You can’t text message breakup!
I would like to make a proposal that I somewhat made in class today, which was along the lines of what Brad said (actually, I interrupted him… sorry, Brad). It was in regards to the need of face-to-face relationships and wasn’t taken very seriously or much into consideration, so maybe I was completely wrong, but I can’t see why. Here goes:
The reason people won’t break up over text message is because relationships are built off of face-to-face contact. That’s the way our brains have adapted, so that’s the way relationships are handled, so if your relationship is started and structured off of that personal communication, then it would only be right for it to end that way as well. However, if your relationship was started and structured over text, then it would be completely fine to end it over text, because your brain has adapted towards that kind of communication so it’d be permissible to act that way throughout your entire relationship (beginning to end). In that instance, a face-to-face breakup would be more deficient than a text, and text more deficient than a face-to-face in a relationship built off of personal contact, so there is neutrality here (like Clark might suggest). If this doesn’t work for you, then let me illustrate what I am trying to say…
Imagine a kid that is raised without any human contact, but the way he communicates with people is through text and some sort of webcam. You would probably deny that as a child he will not experience the same emotions as someone who does have personal contact in their life, but I would disagree. Children are always affected by what they see off of TV (Sesame Street makes them laugh. Frosty the Snowman made me cry- the part where he died really hit home), so if that is the case, then why wouldn’t this hypothetical kid feel similar emotions that are brought by what he sees or reads from the webcam or text? This happens all his life until he dies, and he has completely adapted to this way of communication. The only reason I would see as to why he would want to seek personal contact would be out of curiosity and none other, because human contact is only “essential” because that is the way our brains have adapted. Also, technology has only recently allowed us to begin adapting to impersonal communication, and look where it’s gotten us thus far- Myspace/Facebook/Textmessage addicts. My girlfriend’s 12-year-old sister insists upon texting her friend that is literally 10 feet away from her, because the technology has become available, and although it is somewhat ridiculous, she is embracing that way of communication, much like a large portion of the upcoming generation, so try telling them how “essential” human contact is to communication. Hopefully, I didn’t miss anything, but if there’s any questions or disagreements, then feel free to comment.
60 Responses to 'You can’t text message breakup!'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with what you said about consistency — if a relationship is built off technological interactions it is permissible to end it in the same way. I think a tech-oriented relationship would probably not have the same level or emotional attachment so ending it in such a blase, casual way would be more acceptable.
As to a child raised purely on technology, that kid would not turn out very well. We need human contact for our brains to develop “normally” — babies need to be touched and held and exposed to various auditory and visual stimuli to learn. But more to the point you’re making, how would that kid empathize with the death of Frosty the Snowman when he has no people in his life to lose? You felt sad because you know what it’s like to be surrounded by family and friends that love you, and you cried because you felt badly for his loss because you know how awful it would be to experience a loss of your own.
He would not have s normal parent-child bond (as research as proven skin to skin contact essential for a baby to learn his parents scents and bond with a strong, trusting attachment) so he would not fear losing his parents. He might not feel any distinction towards any particular person that he’s seen on the webcam. Further, his social isolation would produce a child completely lacking in empathy, the first step towards becoming a psychopath.
Rebecca Spizzirri
26 Nov 08 at 1:04 pm
Have you had a technology based relationship? If yes, did you break up this way? If not, I don’t think you can make this claim. I will note that last friday I went out and gave someone my number. This person kept contacting me with texts of sorts, to which I didn’t respond. Finally, I got sick of it, and texted something rather terse to let this person know that it wasn’t going to happen. We didn’t meet in a tech way, but our relations turned to a technological form. I ended it this way because…frankly, it was easier for me, and this was the format that our communication was taking place. Cop out? Yeah. Will I be a bit uneasy next time I see this person….you betcha. But it’s done…I’m not getting anymore annoying texts, and the message was understood.
I think it’s tough to theorize about a contact-less human because it would be considered inhumane to raise a child as such. The same goes for animals. An experiment was conducted with the chimp and the furry robot without food versus the metal framed one with a bottle. The chimp went to the furry one. Why? The similarities to a nurturing mother-figure of a chimp?
