Try eating dinner with a group of current college kids and hoping they put their phones down to listen to you.

There is no way the trend is going to reverse itself. I try not to be a cynic but on this topic it's impossible for me - what event could trigger a reversal to this behavior?

What would make people prefer people again over digital distractions?

They are socializing with people, but physical presence matters less than it used to. They're not (mostly) playing games. They're generally chatting with their friends, or (if they're really bored) browsing content posted by a smallish list of facebook and twitter contacts.

To trigger a reversal, you have to train people to be engaged, sympathetic, good at body language, and extremely talkative. Basically all the difficult interpersonal things that text chat can't do. Edit: technology isn't standing still, though! Snapchat is adding more personal video content to phones already.

'physical presence matters less than it used to.' Physical presence matters just as much as it always did, what's lacking is the appreciation of how much is being missed.

If a smile from a stranger can cheer you up, imagine being surrounded by familiar voices each giving you a friendly "hi" and then moving on. It's not especially meaningful but it's a great feeling. Maybe it's more valuable than the option of actually connecting with whoever happens to be physically present.

"Maybe it's more valuable than the option of actually connecting with whoever happens to be physically present."

That's where you and I disagree. Given the choice of minimal connections with those you know and fuller connections with those you don't know, I tend to prefer the latter.

Perhaps it helps to think about it like this. Everyone has something interesting about them, and whilst you might not like everyone you meet, you can at least learn something from them. Openness to meeting new people is a very positive thing (in my opinion).

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. As a former anti-social-randian-nerd, I used to shun social interactions in favor of reading. But guess what? You can learn a whole lot of things just by having an honest conversation with a stranger. And despite the stress of initially approaching a stranger (and the few times your attempts get embarrassingly shot down), I would say that its worth it.

I was reflecting for a bit on why it made me feel better to be good at conversations. Maybe its the way society is set up. Or maybe I have genes which are the result of generations of my ancestors being social (which may have a very tangible benefit if you're living in a pre-modern society)

Being good at conversations would be nice. But since I'm not, I don't have much incentive to start one.

For many introverts, you'd prefer not to interact with those you don't know well - in an usual social setting you are already getting more interaction than you want/need, and any extra is unpleasant and unwelcome. You can use a phone not as a distraction, but as a (currently) socially acceptable excuse to avoid interaction.

I mean, if someone you barely know wants to make smalltalk, it's generally not okay to tell them to fsck off, even if you'd prefer to be left alone, social norms are generally made by and for extroverts. But being "in phone" and ignoring them works - and if you can use it to connect with the few people you want to connect with, it's a plus.

But here's the thing, you've associated conversation with awkwardness and banality. Neither of those are intrinsic qualities of conversation, it's quite possible to have just the opposite, if you want to and know how to. The key is being comfortable in your own skin, and that's a great quality to have, both for yourself and for others, and both for those with introverted tendencies and extroverted tendencies.

If small talk annoys you (and I totally understand why it does), consider its function. It's meant to be an ice breaker, not the focus of an entire conversation (unless there's no time for anything else).

But the whole point is that it's quite likely that I don't want that conversation. As you say "it's possible .. if you want to". Usually I'd prefer to just continue thinking whatever I was thinking before someone initiated that conversation, the interruption was unwelcome, and I'd be glad if it hadn't happened - i.e., if (s)he had looked at me and decided for whatever reason (such as a phone) that I don't want to be talked to right now.

Being capable and comfortable in such conversations is very, very useful in life (correlates with all kinds of life 'success' measures), and it can be acquired, and acquiring it requires a lot of such practice. However, even with all that, the preference doesn't change - if you are an introvert, you then can do it very well, but you'd still rather prefer not to do it.

For smalltalk - it's likely that I don't want to break that ice; I don't want more friends - I don't have enough free weekends/evenings to spend with my existing great friends, as we've all grown more busy, gotten families and moved miles apart; starting new relationships would decrease quality of existing ones. I don't want to meet hot girls - I'm happily married. I don't want to get to know a random person - if we meet on business, I'd rather keep that a purely professional relationship. If I'm in a mood to meet people and new experiences, say, while traveling - then great; but if I've spent all my "communications batteries" already today - then unless we're very close, I'd rather not have any unneccessary meaningful communications.

