☆Let’s Think
1.
Have you ever felt that digital communication
is shallow? If so, share the experience with others.
e.g. exchange
with your family and friends, sharing ideas about a project in a group, apologizing,
etc.
2.
Read the following excerpt from a Nature
article, and answer the following question:
Question:
Put the following three types of communication in the order of predictability of,
importance for, mental health during the pandemic.
【digital text communication,
videoconferencing, face-to-face communication】
1. 2. 3.
Discussion:
Our results are clear: face-to-face communication was much more important
for lockdown mental health than digital communication. Similarly, a
longitudinal study from the advent of the Internet in the 1990s found that more
Internet use led to less face-to-face contact and increases in depression and
loneliness—it seems that this overall picture has not much changed until
today. The multitude of digital communication devices and services available in
the Western world still appear to be unequal substitutes for face-to-face
interaction still being ‘the gold standard’. That said, our results also
suggest that digital text communication was meaningfully predictive of mental
health, albeit to a lesser extent than face-to-face communication.
Interestingly, both face-to-face communication and digital text communication
were stronger predictors of lockdown mental health than either physical and
outdoor activity—two established positive predictors of mental health.
Why is
face-to-face communication so much more important for mental health than
digital communication? Researchers have long noted that far less information
about the social context is available in the digital than in the face-to-face
setting, such as the cues about the personality and social status of the
communication partners (as displayed through e.g., clothing and behavior), or
social norms (e.g., who sits where in a conference room). The
depersonalization and deindividualization of communication partners in the
digital setting may explain why digital communication is less relevant for
mental health than face-to-face communication (depersonalization theory).
Social engagement and attachment theory suggests that cues such as body
language, voice pitch, mimic, eye gaze, and head position allow both the
expression and reception of social cues, which in turn reduce the perceived
psychological distance between communication partners. Digital communication
may not activate the largely subconscious, neurophysiological tools which have
evolved in order to help humans determine who is friend, and who is foe.
Against
the backdrop of depersonalization theory as well as social engagement and
attachment theory, it is curious that digital text communication was much
more predictive of lockdown mental health than videoconferencing, even though
videoconferencing allows communication partners to experience many more visual
and audible cues than digital text communication. Recent research and
anecdotal reports show that videoconferencing can cause adverse effects such
as mental tiredness (‘Zoom fatigue’); anxiety due to a focus on appearance,
prolonged eye contact, larger faces due to screen size, and the perceived
dominance of a communication partner due to low camera position; and cognitive
burden due to the slight technological asynchrony of video calls.
Furthermore, it could be that in our sample videoconferencing was predominantly
used in work situation and less private situations because many companies sent
their employees into home-office to work from there. More detailed research on
the mental health costs and benefits of videoconferencing is urgently needed,
particularly because videoconferencing is increasingly discussed as an
effective means for delivering psychotherapy and telehealth. A further
important avenue for future research may be to explore whether using virtual
reality glasses to interact with an avatar of a communication partner would
have a similar effect on mental health as face-to-face communication, as the
interaction would be experienced visually as well as physically.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, despite living in a highly technological world, particularly in
industrialized western nations, the numerous technological devices and
services available cannot replace the mental health and well-being benefits of
in-person communication. The future will show whether further technological
advances, such as 5G or virtual reality, can elevate our online social
communication to a level comparable to a real-life face-to-face interaction. (Underlined by yours truly Sasaki)
☆Hints
for Points
・Texting increases chances to contact people, including school
counsellors or dentists.
・Important communication such as apologizing is done face-to-face.
・Texting is much less effective in expressing personality or
individuality than communicating in person.
・Digital communication allows you to take time in deep thought in
exchanging ideas about a project or making a suggestion to your community
members.
・Opportunities of personal communication have reduced because of the
frequent use of e-mail.
・People are enjoying their personal communication more than ever by
e-mailing and text messaging.
・Information Technology has deprived us much of the personal area in
our communication.
・In some cases, e-mail seems to make personal communication more
possible than before.
☆Sample
Responses The underlined parts are
mentions to counter-argument.
Sample A
I mostly
agree with Jane in that digital communication enhances our ability to build
meaningful relationships. As she says, online communication helps us overcome space-time
barrier in communication and allow us to contact people anywhere anytime,
exchanging messages at our convenience. Moreover, it allows shy people to
express themselves more freely than in interaction in person. These functions increase
chances to know each other more well or have more intimate interactions with
those who we already know. The caveat is that digital communication,
including video messages, cannot beat interactions with real humans in
non-virtual settings. No matter how much these tools get sophisticated and
allow us interactions accompanied by non-verbal communication, the interactions
realized by them cannot displace warmth of the existence of other human beings
Thus, digital communication is effective in bonding only as a compensation for in-person
communication. (140 words)
Sample B
I agree
with Jeff in terms of shallowness of digital communication. Although the
technology provides us with more opportunities to interact with others, short
and quick messaging makes us tend to send cookie-cutter comments or replies.
Sometimes, we just send an emoji or a link without any lines. These
interactions lack personality and individuality. For example, a line “Thank you”
lacks personal touch because it is not accompanied by voice or facial
expression. It is the same “Thank you” no matter who puts it. A heart mark
could mean great but it could also mean just “Ok” or “Read”. A thumb-up emoji fails
to convey our individual feelings of praise, appreciation, or gratitude. They
are unified into the same cheap icon. I sometimes feel totalitarianism in
responding to a message with others in a Line group, and totalitarianism or
fascism means death of individualism and freedom. This deteriorates our ability
to have rich, meaningful communication that could be naturally done in
face-to-face communication.
(163
words)
Sample C
In terms
of intimate communication, the total time we spend on it seems to have reduced since
the advent of digital communication. What used to be done in person before is
now done online. Mother-and-child exchanges are often through text messages.
Business is often done only by digital communication. It is not uncommon that business
associates who have never met or even talked on the phone have been working on
a project together through e-mailing for years. In this circumstance, personal interactions
will be extremely reduced as business messages are supposed to be detached
unlike direct communication. These losses of direct communication weaken
relationships and human networks. Meanwhile, text messaging and emails can
also contribute close-knit relationships. They help people overcome the
constraints of time and space. Family and friends can contact each other even
when they are away from each other and even while they are at work or in class.
This was impossible before the services were available. However, it must be
remembered that this enhancement of bonding is possible only when good
relationships already exist. Thus, in general, digital communication is making
us more separated than close-knit. (190 words)
Sample D
I cannot
take a stand. On the one hand, digital communication is only a technology,
which might not be powerful enough to fundamentally change our communication, which
depends on various factors like personalities and social skills. On the
other hand, signs of gains and losses it has caused in our communication
are abundant. For example, social media allow us, including strangers, to know
each other more than ever because numerous personal opinions, photos, and information
of other kind that would not have been shared before are online for everyone to
see, owing to casualness of texting and anonymity, which lower hesitation to show
vulnerabilities. The sunny side of this open and inclusive nature of the online
environment is that chances to share the deeper layers of our mind are higher
than before, although this does not always help build good relationships in the
real world, where individuals are not free from various constraints of life
such as character and personal history. The dark-side of it are online witch
hunts, mass public shaming, bullying, and brainwashing to name a few that lead
to isolation, division, and hate, which seriously affect the real-world
relationships. (192 words)
Write your draft. Then read each other’s draft, asking questions and
making counterarguments.
DRAFT
