This conversation is closed.

Why has technology become the Achilles's Heel to human interaction?

Technology has been a wonder to the 21st, It has evolved from basic mathematically computations answered using nature's basics to the first step of Armstrong on the shadows of the moon. Technology has in its entirety in its constant progression has finally gone to an extremity that overshadows human interaction As I discovered at age of 19 that if you can't communicate correctly what you MEAN to say, there half of your problems arise. Do you often notice how our conversations start and end. It begins in the greetings that each person has developed, and through these different variations of greetings we develop our uniqueness. From the quivers of nervous handshakes to the confidence of a roman. Our interactions are everything and how can we through social media pass through the hurdles of it the digital world replaces human interaction?

Closing Statement from Yony Haile

I agree with all our recent comments. It has helped me conclude that technology has made communication easier and I completely agree on this notion. I want to emphasis the concept of the computer face. People have formed these new identities behind the computer, thus the name computerface. I want to emphasis this new identity has formed under this new era. This new identity has not only decreased the level of competency between real people but for the next generation. Technology has brought up into a new era and I am glad for this identity, but lets focus on reemerging the true nature of face to face interactions. We don't want technology to take away the human nature out of our society.

  • Aug 15 2013: Interesting topic - in the late 1980's the Rand Corp. did a study of the affect of e-mails on group interactions and group decision making. It was found:
    1. the e-mail group had more acrimonious discussion
    2. the discussions lasted longer in the e-mail group and took longer to get consensus, but it was a true consensus
    3. the non e-mail group was dominated by one person due to his personality
    4. the non e-mail group claimed consensus but several members did not think there was consensus

    Today, I think the anonymous situation leads to people saying things they would never say in person and that leads to very bad communication and misunderstanding. The human mtg will always occur and is needed to help settle those misunderstanding.

    I believe that social media will take the place of a certain level of interaction but it will never replace the human mtg.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2013: So, regardless we are still tribal in nature? It looks to be shaping up to be a tiered circle of online governance or an online democractic process that our elected governments will draw upon for public interaction?
      • Aug 18 2013: I think we are still basically tribal in nature. tell me more about this tiered circle of online governance or an online democratic process, not sure I understand.
  • thumb
    Aug 20 2013: I'm not convinced that it is the achilles heel. when you think about it, tech has increased the amount of communication between people. the real issue lies, as it always has, in the content of the communication. technology does nothing to improve the quality of communication, it merely makes it more convenient.
  • Aug 15 2013: "The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, 'This invention, O king,' said Theuth, 'will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.' But Thamus replied, 'Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."

    -- Plato, Phaedrus.
  • Aug 15 2013: When you consider the relative risk/benefit ratio, you will see that the net effect of modern communication is probably an improvement through time. When I was a child, there was no communication except people talk face-to-face. At that time, there was usually only one telephone within an apartment building, and people wouldn't make a call unless it's an emergency. And long distance calls could only be done in an telephone or telegraph office. At that time, all the information were relayed through the words of mouth. Then probably half of the "news" were rumors by someone intentionally making rumors or just by his own wild imagination. these rumors sometimes can cause civil panic or commotion.
    With the modern day communication media, we learn many things through the internet, such as Facebook, Twitter or TED, etc. There can still be rumors, innuendos or false propaganda, but most of them can be checked out with other sources of communication. As a matter of fact, regardless of how you think of the modern communication media, I am certain that more than 50% of the world population probably can't live without the smartphones or internet in 5 days or less.
    Personally, I feel strongly that if you choose to avoid communication with certain type of people, you could simply refuse to be engaged with them. It won't be too easy, but you certainly could minimize the communication with them.
  • Aug 15 2013: As you say, human interaction is very complicated.

    First, determine how you want to interact and who you want to interact with.

    Then use technology appropriately to do what you want to do.

    If you let technology control the interactions, you are putting your life into the hands of the designers and supporting their agenda.
  • thumb
    Aug 15 2013: .

    The Achilles's Heel of technology is "very-low accuracy"!

    Human face-to face interaction needs "ultra-high accuracy",
    which can identify any person in 7 billion in the world.
    That is, the accuracy of 1/7billion at least.
  • Aug 15 2013: This is quite simple actually.

    We aren't communicating through technology so much as just putting information out there in any way we feel appropriate. You take as you see it and respond in your own way. We don't interact through the communication so much as say what we want and expect or demand an instant response for instant gratification.
  • Aug 15 2013: Yes but people vary so much in communication and in technological skills.