When a child is born, he or she finds comfort in being around his mother because he recognizes her scent and voice from when he or she was in the womb. Unless a child is born through other means (such as a bottle as was conducted in Brave New World) the baby will yearn for human contact.
Lihy E.
27 Nov 08 at 8:57 pm
Contact through technology is the second best thing to face-to-face contact. Meeting someone and having a relationship over text messages would never happen in real life. It is just simply not how humans work. When you meet someone for the first time you get to know them in person and then technology is a convenient tool for keeping connected. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would start and establish a relationship over text messages. I guess you could break off a relationship through a text message, but then the relationship probably did not have any kind of meaning to begin with. Face-to-face time spent with people just cannot be replaced by contact over technology.
Dan Pierson
30 Nov 08 at 9:05 pm
Rebecca: This may sound ridiculous, but perhaps the child does have something to lose. Perhaps he can feel empathy when watching Frosty the Snowman for fear that he may lose one of his chat buddies. Surely that is as real a loss as would be if he were to lose that friend in an embodied sense. If he can’t communicate with the person anymore, embodied or not, he will certainly feel at a loss, and will perhaps recall the feeling he had when watching Frosty the Snowman.
Gautam Srikishan
1 Dec 08 at 1:38 am
Dan, I disagree. People in real life sometimes do have relationships strictly over text messages. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, just that it happens, mostly to jr.high kids, from what I can tell from watching my brothers and their friends. I’m sure part of that is immaturity, but I think that younger kids have a slightly different attitude towards technology. Since they have been around advanced technology for a longer percentage of their life, it seems as though younger kids are more comfortable with relationships built off of texting and the internet, and consequently, treat it more as an aid and less like it’s robbing them of something.
What we have to figure out is why we feel face-to-face time cannot be replaced by technological contact. Even though the technology we have now isn’t satisfying enough to sustain a relationship, as technology progresses and the line between what is “human” or “the self” blurs, it will become more important to understand who we think we are and what it is about being in close proximity to each other that we hold so sacred.
Katherine Anderson
1 Dec 08 at 11:45 am
Relationships based on text messages are possible, but these relationships can never go as deep as those that have more face-to-face contact than texting. Please give me an example of a real and lasting relationship that is structured primarily over text messages. How did it turn out? If you replaced someone in the relationship with a text message robot that was well informed about who it was trying to recreate I’m fairly sure the other person wouldn’t know the difference in the text messages he/she was receiving.
Dan Pierson
1 Dec 08 at 4:01 pm
Well, surely a text message relationship couldn’t go as deep as an embodied relationship. But the point is not that the relationships, as shallow as they may be, are not strong, but simply to discover exactly what is missing in such a relationship. Is it the personality? Dan, you bring up a good point to this when you use the example of replacing one person in a text message relationship with a robot who knows how to imitate effectively (Turing-style). If the person on the other end of the relationship is fooled, then perhaps it is not the personality and words we say (or text) to each other. Is it the body? Probably. Needless to say, being in a relationship with someone generally means you will have some physical involvement with the person, so I think it’s clear what is missing from this text relationship.
Gautam Srikishan
1 Dec 08 at 9:32 pm
“if your relationship was started and structured over text, then it would be completely fine to end it over text, because your brain has adapted towards that kind of communication so it’d be permissible to act that way throughout your entire relationship (beginning to end).”
I don’t think this is so much of a brain adaptation as it is an indication of the strength and emotional investment of the relationship. Relationships built upon text are not as risky nor are they usually as meaningful (I say usually in the same way that birth control pills are 99% effective and that dish soaps kill 99.9% of bacteria - legal issues) as relationships built on true interaction - at the foundation of the relationship is the assumption that the person to whom you are connected is, in fact, who and what they say they are. To a point, the strength of the relationship built upon text is the same as the theoretical strength of a relationship built with a Turing machine.
“In that instance, a face-to-face breakup would be more deficient than a text, and text more deficient than a face-to-face in a relationship built off of personal contact, so there is neutrality here (like Clark might suggest).”
