Are Most Millennials Socially Inept? (bitterness, issues, person, member)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you take the blame away (millennial vs. genx vs etc.) then this becomes a very interesting topic. If texting over voice is the new preferred way of communication, then would you call it an evolution or is it a regression?
Put another way, if you are a motivated 25 year old on your way to the top of the executive ladder, does your preference of texting over voice calls trickle down throughout the company as a more efficient way of communication?
Or does being in the executive chair and having to communicate to board members, having to sell yourself and company to the world in your IPO offering, and having to communicate your vision to your thousands of employees cause you to prefer voice over text as the more effective way of communication?
Is voice more effective than text? Of course many will say for some things it is, and others it is not. But if texting becomes the next evolution even in the executive world, then is voice communication on its way out.
Are we all just waiting for the day when we all get our implants that we can just think our thoughts into a text? Or is the awkwardness that so many feel towards voice calls making way for 'master communicators' who can utilize easily their voices over those that cannot and as a result rise above those that can't or won't communicate the 'ole fashioned way'?
It is an interesting question, but I land firmly on the side of voice being much more effective in communication than text.
First thing's first. A text message cannot communicate nuance. A pause. A flat tone of voice. A bit of enthusiasm. In a real conversation, tone and timing add multiple dimensions to the conversation, cluing the other party to not just words, but the emotions driving words. And, no, emojis are not the same thing.
I mean, in a negotiation, does the person say "Maybe" in a flat tone or in an upbeat one? Or with a shrug of the shoulders? In that sense, you have the same word expressed three different ways, each of which hints at a completely different attitude. As someone who has to do business every day, these differences mean the difference between making a sale or not. People with any wherewithal can interpret these shades of meaning.
Yet, that same text message of "Maybe" answers nothing and could even lead you to make dangerous assumptions.
What's more, while texting is wholly insufficient in this way, it's also more time consuming. I can get more done in a three-minute telephone conversation than I can in ten minutes of hunting and pecking on my iPhone. In that sense, it's an example of technology getting in the way of common sense. Technology is supposed to improve lives, not make it harder and, by extension, make us less productive.
To be sure, there are plenty of ways that texting is great. "We're already seated in the back." Or, "Traffic. Running about five minutes late." Or, "Swing by the store and pick up some paper for the printer." These are perfect and appropriate uses of texting.
But when you're trying to hammer out details on a project or, even worse, speaking to matters of the heart, texting is really an impoverished way to communicate with someone, the choice of people with atrophied frontal lobes. In a way, it reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the rulers of Oceania restricted language to fewer than 1,000 words. By preferring texting, you are unnecessarily restricting your vocabulary to the bare minimum, losing the vocabulary of pauses and inflections. The inevitable result of all this is miscommunication, not communication. I mean, hell, how many posts on CD relationship forums hinge on people getting a text and trying to decipher them?
It is an interesting question, but I land firmly on the side of voice being much more effective in communication than text.
First thing's first. A text message cannot communicate nuance. A pause. A flat tone of voice. A bit of enthusiasm. In a real conversation, tone and timing add multiple dimensions to the conversation, cluing the other party to not just words, but the emotions driving words. And, no, emojis are not the same thing.
I mean, in a negotiation, does the person say "Maybe" in a flat tone or in an upbeat one? Or with a shrug of the shoulders? In that sense, you have the same word expressed three different ways, each of which hints at a completely different attitude. As someone who has to do business every day, these differences mean the difference between making a sale or not. People with any wherewithal can interpret these shades of meaning.
Yet, that same text message of "Maybe" answers nothing and could even lead you to make dangerous assumptions.
What's more, while texting is wholly insufficient in this way, it's also more time consuming. I can get more done in a three-minute telephone conversation than I can in ten minutes of hunting and pecking on my iPhone. In that sense, it's an example of technology getting in the way of common sense. Technology is supposed to improve lives, not make it harder and, by extension, make us less productive.
To be sure, there are plenty of ways that texting is great. "We're already seated in the back." Or, "Traffic. Running about five minutes late." Or, "Swing by the store and pick up some paper for the printer." These are perfect and appropriate uses of texting.
But when you're trying to hammer out details on a project or, even worse, speaking to matters of the heart, texting is really an impoverished way to communicate with someone, the choice of people with atrophied frontal lobes. In a way, it reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the rulers of Oceania restricted language to fewer than 1,000 words. By preferring texting, you are unnecessarily restricting your vocabulary to the bare minimum, losing the vocabulary of pauses and inflections. The inevitable result of all this is miscommunication, not communication. I mean, hell, how many posts on CD relationship forums hinge on people getting a text and trying to decipher them?
