The Problem With Texting
Letting somebody know that I’m running five minutes late. Asking a friend if they are still at the library studying. Sending the final score of a sporting event to somebody I know is a fan of the winning team. Although the conversation matter varies, I could text any of these things to several people without fear of being misunderstood. They are straightforward, matter of fact, and just as bland as if I had stood in front of a friend and told them. I categorize these as things that “should be texted”. Of course, this means there is another category for things that “should not be texted”.
I should preface this with the thought that I do appreciate the convenience and efficiency of texting. I can pull out my phone and, from anywhere in the world, communicate with anyone. It does not require physical proximity in the way an in-person conversation would, and furthermore, texting is not limited by two people being on their phones simultaneously, unlike a voice call. I can send a text at any time, put my phone down, and rest assured the recipient will read it at some point and respond when it is convenient. For these reasons, and many others, it is quite obvious why this has become a very popular method of communication. However, as we know from the abundance of new technological advances, just because it is popular, does not mean it is without flaws.
I can think of many situations where I opted for efficiency over ease of comprehension and later regretted it. The most recent example of this was a conversation with my roommates. I was asking her to put something that she had used away so we could use the table. I was not upset or angry with her, but I decided to not wait the extra hour for her to get home and text her instead. What should have been a very simple request, turned into an apology-ridden misunderstanding and inevitably, a much longer conversation. If I had just spoken to her in person, there would have been no explanation necessary because we both would have interpreted the others’ body language and tone. In addition to tone being inadequately conveyed, a notable attribute of texting is the use of acronyms and emojis to further improve efficiency. Instead of typing out the word “you” or saying “talk to you later”; “u” or “ttyl” respectively, would serve as comprehensible replacements. I get the desire for efficient messages (which is what makes texting so appealing), but until we start speaking in acronyms and telling our friends “gtg” in person, we can’t claim that texting perfectly replicates normal conversation.
“That is where I think the line should be drawn; once it is no longer a communication strictly of fact or opinion, but of emotion or feeling, an in-person conversation becomes much more effective.”
Thus, we return to my initial reference to two categories: things that “should be texted” and things that “should not be texted”. In my opinion, anything matter-of-fact will likely be understood by the recipient as it was intended to be. Whether the text is regarding plans or even an opinion, a carefully worded statement is less subject to misinterpretation. Where I find texts can begin to hinder communication is when emotion is brought into the conversation. I can state that I “disagree with this politician” and even though that may be controversial, it can be conveyed over text as long as it is clearly your opinion (I am referring to an opinion as something each individual is entitled to and something that cannot be invalidated) and the conversation does not lead to an emotional discussion. That is where I think the line should be drawn; once it is no longer a communication strictly of fact or opinion, but of emotion or feeling, an in-person conversation becomes much more effective.
To justify my categorization, I turn to the use of emojis as a way to convey emotion through a text message. These small, cartoon faces are essentially the texting equivalent of a facial expression or body language, but without a universal interpretation. Although body language can be subtle, the recipient of a frown understands what that means and can connect this expression to the topic of conversation to create a multidimensional understanding of the communication. Additionally, body language provides immediate feedback. Instead of sending a text and then realizing the person was upset by it when they have not replied in several weeks, you can see their reaction and act accordingly.
All in all, I think there is a place for texting, but we should be cognizant of the potential consequences of using acronyms and no body language to convey our thoughts. Somebody’s tone is irrelevant to grocery requests or coordinating a date time, but it can be problematic when you are dealing with more important matters. Although texting is convenient, we should be cautious to consider it an appropriate substitution for in-person conversation.
Header Illustration by Sadie Levine