I don’t think this follows at all. While it is easy to state that text is deficient when compared with real interaction, there is no real basis upon which to make the claim that the reverse could be true; text lacks something that face-to-face interaction possesses, but there is nothing other than long-distance feasibility that text possesses that face-to-face interaction does not. Face-to-face contact might be foreign, scary, and confusing to those who interact only through text, but they certainly wouldn’t be deficient. In fact, the sensory overload they would experience would probably be what blows their minds and makes that method of communication difficult.
Luke Kaiser
2 Dec 08 at 3:26 pm
But wouldn’t you say that a method of communication that is really difficult for you to participate in is deficient, if only in terms of how easy it is for you to clearly express your thoughts? I certainly would. If we treat language here as technology, then this break up talk is going to be mostly technology-centered, which is not an effective way to break up. If one is accustomed to the text message, and not verbal language, then you can see how language is just not going to cut it- it wouldn’t be as fluid as the text message, in this one case.
Gautam Srikishan
2 Dec 08 at 6:34 pm
Which again, brings up the crutch vs. shoe comparison. How often we focus on case to case basis when we make the arguments. I think that texting is just another medium by which we could possibly communicate. The conversations you have would be just as valid. Though maybe you wouldn’t feel as personal as having it face to face they would still hold as much merrit.
Austin Maske
2 Dec 08 at 8:25 pm
10 feet texting. when I first read that it sounded ridiculous, and I just wanted to talk about it for a second, even though it isn’t exactly on topic with your post. I can see reasons for it if there are other people in the room, and you want to secretly say something to the person 10 feet away from you in private. But I still can’t fathom texting being the preferred method of communication if there is no one else in the room. I suppose I don’t understand texting well because I don’t really do it. But it would be frightening if texting is preferred to talking in that kind of situation with no special reasons for choosing texting over speech.
Brad Thompson
3 Dec 08 at 1:22 am
Until sex dies out, it will not be okay to text message a break up. Sorry. If we get down to the nitty gritty elemental details of relationships, we have one foundation: sex. That requires human contact. And if we form relationships around this principle (which we do, sorry, we just do) then there can be no relationships formed and structured in any virtual arena. I don’t really understand how we had all these abstract discussions about what is possible and what is okay in relationships with people and skinbags without talking about sex. It’s kind of important.
Calli Leventis
3 Dec 08 at 6:46 pm
@Gautam
“But wouldn’t you say that a method of communication that is really difficult for you to participate in is deficient, if only in terms of how easy it is for you to clearly express your thoughts?”
No, since I think that’s an incorrect statement. If you have trouble participating in a method of communication, the deficiency is not within the method but in you. You are deficient in your ability to communicate effectively. If, given an ability to communicate, you find one method limited, then the method is deficient. There are fewer deficiencies inherent in face-to-face communication than there are in electronic communication.
Luke Kaiser
3 Dec 08 at 7:16 pm
@Austin
“Though maybe you wouldn’t feel as personal as having it face to face they would still hold as much merrit.”
It is impossible to contest that a text message is just as capable of transmitting most messages - I say “most,” since many interactions require inflection and body language that text messages obviously cannot provide. What is significant, though, is how personal the message can be; this is where I lose many of those who support text messaging as a “tool,” on comparable ground to other communication tools. How do you reconcile your thought that text messages are impersonal with your statement that they hold just as much merit? It seems, since the text message is not considered worthy of breakup conversations, that it holds less merit.
Luke Kaiser
3 Dec 08 at 10:52 pm
So after reading all the comments I completely say that text messaging is a tool. Like any tool it has one (or sometimes a couple) specific uses. Like the example in class, if you use a hammer for a doorstop is it still a hammer?
The way I see it certain tools (like text messaging) should be used for the main, generally accepted uses. You wouldn’t conduct an interview over text messaging or instant messenger, would you? No because it is not something that condones the use of that tool. It requires the tool of face to face talking. Something that is not only a method of communication, but rather a skill that is very vital.
