“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?

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

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?

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.