I think there maybe a chicken-egg question there.

Are the less socially skilled because of the media or are they not socially skilled and so choose to use media more?

Though I think the one has a point in general. I went to Starbucks a couple of weeks ago and then was about 10 people...all pounding away on their keyboards - many with headphones on. I was back in my home town over Christmas and out at a bar. I wasn't tapping maddly on my phone. The bartender asked me why I wasn't playing with my phone or something. Was my battery dead? If I had my charge she could plug it behind the counter.

I was, and still am, not the best at handling crowds and social situations. I have a very small crowd of friends and rarely go out.

I'm reminded of the woman who called in the other day when I was on Patt Morrison's radio show on KPCC. She snarled (as so many do) about how people texting on their phones are "so anti-social," and about what a tragedy it was that they weren't paying attention to their environment.

There are a lot of presumptions in that statement. I would find it rude to go out with someone or a group and not be able to really talk to them for all the texting they are doing. But if they are out alone, I don't really care what they are doing. Especially if you're sitting in a bar.

Less socially comfortable? I'd say there are more opportunities for social interaction than ever before! My kids can talk to friends and relatives all over the world now, whereas at that age I had to pretty much rely on snail mail.

Of course, becoming too attached to any one form of interaction can be kind of limiting, maybe, but I wonder if the study cited in the NYT (which I didn't read) is an academic way of complaining about those damn kids today with their internet and texting.

Oh, by the way, when somebody says something is a tragedy, and nobody's died or gotten sick or hurt or anything, I tend to take that person a little less seriously. Same with "it's sad, really."

I tell my adult children when you hear an older person talk about the good old days just slap them.
These are the good old days! We're interacting with more people than ever.
We shouldn't be rude and text or read our phone with others of course. But these are the best of times for social relationships.

>>"I think there maybe a chicken-egg question there.
Are the less socially skilled because of the media or are they not socially skilled and so choose to use media more?"

Ooh, you just described me! I was in the latter years of high school when we got Internet, and suddenly, I found out I wasn't weird. In school, my choice of clothes, books, movies, TV, and so on were not *cool*, or (at the very least) not common among girls. So thus, I was left with little to talk about with others. And I was miserable. When I logged online, however, I found so many websites dedicated to just the things I loved. And I had all these people to talk to and debate with, all on my hobbies. I remember wishing silently that I could have a portable Internet, so that I could have that outlet on the go.

If we had today's tech when I was a kid, I'd be plugged in nearly all the time. It was nicer than the stressful interactions of talking to people who I don't understand and who don't understand me.

--Kind of amazing that people feel so free to decide what should be important to other people.-- Amy

Not really arguing but I think someone texting their loved ones or playing farmville or whatever while walking (or driving) around is just plain stupid.

People are walking in front of moving cars and are totally oblivious to their own surroundings.

Situational awareness is a good thing.

Seated at Charbuck's or someplace? Go for it.

I do find it kind of creepy when people always have their device in use. They are addicts. Or so it appears.

Situational awareness is a good thing.

It is. Maybe I'm exceptional, but I find that I don't have to pay attention to my surroundings every moment to keep track of things.

For instance, if I'm at the bar, I'm usually watching some sport and drinking beer. When the commercials come on, I'll flip over to twitter and see what's going on. When the break is over, I switch back to TV.

I've had running conversations in the bar, and on twitter about the same thing. Multi-social, indeed!

It's really the silliest 'kids today are so awful' argument yet--I always ask people why they are so against a silent activity that isn't bothering anybody in the least. Nobody has come back with a cogent reply. They just give me the stink-eye and change the subject.

Yes, this generation has its own special issues, but let's give them credit for sitting still quietly, kay?

I frequent Metafilter and I wish I had a nickel for every poster who says that they're introverted, shy, socially maladroit or have poos social skills. Now, I know that the internet is a self-selecting place, but is everyone online really that feeble? I can talk to anyone about anything, but it's a skill I learned myself. Maybe Amy and I should open a charm school.

Amy said:
I was miserable from 8 to 12. I had no friends and buried myself in books. Surely, this wasn't the best way to learn social skills.
__________________________

Well, it CAN be. Depends on the books. (Miss Manners taught me useful philosophies that many adults in my life didn't know.) Same goes for the Internet - but if you WANT to learn social skills, and a certain site is full of four-letter words, that's a good argument for avoiding it.
_________________________

Not really arguing but I think someone texting their loved ones or playing farmville or whatever while walking (or driving) around is just plain stupid.

People are walking in front of moving cars and are totally oblivious to their own surroundings.

Situational awareness is a good thing.

Seated at Charbuck's or someplace? Go for it.

I do find it kind of creepy when people always have their device in use. They are addicts. Or so it appears.

Posted by: LauraGr at January 26, 2012 7:20 AM
___________________________

Yes! While you're NOT obligated to chat with strangers who are next to you, it's still common courtesy not to make yourself a hazard to drivers or pedestrians - e.g., by sitting in the wrong spot.

