It’s not like we’re all that much busier than we were 10 years ago, but there are different expectations for how we spend our time, how willing we are to wait in line for things, etc. 

The Internet makes some things possible that weren’t before, and makes some things more convenient, and that’s great, but it also does cause problems of varying sorts for some people.  If the internet has done nothing but wonders for your life, that’s fine, but different people do have different issues with it.  I kind of agree that if the challenge isn’t about you, it’s not about you.  For some people, limiting their Internet use would be a major hardship, for others, it would be a wonderfully freeing experience, and for others, it might be interesting but would be fundamentally no big deal. 

Personally, I try not to use the computer after 9 or 10, because it makes it harder for me to get to sleep (I’m naturally a night owl, so it’s hard for me to even go to bed before midnight, but I have a 9-to-5 job and need my full 8 hours, so I really have to do whatever I can to facilitate an earlier bedtime) so turning it off a little earlier would not really be a big deal, but that’s just me.

Comment #58: Kit-Kat  on  09/02  at  03:15 PM

The Internet, imho, is one of the greatest inventions ever. One of my peeves are people declaring that they “don’t get computers” and all this new technology. It’s ridiculus!!. It’s like they take a perverse pride in the fact that they refuse to have a cell phone, email, or any that could possibly make their lives more enjoyable. It’s the new “When I was Your Age” meme.
I just finished the book Girls to the Front about the Riot Grrll movement: one of the hardest issues girls had was finding other like minded girls/women esp in small towns and suburban hell holes. The Internet (would have been) and is a lifesaver for those of us stuck in areas such as these.

Comment #59: pitbullgirl65  on  09/02  at  03:23 PM

How about a 30 day challenge to actively ignore important things that affect your life (including tornado warnings)  and not speak to anyone especially your friends and spouse, because keeping your head stuffed firmly up your ass will cleanse your colon.

Next challenge, for thirty days only communicate through semaphores to improve spelling and brevity.

Comment #60: msobel  on  09/02  at  03:28 PM

Hmm.
I see the internet (as a whole) as a piece of technology.  It can be used, or abused.
I use the internet a lot. I socialize on it, I do some work on it, and I also play and waste time on it. I could, if I wanted, abuse the internet. I could use the internet to hurt someone. I could also become addicted to something online, like Farmville or WoW, blowing money and time on subscriptions and neat armor or whatever.

I also, as it happens, use my car a lot. I use it to socialize (traveling to see people, go to places), I use it for work (driving to and from) and I also play and waste time using it (traveling to the movies, to a bar). I could abuse it by speeding, ignoring traffic laws, or by drinking and driving. I could hurt somebody with it. I could get addicted to driving around and seeing the sights and thus blow a lot of money on gas.

I do agree that if I was blowing hours a day reading TVTropes (or surfing blogs while I’m at work *cough*), then it could negatively affect my life by cutting into things that I need to do. But so what? If I got addicted to hanging out in bars drinking and thus neglected things, that would also be a bad thing. I don’t really see the distinction between the two.

This is why I do try to have rules for myself. Like, no Facebook or G+ at work, except maybe during my lunch. Simple enough, stick to work-related websites between 9 and 5 on weekdays. I also don’t check them after bedtime if it is a work night so I can sleep. In the same way, I don’t bring books from home to work and I don’t check my phone after I’ve gone to bed.

Blaming the internet is easy. It is also nonsensical. Overall, the internet is morally neutral. Some, yes, will be harmed. Some - like me and Chantal’s friend - benefit. It is reasonable to talk about how being online affects our lives, but please. Stop with the handwringing and blanket statements about how online relationships are lesser.

Comment #61: Esteleth  on  09/02  at  03:44 PM

This is really a case of setting boundaries though.

True.  The main problem seems to be a lot of people take great umbrage to any form of boundary setting because…OMG you’re rude/inconsiderate/cold/inhuman because you didn’t return my call/emails within 5 minutes.  With two friends, even explicitly telling them that their behavior was a deep imposition into my work and life wasn’t enough….hence my temporarily ceasing all communications with them for two weeks after telling them exactly why I was doing so. 

For kids whose parents call them constantly to check up on them or have GPS installed, those kids would simply be forced to stay at home without the cell phone.

Funny….the parents who I’ve seen with such tendencies tend to be types who oversheltered/micromanaged their kids to such an extent that they had serious adjustment issues once they moved out/went off to college.  With the availability of the internet and cheaper cell plans…..they have become the very helicopter parents my Prof/TA friends constantly rant about….

Yes, I agree that it’s rude, but maybe the people they are with are just outright boring.

“Being boring” is so subjective and arbitrary that it can and has been used IME as a carte blanche way to justify many rude and capricious behaviors. 