JD
3 Dec 08 at 11:47 pm
I say, that no matter how you use the tool, it still is what it is, if you use a hammer for a doorstop, then if you’re asked how did you keep that door open would you say with a doorstop, or would you say with that hammer. The fact is the nomenclature of the object is what we identify it as. Changing the name of something really doesn’t limit its uses.
Austin Maske
4 Dec 08 at 11:00 am
Calli, valid point. Humans like having sex with each other. However, we’ve found ways to work sex into interaction, even when we’re using “deficient” tools. For ex: phone sex. As good as real sex? No. Finding a shitty way to “have sex” with less tools? Sort of. Using technology to attempt to cure our sexual drives? Yes.
Ex 2: Cybering. People wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t at least slightly pleasurable.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 1:46 am
I really enjoy the juxtaposition of comments. Skimming this I read “hammer”, “have sex”, “tool” and “cybering”.
And Kat, you are wonderful. You have found the one philosophical argument that NO ONE in our class is willing to deny, the only premise we will allow without further explanation.
“Humans like having sex with each other.”
Enough said.
PS — I wonder if Descartes doubted that?
Rebecca Spizzirri
5 Dec 08 at 2:36 am
Haha thanks, but let’s give credit where credit’s due. The sex was all Calli’s insight.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 2:49 am
You know I’m sure enough people have thought about it, but thank God someone had the nerve to finally write something about it. Thanks, Calli.
Rebecca Spizzirri
5 Dec 08 at 3:05 am
My friend recently showed this to me, and I found it very hilarious—you should all follow this link and be sure that your sound is on.
http://youmakemetouchyourhandsforstupidreasons.ytmnd.com/
Basically it’s just a very funny reading of a breakup letter with awful grammar and punctuation.
If you can make it past the horrible writing, the letter pretty mean spirited—it seems to demonstrate the feeling of less risk when you’re not in person. I suppose she could have said the same mean things in person, but I find it more likely that should would say all the mean things and repeated “I hate you” in a letter or something not in person.
This shows that there is definitely a different level between written (letter or text) and in person. So, even though in person is more respectful to the other person, if you just don’t care and want them to feel bad you can write a hurtful letter with awful grammar.
I promise the link is funny, go look at it.
Brad Thompson
5 Dec 08 at 2:49 pm
@Rebecca
“But more to the point you’re making, how would that kid empathize with the death of Frosty the Snowman when he has no people in his life to lose? You felt sad because you know what it’s like to be surrounded by family and friends that love you, and you cried because you felt badly for his loss because you know how awful it would be to experience a loss of your own.”
No, actually, I felt sad, because I was never going to see Frosty or hear one of his catchy little tunes again, so interpersonal experience had little or no influence over the emotions that were produced when I saw Frosty melt on TV. If this kid saw Frosty the Snowman, and an interest grew as he listened and observed Frosty, then I would say that the kid would be pretty upset knowing that he’d never be able to experience Frosty the Snowman again even if he has never had personal contact.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 2:56 pm
@ Brad
LOfuckingL
I would say in many instances that a breakup through text or a letter might say more to the person than a face-to-face. It could be used to indicate that you really don’t care about them, and speaking to them is just a waste of your time, so a quick text or a letter with absolutely no punctuation, like the one Brad provides, could peak volumes against a face-to-face and potentially send that person in to a state of depression due to the feeling of insignificance.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 3:06 pm
I like that idea! That was hilarious! In truth though, it did give them a chance to say their piece though without any argument from the side of the person being broken up with. Which I can see how that would be nice, at least for the person calling it quits.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 3:16 pm
@ Roy
While I agree that if one was to text message break up, it would most definitely say something about the relationship. It would allow someone to say things that may accurately convey their feelings but be something that they are unable to say to their late partner in person. It can be of use in certain situations but similar to chemistry every law (written or unwritten) has exceptions. It may be better to use in one case over another but that obviously should be judged on a case by case basis.
JD
5 Dec 08 at 3:21 pm
@Rebecca
“We need human contact for our brains to develop “normally”…”
I’m inferring by to develop normally, you mean to develop like everyone else? Why would the otherwise be so bad? Can any of you honestly say that it would? Just because that person doesn’t end up developing like everyone else, doesn’t entail that he will lead a deficient life. Are you suggesting some sort of drone-like conformity?
