WOULD SLOWER COMMUNICATION IMPROVE OUR NETWORKING?

Last week a friend suggested we consider a discussion about today’s virtual networks—MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn—and offered interesting aspects to cover. Because I have a few too many thing going on in my life right now, I’m choosing not to cover the large topic, but to address foundations—the underpinnings of communications that aren’t audible, face-to-face.

If the first step back from direct address is the exchange of a written word, we’ve just stepped into the world of the note, the letter, e-mail, texting, and beyond, where cyberspace is the limit. Let’s start simple.

I find it interesting that the first article I picked up while considering the topic was a recent The Writer piece written by Dick Dickinson entitled, “S-L-O-W Down you writing—to improve your concentration, word choice and sense of voice, try turning the clock way back—to the simple dipping pen.”

Did you see that? Granted, he’s addressing writers, but he’s challenging us to go archaic—back to the dipping pen. Y’know—ink, ink well, nib and holder. Well, I’m afraid that’s a bridge too far  even for me, but think of the difference in time allowed to the writer when each word has to be scribed and thought out, one at a time. What a difference! As a writer—I may even give it a whirl. But let’s get back to you.

Now, compare pen and ink well to e-mail. Words on a keyboard pour out at rates of 30-50-100 words per minute. Editing and spellchecker can help us deliver perfect copy every time. Words—lines—paragraphs can be moved around in a flash. Or, the dashed-off thought can barely be created and it’s already sent.

In the scenario we’re considering, the time between the development of a thought and its expression/communication has been reduced to what approaches zero time—like in a heated argument. And there’s no person present to rebut or apologize to if such is warranted. It’s indelibly—sent.

If we slowed communication down, it would perhaps be better thought out, and there would be less garbage to read, but that’s not going to happen. And we haven’t even addressed the trivia exchanges of the social networks, or the 24×7 “update on my world” world.

I’m left to ponder whether we’ve gained anything by our 24-hour personal news cycle and our electronic availability. Yes, we’ve gotten faster, but I don’t think we’ve gotten better—at least in the quality of our transcriptions. The question is, “What have we lost?” That’s next.

For now, let’s use our time wisely, make our social contacts meaningful, think our what we say and make it meaningful, and quit wasting each other’s time.