Observed this from various conversations overheard/with recent undergrads and especially when I sat in on an undergrad class my friends TAed for at a university.  Doesn’t excuse the fact it is rude, can be disruptive, and certain “oldschool” Profs/TAs will dock points or even ask a given student to leave and give him/her a 0 for that day’s class participation grade.

Comment #62: exholt  on  09/02  at  04:06 PM

Well, what? @50—I’m with you. I love the internet. It’s a great good and it lets me do all kinds of fantastic things, learn all kinds of useful things, etc. It makes me better-informed, more productive, lets me keep in touch with friends and family I care about.

But I am also really good at just futzing and procrastinating and not doing anything worth anything, not even having any real fun, on the internet. And getting drawn into arguments that piss me off for days.

Seriously—I have ADD. The internet is like crack to me, precisely because of its benefits to the world. Infinite amounts of interesting information, conversations, videos, photos? And I just have to click to get to something totally new and also fascinating? YES MORE PLEASE. Especially when I am slogging through something ultra-boring and tedious that I “should” be doing.

But the problem is that it’s easy to keep clicking on new stuff, even when I’d get more enjoyment and reward out of doing something else. And it’s also easy to get totally obsessive about something online—news, politics, blogwars. It’s easy to just make myself miserable.

So I can definitely see the value in a self-imposed internet fast. Not because I think the internet is bad, but because I have tendencies that mean I sometimes use it in a way that is bad for me.

If someone doesn’t have these problems, then they probably don’t need a self-imposed internet fast. And I would like to clone their brain into my head please.

Comment #63: snowmentality  on  09/02  at  04:08 PM

I got carpal tunnel syndrome and numb fingertips from using an iPad for 14 hours a day. I now force myself to turn it off by 2am each morning, and not start before 7am. Also, the residue from the flaming cheetos tends to grease up the screen after twelve hpurs or so.

Comment #64: faiimuden  on  09/02  at  04:32 PM

Chantal, 57:

I think there’s still a lot of assumption going on that the internet is somehow “separate” - that it “cuts into other aspects of life” in a way that nothing else possibly could.

It’s the idea, reinforced in the challenge, that “being on the internet” is an activity in and of itself. If you say I’m “on the internet” right now it seems easy if not eminently reasonable to say I’d benefit from turning it off. If you say I’m having a stimulating conversaton with intereting people about a magazine article, it’s a little odd to say “well, that’s not enriching, cut it out.”

Kit-Kat, 61:

Like the “bad old days” where you had to have phone trees to make plans—I lived through those, too, and they weren’t all that bad.  It’s not like we’re all that much busier than we were 10 years ago, but there are different expectations for how we spend our time, how willing we are to wait in line for things, etc.

My mother and my sister used to have a standing thing (less so now that my sister’s an adult no longer living with our parents) because my sister, with a cell phone, makes vague, fluid plans, and my mother finds it difficult to deal with.

Comment #65: Hershele Ostropoler  on  09/02  at  04:34 PM

#68: Hershele Ostropoler

Your mom is not alone.  I find it incredibly annoying that more and more people seem to think that making plans is a huge imposition on them somehow and its reasonable to expect everyone else to play everything by ear, or that it is acceptable to cancel plans with minimal or no advance notice just because you don’t feel like doing whatever it was you said you would do.  My solution is to only make plans with this kind of person or invited them to something when it doesn’t actually matter whether or not they show up.  I know there have always been flaky people, but having lived through the transition, the internet and cell phones have definitely exacerbated the problem.

Comment #66: Kit-Kat  on  09/02  at  04:45 PM

Your mom is not alone.  I find it incredibly annoying that more and more people seem to think that making plans is a huge imposition on them somehow and its reasonable to expect everyone else to play everything by ear, or that it is acceptable to cancel plans with minimal or no advance notice just because you don’t feel like doing whatever it was you said you would do.

My personality and formative education orients me towards planning anything involving other people to the levels of detail most non-“NT” types find annoying and sometimes even obsessive when what I’m really trying to do is to minimize any unforeseen pitfalls as much as possible.  Part of this is from having had to suffer through such pitfalls when others who preferred more fluid plans or worse…to “wing it” were the organizers/planners of a given event and I was a participant. 

I used to take flaking out very personally because in my family’s culture of origin, being late or canceling plans at the last minute were behaviors identified with self-important people….especially those in powerful government/corporate positions.  In short….it was always read as the flaker basically saying “my time is so much more important than yours that I’ll waste it as I please”.

Later…found it was much easier to unfriend the most egregious flakers and put the less egregious ones on the lowest priority backburner if they come to me for help/advice/hanging out.  While some have considered me to be an asshole for doing so, I’ve had far less stress after I started doing so during my college years.