I agree conversational skills are 'useful' (if you wish to frame them in terms of functionality), and agree that ability to converse doesn't necessarily alter preference for introversion/extroversion. I disagree that being able to hold a good conversation requires a lot of practice, again I would say it's down to being comfortable in your own skin, but an option for getting that comfortable can be through talking with others.

Speaking personally, throughout my life I've had times when I've been extroverted and times when I've been introverted, and I think both are great. Introverts get to enjoy a rich inner life, and extroverts get to enjoy a vibrant outer life, there's something to be said for both, but best of all is not being restricted from experiencing either (easier said than done).

Just to further our discussion, I'm curious to know what you think about the difference between online and offline conversation, for introverts especially. Does one feel easier than the other, and if so, why do you think that is?

> They're generally chatting with their friends, or (if they're really bored) browsing content posted by a smallish list of facebook and twitter contacts

I don't think that's true, in my experience they are sometimes chatting with their friends but mostly compulsively browsing social network content, and that content is the most shallow boring crap you can imagine (pictures of food, funny cat pictures, blah blah, we all know the content I mean).

Maybe we are just experiencing a transitional (decades?) phase en route to living entirely in the virtual realm. Do people in Second Life walk around looking at their phones?

Something similar I saw in Second Life that I found interesting was people reading comic books - you can get comic books that hover in front of your character's face that you can look at by going into first person, and other players can see the pages too.

> what event could trigger a reversal to this behavior?

People realising that addiction to stimulus results, over the years, in lower economic power and less overall happiness?

I don't know if today's phone-addicted teens will end up with lower-paying jobs down the line, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The hacker community has clearly created software that masses of people find incredibly useful and worthwhile. How is that success something to be compared to a cocaine addiction? Have you heard stories about people trading sexual favors for 20 more megabytes when their data has run out?

I didn't compare smartphone addiction to cocaine addiction, which wrecks and ends lives.

I do think, however, that something can be incredibly useful and worthwhile and still have some negative effects. Everything in moderation and all that. I believe that, in time (many years), people will figure out what these effects are and how to avoid them, just like (to oversimplify) one can enjoy wine without any ill effect.

So you're saying this software is found less useful and worthwhile than cocaine since people aren't willing to prostitute themselves for another shot?

Most teenagers are self-absorbed little snots so I don't think blaming the phone is fair.

This is not a "trend." Smartphones are still a very new technology and there is a gap between the changes they have made in our lives and the development of proper etiquette.

Fashion?

There was a time when any group of people standing around would usually include at least one person smoking. That time is long past.

Eventually it will be uncool old people with phones and cool young people with .. _something else_.

Yes yes, our youth is rotten to the core. Even more than the previous one and the one before.

I think, understanding a new technology does not stop with technical details.

We have to understand want this technology means to other people. The author talks about "real connections with the people around us", but how is a message I send to someone on the other end of the world unreal?

If children send 3000 to 4000 messages a day, if true, you could describe this as a deep investment in communication and connections, but just not according to his definitions.

Time and reflection, I think.

I grew up in a culture where television was rather 'new'. Whenever we visited people, they would actually turn the television on. On the other hand, in my home culture the tv has been a presence for decades, and somewhere along the way we've decided that it is rude to turn on the tv when you have visitors.

Now I am assuming that the situation in my home culture was similar when tv was new. I'm not at all certain about that.

> what event could trigger a reversal to this behavior?

The collapse of society and all of its support. Basically, you'll have to make them useless.

Nothing wrong with calling them out and telling them they are being very rude. You don't have to be rude about it yourself.

" for me a smartphone can fill useless time like waiting for an appointment, the bus, etc. "

The article attempted to make the point that such times are not 'useless time', they have a useful purpose.

I mostly agree with you, but I would argue that 'useless time' is far from useless. Boredom is important and valuable, and, as has often been mentioned in discussions like these, the value of 'useless time' is evident when you consider how many good ideas are a result of long showers, other bathroom activities, or periods of sustained 'disconnect'.

I've found the internet largely does not fill useless time with useful things. It fills useless time with useless things.