The medium makes some messages/interactions possible that were not previously possible.

Sure, people have been callous and manipulative forever. But when you had to talk to your date - either face to face or voice to voice - certain things were more difficult to pull off... including the self-delusion that you are not a cad for acting like this.

Makes me nostalgic for the good old days of speed-dating.

It requires effort, practice and time to become a person who can trade in the trust, respect and self-sacrifice necesary for a reciprocal long-term commitment to another person.

What are these people expending their efforts and time practicing?

It is not the technology to blame, though. These people Brooks decries likely do not value firm, lasting connections, romantic or otherwise. Perhaps they have trouble forming them, and therefore don't understand the appeal, as they never really experienced them.

Rather than decry the technology as creating this sort of person, maybe we should cheer the technology for helping others who can form connections avoid this sort of person. That way the attachment disorder crowd can spend more time with their attachment disorder peers. The people who can and will form connections with others can sort more easily too.

Works out for everyone, I think.

>>The truth is, human nature hasn't changed; it just has more technology and plays out faster.

Couldn't agree more, Amy.

Ben-David comments: But when you had to talk to your date - either face to face or voice to voice - certain things were more difficult to pull off...

Not sure this is true. Last night I was watching one of those big ballsy brilliant BBC tv adaptations of Anthony Trollope's satire, "The Way We Live Now".

If you adjust for the chaperone conventions of 19th century society, all the main sub-plots are really about men & women frantically promising themselves to each other on the basis of impressions & gossip & romantic and/or financial expectations in a mad race to link up.

The characters are frequently stringing along back burner candidates too!

I don't believe technology creates this kind of person, but I agree with Ben-David that it's certainly made it easier to BE this kind of person.

Online dating, plus impersonal texting and e-mailing, has made it much easier for people to be non-committal. If a date doesn't go particularly well, there's always someone more interesting in the "inbox" to shift focus to, so daters don't often give any one person enough time to really grow on them.

I was guilty of this myself. There were plenty of nice guys that I might've connected with on a much deeper level if I hadn't been so tempted by the profile of some hot new guy who just wrote to me on "Plentyoffish.com". It was a smorgasbord of possibilities, and I believe advertising studies have proven that when people are given too many options, they tend not to choose anything at all.

Eventually, I met a great guy in my own town, who wasn't online, and therefore required more one-on-one attention. I couldn't text him - he didn't get texts. I couldn't e-mail - he barely checked his (as opposed to guys online who rush home after the date to see if someone hotter might've written them). I had to actually go out with him a lot more - and really get to know him - and now we're together. It could just be coincidence, but the lack of technology probably didn't hurt.

>>Eventually, I met a great guy in my own town, who wasn't online, and therefore required more one-on-one attention. I couldn't text him - he didn't get texts.

I almost hate to say this, because it sounds so pat, lovelysoul!

But that situation is timeless too!

The partner that exists under your very nose is an enduring trope of love - and of Trollope!

His message - tho' he was a savage satirist - is that character will out in the end, despite self-delusion or society's expectations. (Life, of course, is never as tidy as novels!)

Yeah, I think it was here, Amy. I learn a lot here. :)

Cellphones don't cause the problem; they just make it easier to blow off someone in favor of someone else....and also, to test the waters for something better. I still get occassional texts from men I rejected years ago, like, "hey, just saying 'hi'...hope you're happy", etc. They may even be in relationships but are still kind of fishing. There's much less risk than doing it face to face. All that can happen is that I might not respond, or shoot them down with a friendly text. The fear of rejection is lessened, which makes people a lot bolder.

I'm glad my relationship conforms to timeless literature, Jody.

The thing is, I'm addicted to technology. My business depends on this sort of communication. I carry a Blackberry with me all the time.

But I would hate it if my boyfriend was checking his texts every few minutes. I'm glad he's old-fashioned. It makes me feel much more comfortable because I've seen how it can be misused romantically.

>>The question is: who or what is controlling your love life -- you or your tiny device?

Oh I know the answer to that one!

You see, ironically, in the 18th century...*crawls off to embroider a bonnet...*

When I was 13, I yakked on the phone constantly with all my friends, but now I prefer to use the phone and texting purely for logistics.

I don't like getting to know someone over texting and cell phones, because half of the getting to know someone includes all that non-verbal stuff - body language, glances, tone of voice, rhythm (what do they call this in NLP? mirroring?). What with dropped calls and poor signals, it's almost impossible to even figure out if we both like coffee and want to meet at 11am or noon at Farley's or Chat's.

Yes, this is the online dating thing, so all bets are off.

A hypothetical first call goes like this, "Hello?" "Who? This is God? Wow... really? I wasn't sure you really existed, no offense... WHAT??? Oh... GADY! So what can I do for you, Gady? WHAT??? could you repeat that, please, a truck just went by... You're from Play-Doh? I don't need any Play-Doh, got plenty already... Oh, JDate! Riigght, right..."

Some people just don't come off well at all over the phone or text media. They're fine in person, but talking to them on the phone is like shouting at a block of wood. Sometimes it's because English isn't their first language, and sometimes it's because they don't pay close attention; either way, it's excruciating.

For long conversations on difficult topics, email can work if both people like to write and are comfortable communicating in writing.

That's pretty far from using technology to dump more people faster than ever...

Me? I met my boyfriend because of technology; specifically, the iPod, which my friend Nando had at an ev. psych conference (before anybody had them). I thought it looked like a white garage door opener, but Nando knows his technology, so I went into the Apple store at The Grove to take a look, and there was Gregg at the iPod display. (He'd lost his on a plane and had to buy another pronto.)

He likes to say we met "because of Steve Jobs retail strategy."

A week later, he was back, somebody'd found his lost iPod and gotten it back to him, and he gave me the iPod he bought that day we met.

PS If he hadn't asked me out for a coke at The Farmer's Market, he'd be some cute guy I talked to in the Apple store seven years ago.

My fiance and I are only together because of technology. For three years our relationship grew the too-rare visits and a slew of texts, video chats, IMs, emails, and World of Warcraft.

Technology is just a tool.

I love IM. Since my fiance and I hate talking on the phone, it allows us to communicate throughout the day in a low-level way. With him working at a start-up and me taking care of my father, sometimes it's the only time we get to talk.