I don't know if you've noticed, but apparently it's now socially acceptable to ignore people when they're talking to you.
Apparently it's also no longer necessary to look both ways while crossing the road, or sit unoccupied waiting for wedding ceremonies to start. All such things are quaintly last century, now that nearly all our interactions are mediated by the mobile phone.
Basic human etiquette is being redefined by technology. You see it all the time: the friend who goes "uh-huh, uh-huh" in a distracted manner while blatantly sending a text mid-conversation; the pedestrian who texts while crossing a busy road, glancing up from his screen only briefly to judge breaks in the traffic; the bad-mannered idiot who talks at full pitch into his phone while the bloke in the cafe is trying to divine his wishes through sign-language and mouthed words: mobile phone addicts are everywhere.
We don't really need statistics to back up the evidence of our own eyes, but the telecoms regulator Ofcom have provided it anyway. Their research shows that although we spend slightly less time on mobiles than last year, we've moved even further away from face-to-face interaction by texting more than ever, sending an average of 50 messages a week.
At the same time, we're spending four precious hours a day in front of the box, up 25 minutes since 2002. Between TV, our phones and tablet computers, we're hopelessly in hock to gadgets. One source of electronic entertainment is no longer enough. There's even a word – turfing – for watching the TV and browsing the internet simultaneously.
I hate it, but I'm as guilty as anyone. I curse the day I ever discovered solitaire. I watch TV while messing about on my computer, sending emails, surfing the net or playing mindless games. I flit like a butterfly between big screen and small. My nearest and dearest are the same. There are three of us in my marriage, me, my husband and his phone.
All harmless fun? Not exactly. It's contributing to us leading increasingly atomised lives. With less direct interaction and less physical activity, our virtual lives are pushing out real life more than ever before. It's like being part of a vast uncontrolled sociological experiment.
If this trend continues, it doesn't bode well for our health. The World Health Organisation gave us a prod on that very subject only this week, revealing that here in the UK, we are among the most sedentary people on the planet.
Just think how much more productively we might spend the time if we all decided to have a techno amnesty and switch off our phones, computers, TVs and video games for a week or two. This was brought home to me recently when I saw relatives who were brought up without a TV. Although they are adults now, none of them has picked up the gogglebox habit. They might not be able to discuss the relative merits of Deadwood and The Wire, but they are among the fittest, most active, dynamic people I know.
There are many advantages to technology. It has made it easier for people to stay in touch, especially at distance. We undoubtedly share our thoughts and ideas more readily (for good or ill). None of that, though, is a substitute for sitting with a friend (mobile phones switched off) and reading the emotions on their face and in their body language. Even phone calls are better in this respect than text and email. With written communications, you get a filtered, perma-happy version of reality. A few exclamation marks and a smiley face can hide anxiety, boredom, anger, irritation and deep, gnawing despair.
The thing is, most of us know there is no substitute for seeing people in the flesh. Ofcom revealed that in spite of our national addiction to text, 83% of us prefer to communicate face to face. Perhaps we just need to remind ourselves of that a little more often, before our lives are reduced to a huge exercise in virtual reality.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article