Does Instant Messaging Adversely Affect Our Ability to Think Deeply? Are Our Youth at Risk?



I mentor a young man in another country. We use Facebook Messenger a lot for free communication across borders on the other side of the world. I perceive he has a problem that I suspect might well be also negatively impacting our youth who instant message almost constantly.

I have a theory that his using Facebook Messenger so much and communicating with many people, that he loses track of things he needs to do simply due to being distracted. Messenger is very inefficient in terms of time use. It is also very bad for keeping track of things, as messages get lost in the long strings of messages. Messages are usually short and devoid of much information. Also, information is so fragmented that it is hard to see where a complete thought or plan is. That is why I want to move communication between him and me more to e-mail (and to using Google Tasks for a To Do list). There, a more robust explanation can be given or a more complete description written. This is hard to do in any length on a cell phone (at least it is for me), so much of this will need to be done on the computer, rather than on the cell phone.

 Stephen Covey in his 1994 book "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" wrote about the difference between urgent and important. He used a matrix something like this:

How this applies to this discussion is that many consider a text message as urgent, as something that needs to be answered immediately, If it is also not important, looking at the matrix you see that it moves from being a not-so-good "interruption" to being a real "distraction" from what is either (1) "urgent and important" that is worthy of immediate attention or (2) "important but not urgent" which warrants planning to do in the not so distant future. If the important things are not attended to, much productivity and effectiveness is lost.

 What do you think? Is this a problem with our youth? Are they distracted from what they need to do? Is their communication robust in terms of complete thoughts or fragmented? Does this have long-term impacts on their ability to analyze problems and issues comprehensively? Or will they have the habit of reacting to headlines and slogans reflexively instead of being wise users of information? Will this lead to shallow thinking?

I'd love to hear what you think.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Congressional Candidate Rick Olson (MN2) Breaks Party Ranks

Statement on Impeachment Vote in the U.S. House of Representatives Rick Olson, Republican Candidate for Congress, MN District 2 For more info: 320-248-9933, olson48176@gmail.com,  http://rickolsonforcongress.com Sunday, December 15, 2019 – For immediate Release This morning a Star Tribune reporter informed me that Angie Craig had decided to vote “yes” next week on the motion in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach President Trump, and asked me if I were in her shoes, how would I vote. When I took office as a State Representative in Michigan in 2011, I swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That oath is still binding today. I understand the Founding Fathers viewed the impeachment process as very similar to the process in a criminal court. The prosecution presents evidence in a preliminary hearing. If the judge hears sufficient evidence to believe a crime has been committed, taking the evidence as true on its face in the absence of any defense from...
Read more

Our Changing Climate: Options to Consider

Image
Our Changing Climate: Options to Consider ·          Have you noticed that the past few “normal” Minnesota winters have not been as cold as 20 or 30 years ago? According to University of Minnesota scientists testifying to the Minnesota House of Representatives earlier this year, between 1895 and 2015, average daily low temperatures in winter have increased. In the northern part of the state, they’re up 4.8 degrees over that period and 3.4 degrees in the south. One study pointed out that between 1959 and 1978 Duluth averaged 45 days a year in which the average daily temperature did not top 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Between 1999 and 2018, there were no such days. ·          Have you noticed that the emerald ash borer territory has moved north with the borers not killed in the winter as the winters have gotten warmer, such that our state’s ash trees have been disappearing? ·    ...
Read more

Skeptical about Climate Science? It is smart to be skeptical.

Image
The paper below establishes (1) who accepts the scientific evidence that climate change is real, primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels and that it is urgent that we do something about it and (2) who does not. If after reading this, and you are still skeptical, I would love to hear from you about how you evaluate sources of information, i.e., how you determine who you should believe and who not - not only on this issue but on other issues. "Skeptical about Climate Science?   It is smart to be skeptical. By Alan Anderson, Northfield. But please consider: The scientists and leadership of these organizations . . . agree that human-caused climate change is happening, mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the consequences of not significantly reducing CO 2 emissions are negative, irreversible and   will imperil all future generations. 1.        The American Petroleum Institute : “Few things threaten America...
Read more