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 3:33 pm
@JD
“It may be better to use in one case over another but that obviously should be judged on a case by case basis.”
Just like about every problem that someone is faced with. There is no absolute way to handle things, because there are too many outliers, counter-hypotheticals, or preferences that would lead you to act in a different way, so asserting that text is completely deficient over face-to-face is, to me, an outlandish claim, because there are instances where it isn’t deficient-> the poorly written breakup letter (although lacking in grammar), if it was true in describing the guy and his existing feelings for her, probably hit him very hard. In person, he’d be able to say what he wanted to say right immediately, but the letter forces him to contemplate and wallow, which is what the girl wants->efficiency.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 3:46 pm
@Rebecca
“…babies need to be touched and held and exposed to various auditory and visual stimuli to learn.”
Why couldn’t the visual and auditory stimuli be supplied through headphones and a telescreen?
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 3:54 pm
We have a name for this is psychology. It’s called contact comfort, and it’s defined in my psych book as “the positive emotions afforded by touch.” Lihy already mentioned Harlow’s study on baby monkeys, so if you don’t believe us you should go back and read that. Also, Tiffany Field did a study on babies that showed that simply massaging premature babies helped them to sleep better, gain weight, and bond more closely with their parents. There is something about touch that humans, especially young children, require.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 3:57 pm
It would work, but I think that it wouldn’t be fair to the child to whom it was happening. There’s been studies that show that premature babies have a higher rate of mental development, grow faster, and have a lower chance of brain damage if they have close physical contact shortly after birth, but the studies aren’t sure if its the actual physical contact, or just feeling of warmth and security that the baby has because it is held firmly to something that is warm.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 4:05 pm
@Kat
“Tiffany Field did a study on babies that showed that simply massaging premature babies helped them to sleep better, gain weight, and bond more closely with their parents.”
My half-sister was neglected as a baby and a child, and would cry for hours before going to sleep, and after the age of ten, she grew up fine, went to college, and is “normal”. Parent-child bonding isn’t something that I would consider necessary. A lot of parents don’t exactly deserve that level of respect or love. What I have to say might seem meaningless to some, but (bottom line) I don’t how these growths are relevant.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 4:20 pm
The basis of these studies is due to the fact that there has to be a reason for everything. The people doing these studies feel that there needs to be a correlation between human contact and baby growth then there will be. I’m wondering how many of the “professional” studies that go on are manipulated to stroke the human ego for them to believe that something we do, something so small as hold a child would have such a drastic impact on the rest of their lives. I’m not sure how much is bogus and how much is actually relevant.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 4:27 pm
Austin, I think you might be right, and I agree that it is important to always question the results of these studies. At the same time, to respond to Roy’s comment, they don’t claim to apply to every case, and no one ever claimed that lots of contact as a baby causes successful adults, and that a lack of contact ensures failure. It’s just kind of a general concept.
Katherine Anderson
5 Dec 08 at 4:43 pm
@Calli
“Until sex dies out, it will not be okay to text message a break up. Sorry. If we get down to the nitty gritty elemental details of relationships, we have one foundation: sex. That requires human contact. And if we form relationships around this principle (which we do, sorry, we just do) then there can be no relationships formed and structured in any virtual arena.”
Yes, sex itself does indeed require human contact. However, to say that relationships revolve completely around sex is untrue. I find it ironic that I am the one making this agruement, as I usually argue how important sex is in a relationship, that it can make or break it. But, there are other important things in a relationship. Intimacy, I believe is one of those things, and yes, you can easily be intimate without human contact. Two people can be intimate through just deep, emotion filled conversation. That can be done through text. So yes sex is important in a relationship and sex itself cannot be replaced through text, but other mediums of communication (cybering, webcam, phone, what have you) can help with the lack of contact and sex itself is not the most important part of a relationship.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 5:11 pm
@Lihy
“An experiment was conducted with the chimp and the furry robot without food versus the metal framed one with a bottle. The chimp went to the furry one. Why? The similarities to a nurturing mother-figure of a chimp?”