And everyone - especially parents - needs to realize that the more addictive something is, the more likely it is to be bad for you in one way or another. (If only because it's likely to be anti-intellectual or anti-exercise.)
___________________________

It's really the silliest 'kids today are so awful' argument yet--I always ask people why they are so against a silent activity that isn't bothering anybody in the least. Nobody has come back with a cogent reply. They just give me the stink-eye and change the subject.

Yes, this generation has its own special issues, but let's give them credit for sitting still quietly, kay?

Posted by: deathbysnoosnoo at January 26, 2012 8:08 AM
_____________________

I think there's a misunderstanding going on here.

Kids should NOT be allowed to ignore the friends or family they're with at the moment. (If my mother EVER let me bring a book or a toy to the dinner table, she stopped that when I was still a toddler, because I don't remember it.) While kids should be allowed to excuse themselves and go off and play AFTER the meal, especially if the adults don't want them loudly interrupting adult conversations that the kids are woefully ignorant about anyway, that does not make it OK to bring electronics to the table. It's RUDE. It's not just a matter of "different" lifestyles. In the same vein, when adults WANT to make conversation with kids, the adults have every right to insist on it - politely.

And, again, when you consider all the hours kids are FORCED to sit still every single week, why would you give them an excuse to spend even MORE time sitting down - unless it's reading a book that's actually at the kid's grade level or higher?

If you want to know how to interact with people, Dale Carnegie wrote the book. Picking those with whom interaction is worth the effort is another story. It turns out that one of the prerequisites for success in life is learning to say no.

Ignoring people you are with for a phone is rude. Amy sees rude people. I avoid them.

I wouldn't advise slapping anyone, for a variety of reasons. Ignoring them is a better option. You avoid lawsuits or potentially painful-to-lethal retaliation. Some people know martial arts. Others are armed.

It's pretty well known that too much screen time is bad for kids. This is hardly new.

Well now that you can't smoke in the bar the nervous energy has to go to some other fidgety little distraction. OT but I miss the sex appeal of a cigarette and snifter in the same hand. Part of attracting people in the real world is projecting that you are desired by other people. When you're sitting at the bar, alone, a lull in the conversation, you have to do something to make yourself seem above it all.

Having to create this digital trail of your life can be anxiety-inducing if you have no life. Then again, having no life has always been anxiety-inducing when you're young.

It's not just the kids.
I saw a man in a restaurant with his nose in the phone for a whole meal while ignoring his two sons. The boys definitely had an expression for hunger on their faces. And it wasn't for food.
Saddest thing I've seen in a long time.

"Kids should NOT be allowed to ignore the friends or family they're with at the moment." Posted by: lenona at January 26, 2012 9:20 AM

I agree wholehearted with this statement. A little story to tell: my stepfather is 70 and adheres to the belief that dinner time is strictly family time (no answering telephones/cell phones, no watching TV, no reading magazines/books.) He recently visited my stepsister and her family. He was appalled that all three of his teenaged granddaughters were texting one another at the dinner table while they were eating.

He told them that he'd traveled about 3,000 miles by plane to see them and he told them to put away their cell phones. This completely angered my step sister's husband, who felt that as "the man of the house", he gets to tell his daughters what to/not do and that my dad, as guest in his house, had no place to dictate what he did.

It raises some interesting points about not only parenting differences between generations, but also how technology affects the way people parent. I'm in total agreement with my stepdad on this issue and I'm 8 years younger than my stepsister. No way if he were visiting me and my kids would the kids ever be allowed to text at the dinner table.

I think that to older generations, interactions like texting, chatting online, etc seem "unreal" so it's hard for them to understand why the conversations seem so important. Whereas to generations that have grown up with this technology, it's a equally valid form of communication, more often than not the people you're talking to are "real" people; ie not just internet friends, and the conversations are equally as important as those with someone in the room.

My friend gave a good analogy for this: if you were in the middle of a conversation with a friend in the living room and your mom called out that dinner was ready in the dining room, you wouldn't jump up and leave him without wrapping up the conversation and seeing him out. That would be rude. Now what if the conversation is happening online or via texting, possibly with multiple people? Do you a) take a few minutes to wrap things up which will require your full attention b) just stop responding mid-conversation or c) bring your phone to the table with you? Your answer probably depends on how you fundamentally view texting/online chatting, and I suspect that the etiquette rules will evolve as today's teens become the next generation of parents, and these forms of communication become more widespread.

I think that communication technologies like skype are game-changers on this front. Taking a phone call in the middle of a group is undoubtably rude because it monopolizes your full attention and shuts down all other conversations. But bringing in that person via skype is just like if that person walked in the room and doesn't hurt the group conversation at all. The next step that I'm sure we'll eventually see is 3-D holographic images of the person you're talking to. So instead of bringing your phone to the table, you bring your actual friend to the table and that's probably going to be more palpable to the other dinner guests.