Comment #67: exholt  on  09/02  at  05:37 PM

I need to live that challenge forever. Because I SHOULD go to bed at about 7-7:30 PM in order to get the bare minimum sleep I need to be alert when I take the wheel of my semi at 2 am.

And for some of us, the net is not only our primary socialization source, but our second job as well.

Comment #68: Angelia Sparrow  on  09/02  at  06:48 PM

Honestly, this is just ridiculous.  It’s like saying that I need to learn how to cook over a fire in case I don’t have a stove available.  It’s like saying I need to learn how to sew by hand in case I can’t access a sewing machine.  It’s like saying that I need to learn to navigate by the stars and sun because some day I might not have a map with me.

I didn’t say everyone needs to be a survivalist, I said that sometimes the very latest technology, or even common current technology, isn’t available.  I’m talking about knowing how to use a stove in case there’s not a microwave and knowing how to read a map or ask people for directions if you don’t have a GPS.  Those seem like common skills, but you’d be surprised how many people don’t learn them.  Beliot’s Mindset list noted this year’s freshmen as the first who have always had internet access.  Many of them have grown up assuming internet technology is always readily available and that’s not always the case. 

the solution is to make that technology more easily available, not to make sure that we know how to survive with absolutely nothing available to us.

That’s great as an ideal, but in the meantime, people still have to do things.  I love using technology in the classroom and used it a good bit when I was at a better-funded university (I taught a lot of lit and pop culture stuff), but if I didn’t have a backup plan every time I encountered a burnt-out projector bulb, missing equipment, malfunctioning laptop, broken DVD player, locked computer cabinet, lack of funding for copy resources, etc. I’d have spent a lot of time in front of the classroom flailing. 

Regarding the aforementioned lack of reliable wireless on my campus—I spent a lot of time and energy trying to get it turned back on, with slow and frustrating results, so “make technology is more available” is easier said than done.  (The state pretty much got blown away in a tornado last spring and restoring wireless was not a priority on our campus; it took four months to get it back in our building.)  Meanwhile, my students show up for English class assuming they can just download the day’s text on their laptops and are flummoxed when there’s no wireless, and they don’t know how to use the library because they’ve grown up thinking all information is available online.  I’m just saying that part of adulthood is learning coping skills for when technology isn’t available. 

I mean, I get that a person needs “life skills” in general, but “life skills” don’t necessarily help now any more than they did back in the day.  Road maps aren’t always right.

Well, of course they’re not.  But neither is Googlemaps or a GPS.  It’s about knowing various workarounds so that you have options, not the assumption that any of those things are a magic wand.

That’s why we invented smartphones.

That’s swell for people who can afford smartphones.  Maybe someday I’ll be one of those people. In the meantime I have to make do with occasionally Luddite methods.

 

Comment #69: sherunslunatic  on  09/02  at  08:59 PM

[Apologies if this double-posts.]

Honestly, this is just ridiculous.  It’s like saying that I need to learn how to cook over a fire in case I don’t have a stove available.  It’s like saying I need to learn how to sew by hand in case I can’t access a sewing machine.  It’s like saying that I need to learn to navigate by the stars and sun because some day I might not have a map with me.

I didn’t say everyone needs to be a survivalist, I said that sometimes the very latest technology, or even common current technology, isn’t available.  I’m talking about knowing how to use a stove in case there’s not a microwave and knowing how to read a map or ask people for directions if you don’t have a GPS.  Those seem like common skills, but you’d be surprised how many people don’t learn them.  Beliot’s Mindset list noted this year’s freshmen as the first who have always had internet access.  Many of them have grown up assuming internet technology is always readily available and that’s not always the case. 

the solution is to make that technology more easily available, not to make sure that we know how to survive with absolutely nothing available to us.

That’s great as an ideal, but in the meantime, people still have to do things.  I love using technology in the classroom and used it a good bit when I was at a better-funded university (I taught a lot of lit and pop culture stuff), but if I didn’t have a backup plan every time I encountered a burnt-out projector bulb, missing equipment, malfunctioning laptop, broken DVD player, locked computer cabinet, lack of funding for copy resources, etc. I’d have spent a lot of time in front of the classroom flailing. 

Regarding the aforementioned lack of reliable wireless on my campus—I spent a lot of time and energy trying to get it turned back on, with slow and frustrating results, so “make technology is more available” is easier said than done.  (The state pretty much got blown away in a tornado last spring and restoring wireless was not a priority on our campus; it took four months to get it back in our building.)  Meanwhile, my students show up for English class assuming they can just download the day’s text on their laptops and are flummoxed when there’s no wireless, and they don’t know how to use the library because they’ve grown up thinking all information is available online.  I’m just saying that part of adulthood is learning coping skills for when technology isn’t available. 