Who do you think the chimp grew up with? A nurturing mother-figure of a chimp? or a frame of metal that might resemble a chimp? Of course the chimp would choose the furry robot that resembles the thing that nurtured it during its development over something foreign like the heap of metal, regardless if any food is present.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 5:15 pm
@ Roy
This is because any animal tends to automatically relate to another animal that resembles itself. Animals, like humans, tend to look after their young and protect them and nurture them as they grow. We can take Roy situation and relate it directly to humans. Would you rather be raised by a cold, metal robot or your natural birth mother? I know personally that I love my mother and would never trade her for a robot. Human interaction whether it is parent-child or any other type is necessary for life.
JD
5 Dec 08 at 5:21 pm
@Jason
Maybe the relationship itself isn’t about sex, but the need to reproduce is. The most common way for humans is for sexy time to happen. Which is what drives us into relationships. Though it is possible for us to have a relationship without having sex, granted I’m not sure how long that relationship will last. Call me shallow, but Calli makes a very very valid point on this one.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 5:21 pm
@Dan
“Relationships based on text messages are possible, but these relationships can never go as deep as those that have more face-to-face contact than texting. Please give me an example of a real and lasting relationship that is structured primarily over text messages. How did it turn out? If you replaced someone in the relationship with a text message robot that was well informed about who it was trying to recreate I’m fairly sure the other person wouldn’t know the difference in the text messages he/she was receiving.”
I disagree with your use of the definite term, ‘never’. I am absolutely certain that people have had very shallow relationships in their youth at times where they don’t scratch the surface of emotions, intimacy, etc., whereas there are people who’s relationships have been possible through technology that have been much deeper than those and relationships of others. I am going to change texting to IMing, since really there is no difference. People have had deep and meaningful relationships that start in IM and are the basis of their relationships. Yes, it is probably essential that they meet in person at certain points, but you said the basis of the relationship was through texting and this is whats going on.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 5:24 pm
I have a friend in Chicago who is dating a girl who he met over WOW who lives in Washington. She is supposed to come visit him shortly. I believe they have only been together for a number of months. Do I think they will last? It is unlikely, but I don’t attribute that as much to how their relationship is structured, more the slight age difference, the medium of which they met, and youth factor being that they are still both young and young people and relationships have a less likely chance of lasting. However, I still believe that relationships through texting/IM is possible. Is there really a difference between texting/IM and email relationships? How about internet dating sites? Penpals? They seem to work. They all obviously will eventually have to lead to interactions, whether few and brief, or end up in marriage. My point is, don’t discredit relationships based primarily off texting/IM or some other form of technology, for its possible for the relationships to be meaningful and lasting.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 5:27 pm
@Austin
Could you please clarify what you mean about sex and relationships and reproduction? I mean, do all the relationships have the mindset to reproduce? Are you saying that unless relationships are about reproduction, they are meaningless and so is the sex? I hope thats not what your saying, as then I would have to argue for hours with you about gay relationships, as well as people who are sterile and how those relationships are just as important even though they cannot bear children. So please, clarify.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 5:31 pm
I think what you said earlier about relationships being founded on texting/ IM is a pretty solid claim, but I don’t think that a relationship could possibly last strictly off IM. That is so romantic I hope that your cousin and his woman get married. That should make WoW headlines. Which I think that because they both have characters on that sight it makes it a little more personal, It’s like having a completely interactive avatar.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 5:32 pm
I’m just saying that’s what drives us hence the name “sex drive”
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 5:33 pm
@JD
If it was a newborn chimp that went to the mother chimp, then I concede, but if it wasn’t, then I think the chimp went to the furry robot out of preference out of experience. Much like the preference you and I have for our mothers over a hunk of metal. I still don’t see how preference out of experience explains the need for human interaction.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 5:37 pm
What if the “Hunk of metal” that you guys are referring to was covered with something that was a skin of sorts. It would be the same as the furry robot. I think at that a baby wouldn’t be able to tell, the likeness itself would be enough for the baby to decide.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 5:39 pm
First of Austin, he is my NEIGHBOR! Not my cousin. And I don’t really care how their relationship turns out. Doesn’t effect me.