And regarding what kids have the "right" to do in their private time, let's not forget that a growing population of people who have never been in the habit of READING books that actually force them to think is a pretty serious threat to society. How can they be truly informed on the issues they vote on? As I said in an old thread, you wouldn't let your kids eat candy every day (or refuse to eat their vegetables), I hope, so what's the difference?

BTW, check out the book "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future(Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30)" by Mark Bauerlein. It mentions the dimwits on "The Tonight Show" from the "Jaywalking" sequences. Personally, I used to think most of them were really just actors - not hired by Jay Leno, but savvy young adults trying to become known as the actors who fooled Leno. However, the author of the book thinks otherwise. Maybe he's right? If so, we ARE in trouble.

Shannon said:
more often than not the people you're talking to are "real" people; ie not just internet friends, and the conversations are equally as important as those with someone in the room.

My friend gave a good analogy for this: if you were in the middle of a conversation with a friend in the living room and your mom called out that dinner was ready in the dining room, you wouldn't jump up and leave him without wrapping up the conversation and seeing him out.
_______________________

Except that the mom WASN'T already in the same room with you and trying to make conversation, so you had the right to chat with someone who wasn't your mother, whether the friend was present or not. If mom WAS in the same room, she would take precedence. Same goes for talking on phones, of course - that is, one should either ask permission or ask to be excused briefly. So I don't get your friend's analogy.

"No calls at the dinner table" was a rule long before cell phones. No good reason it should change.

My dear Amy, please transform Greg into an extrovert. Then we can talk.

> "No calls at the dinner table" was a rule
> long before cell phones.

Yo.

Oh whine, whine, whine. There truly isn't anything original in this world. Think books are great for kids? Well once upon a time printing was a new technology too. Think it was greeted with universal cheers?

"The multitude of books is a great evil. There is no limit to this fever for writing; every one must be an author; some out of vanity, to acquire celebrity and raise up a name, others for the sake of mere gain." ~ Martin Luther

Thousands of years before him there were probably Egyptians whining about how using their gods-given brains were good enough for them, these youngsters just needed to stop fooling around with papyrus.

Also Leona, "The Dumbest Generation" sucked monkeyballs. It's just one long whine about how kids are doing things differently now. It's cute how the Boomers have tried to have it both ways, first with "don't trust anyone over thirty" and now with "don't trust anyone under thirty." You want to know what technology is doing to us for real? Pick up "Reality is Broken" by Dr. Jane McGonigal or anything by Dr. James Paul Gee (I recommend "Good Video Games and Good Learning: New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies")

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The remark about people who text being anti-social assumes that people's attention is supposed to be available to random strangers. I wonder if the same woman objects to people putting up signs stating "Do Not Disturb" or "No Soliciting" or "No Trespassing" or to people who don't give out their phone number, email or address.

Hey - if you're oblivious, I'll take your shit. I might even take you.

I do not give two warnings. So, here you are.

"'No calls at the dinner table' was a rule long before cell phones."

Back then, it wasn't a problem, because the cord didn't reach!

Poll them when they are 13-18, you'll find out they will be even less happy...

and I do mean just because it sucks being at that awkward stage.... and it sucks whether you have to phone via smoke signals or the newest it gadget.

Elle said:
Think books are great for kids? Well once upon a time printing was a new technology too. Think it was greeted with universal cheers?

"The multitude of books is a great evil. There is no limit to this fever for writing; every one must be an author; some out of vanity, to acquire celebrity and raise up a name, others for the sake of mere gain." ~ Martin Luther
______________________________

I seem to remember that Martin Luther wasn't exactly someone who believed in equal opportunities for all. So, just because someone today has a similar-sounding complaint doesn't mean they're both invalid - maybe only one is. (I'm guessing, too, that just as Luther only wanted certain people to be writers, he only wanted certain people to be EDUCATED enough to read those books. Hardly the case today.)

In the same vein, just because we usually take the "lazy" path when doing physical tasks such as laundry - that is, we don't wash most clothes by hand anymore - doesn't mean it's OK to take the lazy path constantly when it comes to MENTAL activities. E.g., when kids complain "why should we have to learn to do math in our heads when we have calculators" the answer is "because that's like complaining, why should you have to learn to read when you have books on CD?"

As far as texting when other people are around, the tolerance for that seems generational. I see lots of kids and young adults sitting together but in their own digital worlds, and they don't seem to mind. I have a small tolerance for it. I don't mind someone checking text messages or sending a quick one from time to time, but I get pissed if it's more than an infrequent distraction. But then again, I'm old.

I think young people will be fine. If there's one thing we can count on, it's a bunch of old cranks bitching about "young people today." Like there was some golden age where kids were always respectful, obedient, curious, intelligent and civic minded in just the way their elders wanted them to be.