I mean, I get that a person needs “life skills” in general, but “life skills” don’t necessarily help now any more than they did back in the day.  Road maps aren’t always right.

Well, of course they’re not.  But neither is Googlemaps or a GPS.  It’s about knowing various workarounds so that you have options, not the assumption that any of those things are a magic wand.

That’s why we invented smartphones.

That’s swell for people who can afford smartphones.  Maybe someday I’ll be one of those people. In the meantime I have to make do with occasionally Luddite methods.

 

Comment #70: sherunslunatic  on  09/02  at  09:00 PM

“Being boring” is so subjective and arbitrary that it can and has been used IME as a carte blanche way to justify many rude and capricious behaviors.

Did you even bother to read the specific examples I gave?  Those were cases where I would have been bored to tears in any case and would not have participated in the conversation because I was excluded from it.  The cell phone means the difference between sitting and staring blankly while being bored to tears, or having something to occupy my mind.  The conversation would have not have happened no matter what because I was already excluded from it.  I’m not saying that this is the case with every person who is using a cell phone around other people, but I am saying that sometimes the blame for the lack of good conversation doesn’t always rest on the person with the cell phone.

Comment #71: bananacat  on  09/02  at  09:20 PM

I didn’t say everyone needs to be a survivalist, I said that sometimes the very latest technology, or even common current technology, isn’t available.

I know what you said, I was pointing out you hypocrisy for only applying this “logic” to one type of technology, namely the one that you are unfamiliar with.  I was showing that your reasoning is faulty in this case, by demonstrating how ridiculous it would be to apply the same reasoning to analogous situations.

Comment #72: bananacat  on  09/02  at  09:22 PM

I know what you said, I was pointing out you hypocrisy for only applying this “logic” to one type of technology, namely the one that you are unfamiliar with.

I’m not sure if I follow—can you clarify?  I’m not talking about refusing to use the latest technology because it’s unfamiliar; I’m talking about knowing how to use slightly more archaic technology when the latest isn’t available.  On a scale from one to ten with one being killing your prey and cooking it over a campfire you lit with a flint, and ten being getting takeout—your best bet is knowing how to use something that’s going to be the best combination of availability and ease, i.e. a stove. 

And honestly, I don’t think that this:

It’s like saying that I need to learn how to cook over a fire in case I don’t have a stove available.  It’s like saying I need to learn how to sew by hand in case I can’t access a sewing machine.  It’s like saying that I need to learn to navigate by the stars and sun because some day I might not have a map with me.

is completely “ridiculous.”  When the tornado hit I skipped town, but friends and family who stayed were without power for a week or two; they relied on campfires and grills.  I can’t afford a sewing machine, so I mend the occasional missing button or torn seam by hand rather than buy an entirely new piece of clothing.  When my husband and I first came to this town to interview for my current job, we got lost and couldn’t find a single gas station or store that carried a city map—why would they stock them when “everyone” has a GPS?—and if he hadn’t been raised by a truck driver who drilled an impeccable sense of direction into him from an early age, we would’ve been screwed. 

Again, I apologize if I’m misunderstanding you.  I’m just saying that current technology is great, but it’s sensible not to become so exclusively reliant on it that you never pick up the ability to use alternate types of technology that are less likely to have availability issues.

Comment #73: sherunslunatic  on  09/02  at  09:45 PM

Before smartphones, those of us who were faced with the rudeness of others ignoring us often carried a book around.

Comment #74: oldfeminist  on  09/02  at  09:57 PM

Social networking sites, which moral scolds say will replace/destroy in-person social life and get you raped, have been a huge booster to my IRL social life - ON TWO COASTS!  This is totally the truth!

I am rather picky about friend requests, and have curated my friends carefully.  That said, I keep in better touch with my own neighborhood friends and better organize my attendance at improptu cocktail parties and birthday celebrations via social networking.

But I can also sew by hand - which I am teaching my kids to do so they can mend things - and can navigate by the sun, which I have gotten shit for in NYC even though it freaking works!

Comment #75: Ms Kate  on  09/04  at  08:43 PM

Ms. Kate, they have been a boon to the spouse and me on two continents, helping us connect with and set up plans with friends and acquaintances in Asia and with family and same across North America.

Comment #76: helen w. h.  on  09/06  at  03:42 PM

We’ve just finished arranging for translaters at a trade show in Vietnam in Nov through a friend we keep in touch with via social networking on-line.  Hopefully, they will become friends as well.

Comment #77: helen w. h.  on  09/08  at  10:21 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.