Yes, sex drives us to have sex. Nicely put. We aren’t driven to reproduce, that’s what birth control is for. There are people (foolish people in my opinion) who decide to wait till marriage to have sex. Again, people who live long a distance from each other find ways to compensate for the lack of constant physical interaction with each other. If you want details on how they accomplish that, ask Elena and Luke how they get along without their significant others. I am sure they have methods. But again, sex and/or reproducing is not the main part of a relationship, especially the latter!
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 5:48 pm
you said friend I just took a shot in the dark. And according to my psych professor everything boils down to sex/ the need to reproduce, it’s animal instinct of course we can do it for pleasure, but the basic reason that we can have sex is to reproduce that’s the only reason it’s possible. Only us and dolphins do it for fun. So I think thats a pretty solid idea that sex drive is to reproduce, just because some one can’t reproduce doesn’t mean that the drive isn’t there.
Austin Maske
5 Dec 08 at 5:54 pm
I completely agree that being human we are very sex driven. After all it is the main reason that drives us to seek a relationship and then sustain one. It is what drives the human race. Another thing is that besides dolphins, humans are the only other animal that have sex for pleasure. Sex is always a factor and it has been proven in numerous studies about relationships. So Calli and Austin you are correct.
JD
5 Dec 08 at 6:12 pm
@Lihy
“Have you had a technology based relationship? If yes, did you break up this way? If not, I don’t think you can make this claim.”
How so? I think I can make this claim given the fact that I’ve never started a relationship over text, and I would probably never start a relationship that way, because like most people, my brain PREFERS face-to-face communication. That’s how I was BROUGHT UP. I am just trying to stimulate some thought by making the claim, and I believe it to be true. All things being equal, relationships started and built by text should probably end that way, and relationships started and structured off of personal contact should end face-to-face- all things being equal.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 6:15 pm
There is scientific evidence that lack of human contact will result in improper development. Here’s an article:
http://www.mindpub.com/art173.htm
Human contact is integral to physiological development, and children who lack it during crucial developmental stages will have neurological problems. We know this. Your brain doesn’t prefer face-to-face communication because that’s how you were brought up - it’s necessary to grow and mature.
Luke Kaiser
5 Dec 08 at 6:46 pm
Luke I couldn’t agree more. The same example of this ever so true fact can be seen with plants. Plants need exposure to the sun and water. When you try to feed to plant by watering it with something other that water the effects are disastrous and usually ends up with the plant dying. The same is true for humans. We require not only food, shelter, clothing, etc to live, but we also need face-to-face communication. It is vital and not something optional.
JD
5 Dec 08 at 7:09 pm
@Luke
Victor was stuck in his primitive stage, because during those crucial years of development, he had no one to teach him anything. He was just wondering around the woods, eating tree bark, and defecating wherever he pleased, but then someone came along and diagnosed him as an incurable idiot. Some guy ends up working with him and saves him from his idiocy. This proves that human contact is essential for learning and development? I wouldn’t be so sure. What if that guy was in some lab or room operating a robot in order to teach this child all of those things? I think the effect would be very similar. Also, what if that same method were applied to Victor’s crucial years of development? Victor ended up the way he did, because he was all alone in the woods with no teacher (except ANIMALS), but with a robot present, who is to say that Victor would have turned out “bad”? I don’t think that article really explains how essential human contact is… and I could care less for Dr. Whatever’s outro on language.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 7:14 pm
@JD
That analogy doesn’t fit. It should be: Plants need sunlight and water like humans need food and water. Using the logic you are suggesting, do plants then need plant contact to live?
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 7:16 pm
From the article:
“Itard brought Victor home and spent five years laboring hard to teach him speaking, reading and writing. Victor learned to read, write, and understand simple words. However, in spite of living in the company of other human beings for 29 years after his capture, he never learned to socialize with others. Victor never made meaningful eye-contact with people and rarely paid attention when they talked to him. He related to others as if they were mere suppliers of his basic wants and needs. He never formed significant attachment with anyone…Under normal circumstances, that is, if caring and loving adults are raising a baby, the baby comes to form strong attachment with the caregivers by the age of six to nine months.”
