I think we primarily discussed means or vehicles of communication last night. For example, the internet, facebook, and twitter are all relatively new mediums of communication. More so than what we communicate, those examples have changed how we communicate. To me, a dramatic change in communication would need to include a change in the way people think and perceive the world.

Using a historical example, academics will often choose not to label America’s Revolutionary War a Revolutuion, especially when compared to the French Revolution. The argument goes that in France the country’s mores and ideas underwent radical change, while in America such change never materialized.

As useful and enjoyable as the new technoligies can be, I will be truly impressed when people can transcend their current and ingrained views and become more openminded.

The question de jour, “Are we facing dramatic changes in human communication?”

“The medium, or process, of our time – electric technology is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and every aspect of our personal life.
It is forcing us to reconsider and re-evaluate practically every thought, every action, and every institution formerly taken for granted.
Everything is changing: you, your family, your education, your neighborhood, your job, your government, your relation to “the others. And they’re changing dramatically.”
The Medium is The Massage, 1967 Marshall McLuhan

I would love to believe the answer is “yes,” and though I throughly enjoyed the discussion, it focused on the means of communicating—might we have left the question of “…human communication” unexplored?

There were contributions with hints of answers—”…my children seem to feel they need a reply immediately…” and “…the constant chatter seems to be about nothing important…”— for me, both point to an observation; that these new means of communicating are not deepening or encouraging understanding between people, but are providing a superficial confirmation that the speaker is “still here” (or “hear”, if you will)— a deepening narcissism.

The “communication” appears to be less about “sharing with another” and more “confirmation that the self is still here,” and the “other” is there only to confirm that fact—”human communication” seems less important that “self confirmation” and would explain another observation from a group member. People seem more inclined to seek out others who are already believing what they are inclined to believe—forcing learning, a sometimes painful experience, overboard. We seem less eager to use our new means of communicating for learning and more willing to use it to strengthen our prejudices and find others who confirm us.

This was what I was hearing between the words, and evidence of it being real is how Talk Radio pushed the practice and belief of a “Balanced Journalism” of the past, off the front page…

Marshall McLuhan also wrote, “We shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us.”

Nowhere is there mention of a belief we will be more able or willing to share our feelings and thoughts more completely with each other—I naively believed that was the promise of “human communicating.” In the end, if McLuhan is correct, the answer to the question is “yes, change is inevitable, ” but I am left asking, “why do we seem so unable to raise the bar for the “purpose and how we use” these changes?

Maybe I am off point — thinking of human communication. I am wondering why warring Neanderthals and warring Americans appear so similar—and how little progress has been made in finding common ground and communicating to change our “perceived needs” and the implicit need to war—between siblings or nations.

I’m now thinking that is not the function of human communicating, to “know” oneself or another better—perhaps the change is, “I’m going to let you know much faster that I’m coming to beat your ass” or that we’ll know sooner, “…someone is coming to beat our asses.” tweet tweet

This month’s theme sounds great — I wish I could have made it up to Bryn Mawr.

Since I didn’t have the opportunity to communicate in person, here’s my opinion delivered electronically.

Quite simply, I find the communication opportunities of the internet (MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, email) amazing and mind-opening. On the other hand, they are time consuming, and I often pine for the simple joys of just getting together with people in person.

Yes, we face dramatic changes… the Internet has exacerbated the ease to which humans can ‘escape’ from the character building exercise of participating in the world one-on-one.

When people escape they don’t get validated and they seek alternate methods to mitigate the existential angst (lonliness, anger that they’re not getting validated) and fast food is right there as the #1 drug of choice.

The media thinks there’s an obesity epidemic…but it’s actually a shame epidemic (flght, escape, however you want to call it). People equate freedom with choices and the result isn’t happiness, it’s confusion. Buzz Aldrin thrived on boundaries…after Apollo 11 they were gone and that existential angst drove him to drink… “to escape” (his words on NPR).

People turn to legal solutions instead of personal ones, the word “modesty” is alien to most anyone under 40, and the more people you have (a city) the more anger…. why wouldn’t cities be friendlier than towns?…aren’t there more people to find validation from?

The more options the worse it is to thrive…. too many people, too much freedom, too many choices. I completely believe conservatives are on the whole happier because in their myopic existence they have boundaries.

See…isn’t that all just crystal clear? (yea right).

Now that’s the Randy I looked forward to hearing from! You are smart beyond your years. And yes, I heard that NPR interview too. It was kind of sad but I understood what he was talking about. Humans…..we are so fragile.

correction: “…finding their way…”

“Are we facing dramatic changes in human communication?” —well, let’s see. ‘facing dramatic changes’, changes that are drama ladden, heavally affective–‘facing–implying unavoidable–human communication: Does media change the brain/thoughts in their essence is the question to b asked. I think that is what is really being addressed. Walking one step further away from another changes communication dramatically.

bruce! thank you again for this talking! i did say to frank that these burgers are from beef and he said that he did know it all this time! i think he can lye, but perhaps this is true. i have had this burger at mecky D’s and it is very much not like ham so i do think this is right. i woud like to try a hamboyger! what is this made from? you did say soy and beef by-product and this is tasting?

I HAVE had HOT DOGs! i know that to make these it is to make sevral animals into heavy pasting and push them into tubing with much salt and spicing but it is still taste good you see? best to not eat too many thouh, bruce. and now i will tell you a thing that i know bruce! in Russian we call bacon Бекон or also точно отрезанный живот ветчины and it is made from slicing the stoma of a pig and NOT ham which is pig leg. you see? more talking! thank you brice!

yes and Tod I did know that who you say Yakov Smirnoffs is really Naumovich Pokhis and from UKRAINE! but I know in US he was very funy. He is not as funy in Russia. thank you Tod!