BRAVO!
55% of communication is body language, 38% is tone of voice.
Imagine how much intent of communication is lost by texting!
Assuming everyone is actually listening to each other equally. A big "if".
Well, even if someone is only partially listening, it remains a much better form of communication.
And, truth be told, if someone isn't listening, then that is that person's problem. It's those atrophied lobes of the brain to which I referred to earlier.
It is an interesting question, but I land firmly on the side of voice being much more effective in communication than text.
First thing's first. A text message cannot communicate nuance. A pause. A flat tone of voice. A bit of enthusiasm. In a real conversation, tone and timing add multiple dimensions to the conversation, cluing the other party to not just words, but the emotions driving words. And, no, emojis are not the same thing.
I mean, in a negotiation, does the person say "Maybe" in a flat tone or in an upbeat one? Or with a shrug of the shoulders? In that sense, you have the same word expressed three different ways, each of which hints at a completely different attitude. As someone who has to do business every day, these differences mean the difference between making a sale or not. People with any wherewithal can interpret these shades of meaning.
Yet, that same text message of "Maybe" answers nothing and could even lead you to make dangerous assumptions.
What's more, while texting is wholly insufficient in this way, it's also more time consuming. I can get more done in a three-minute telephone conversation than I can in ten minutes of hunting and pecking on my iPhone. In that sense, it's an example of technology getting in the way of common sense. Technology is supposed to improve lives, not make it harder and, by extension, make us less productive.
To be sure, there are plenty of ways that texting is great. "We're already seated in the back." Or, "Traffic. Running about five minutes late." Or, "Swing by the store and pick up some paper for the printer." These are perfect and appropriate uses of texting.
But when you're trying to hammer out details on a project or, even worse, speaking to matters of the heart, texting is really an impoverished way to communicate with someone, the choice of people with atrophied frontal lobes. In a way, it reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the rulers of Oceania restricted language to fewer than 1,000 words. By preferring texting, you are unnecessarily restricting your vocabulary to the bare minimum, losing the vocabulary of pauses and inflections. The inevitable result of all this is miscommunication, not communication. I mean, hell, how many posts on CD relationship forums hinge on people getting a text and trying to decipher them?
What is with the older generations' obsession with putting down the younger ones? Will I be like this when I'm older??
Not necessarily. I'm a boomer with a millennial daughter, and she's smart and self-supporting and not socially inept, and neither are her friends from what I see. You can find idiots in every generation.
Not necessarily. I'm a boomer with a millennial daughter, and she's smart and self-supporting and not socially inept, and neither are her friends from what I see. You can find idiots in every generation.
Yup. I'll try not to generalize entire groups of people, as I always try not to do.
I just imagine old people waving canes when I see original posts like this, like "get off my lawn!" noise. Is that a stereotype?
Millenials are the culmination of the socially weird examples which started with Gen X-ers.
My kid, age 36, started that texting only nonsense during/after college and all of his friends, too. They also LOVE working from home despite the limitations that are OBVIOUS when people choose to isolate themselves.
Once he was in his car in a parking lot texting his girlfriend in HER car 3 spaces away, I kid you not.
Just look at the preponderance of threads on CD about being "introverted" and proud OF IT and making it a hill to die on. Fighting that it should be PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to "go to work" but not speak to anyone while you're there. LOLOL
I think it's a result of family changes with the late Gen X people who were raised with both parents working out of the home and the kids being essentially entertained and raised by television and strangers. When both parents WERE home, after work, there was a flurry of activity rushing to activities, not really sitting down to dinner every day.... or the opposite: kids sitting in front of TV or computers all the time.
How else do you explain the drop in marriage rates? Record lows and essentially obsolete. (also in part due to the lack of home ownership which creates family formations and sense of community)
There's also a marked decrease in violent crime and and pregnancy, specifically teenage pregnancy.
The OP's thread would hold more weight and get a better discussion if they just restricted his topic to just this one young lady he knows. But they seem hell bent on lumping all millennials into one category. And of course many other old cranks have joined in to talk reckless about young people and are once again pining for the good ol' days instead of accepting that the good ol' days are not coming back.
Sorry to hear you have such an issue with introverts. I know they are so much worse than murderers and rapists. Such horrid people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