Clearly there is a period during which human interaction is more valuable, since 29 years of interaction did nothing to advance his social abilities. Also, animals did not teach him; he did what he had to do to survive. This is not Cinderella; animals do not land on your shoulder and calmly offer suggestions.
The article I posted was the first I found, but rest assured that psychologists have conducted and observed studies that demonstrate the importance of human interaction. There are many articles and many events that clearly show what results from its absence.
Luke Kaiser
5 Dec 08 at 7:27 pm
@Luke
“Also, animals did not teach him; he did what he had to do to survive. This is not Cinderella; animals do not land on your shoulder and calmly offer suggestions.”
Haha, you really think I meant that the animals literally taught him things verbally? I meant learning through observation. Is it not possible that one of the reasons Victor seamed so beast-like is because he was surrounded by…oh… beasts? Your surrounding play a big part in influencing your development as well.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 7:31 pm
@Luke
“Clearly there is a period during which human interaction is more valuable, since 29 years of interaction did nothing to advance his social abilities.”
He lived in the woods in SOLITUDE. There was no one around to instruct him. He adapted to that circumstance. In my opinion, since the age in which he was alone is so vital in development, his brain formed a preference for that type of behavior, so that explains Victor being anti-social. Would a human operated robot fill that development duration like I suggested earlier? If not, why? I think it would, which would eliminate the need for face-to-face in that instance.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 7:41 pm
It wasn’t that he formed a preference; he was unable to act socially. That’s not a preference, it’s an inability. He was unable to perform socially because he lacked to cognitive tools to recognize facial expressions and other things babies focus on intently.
I also disagree with the notion that whatever fleeting interactions he had with the animals surrounding him is what shaped him. Humans who have been shut in rooms with no interaction whatsoever react similarly, and demonstrate that there is a feral stage to which humans regress under extreme circumstances.
Luke Kaiser
5 Dec 08 at 7:50 pm
I am not saying that animals completely shaped him, but is it not possible that they had some influence over his behavior? There isn’t direct interaction, but that doesn’t take away the possibility of Victor mimicking some sort of animal behavior. “Attitudes are contagious” is a notion I wouldn’t limit to only human-human interactions.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 8:03 pm
@Dan
“Face-to-face time spent with people just cannot be replaced by contact over technology.”
I am assuming you are saying this to an absolute extent. If that’s true, then I have a question: what about people you hate, but have to deal with on a regular basis? Text would quickly eliminate any annoying personality traits that one has to deal with at home, work, or school. I used to work at a steel mill back home, and I would have killed to replace face-to-face contact (with some my the co-workers) with text message communication. It can be replaced, and in my opinion, I would have actually benefited from that form of communication.
Roy Bell
5 Dec 08 at 11:47 pm
@Brad
“But I still can’t fathom texting being the preferred method of communication if there is no one else in the room.”
I couldn’t either, until I talked to my girlfreind’s little sister about it. She didn’t see anything wrong with it (transparency)… personally, I would much rather talk to someone that is that close as opposed to texting them, which to many is lazy, ridiculous, etc. However, the preceding generation always sees something wrong or irregular with the next generation’s methodology or preferences (i.e. music, drugs, “flappers”), so maybe this isn’t such a bad thing, but I would say that instance is… although, that opinion might just be derived from bias and personal preferences.
Yay! 40 comments… maybe?
Roy Bell
6 Dec 08 at 12:03 am
I must side with Roy in his response to the statement that “Face-to-face time spent with people just cannot be replaced by contact over technology.” I present an extreme example of why: The Matrix. We don’t have any interfaces that fluid in today’s world, but are you going to tell me that the emotional moments had while characters were plugged in were just missing something because they were mediated by technology? In the case where you can’t tell if the meeting is mediated by technology or not, obviously that fact has no bearing on anything.
Joel Ferm
6 Dec 08 at 12:15 am