LOL! If all interactions are only meant to be confrontational, how do you explain text based chatting?

Okay, I'll spoonfeed you.

Confrontational interaction endeavours.

Confrontational = The state of confrontation, i.e. to confront.

Interaction = To act together or towards others or with others, commonly via communication, when it involves individuals more than one.

Endeavour = To make an attempt.

Now, put them all together:

"To confront", "to communicate", "to attempt".

Simply speaking:

Attempts of confrontational communication.

Get it?

Sigh.

Confrontation is a type of interaction. I didn't say all interactions are confrontational, it is a type of interaction. Appeasement is a type of interaction. It's like saying an apple is the same as an orange because they're both fruits.

Attempts of confrontational communication still sounds like deliberate attempts of pissing people off. Confrontations tends to have a negative connotation.

Maybe the term you were looking for is socializing?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Nov 18 2009, 04:36 PM

Not socializing exactly, since people can also socialize in the Internet.

But what I don't get it is your stubbornness to refuse to define confrontation as merely confronting person, i.e. meeting up face-to-face, and confrontational communication means a communication that is done face-to-face.

Did I break it down clearly this time?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 18 2009, 11:19 PM

So are you trying to ask whether technology is the cause of real life conversations becoming less common or that real life conversations skills are being stunted because of technology?

Yes, do you not believe that it may be so?

There's 2 questions in there, which question are you referring to?

I said yes to the first question.

Real life communications are becoming less common because it is not really that convenient. Both parties has to be available at the same time. If you exclude telephones usage, both parties would need to be in the same location as well requiring time to be wasted on traveling. With technologies like telephone, you don't have to be in the same located. With email and instant messaging, both parties don't even have to online at the same time. They may not talk directly but the message is still getting across.

The question is why is having face to face conversation so important?

Because it is closer?

So can we say the solution is to go out more, be friendly/genuine, try new things, be outgoing and adventurous, meet more people?

Instead of still over relying on the internet/sms/msn/forums and getting emo because its messing up your head?

sounded so true.. what happening to me..

is this the epitome of the saying 'ignorance is bliss'?

then stay in Europe while your spouse in malaysia and just deliver your sperm to her via DHL and she`ll get pregnant eventually and see your baby from webcam in skype

technology are meant to EASE us... NOT to SUBSTITUTE us...

technology are created to ease communication and transportation of hard to reach places... eg... from PJ to CHERAS.. you cant walk right? but that does not mean you walk from your house to food court for 5 minutes is wrong and useless....

did you watch the animation WALL E?

see t he humans in the moviethat result from over dependent on technology......


http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Nov 22 2009, 09:16 AM

Yeap.

I'm not saying that technology should be used in all cases but asking what makes one form of communication is more superior than others as implied by Deadlocks' questions. The act of communicating through a phone does not make a person less real. There's still a person at the other end.

In your first example, technology is still not substituting a person. Substituting means that there's no real person on the other end of the conversation. You would be communicating to a machine instead of a person. Dating sims would be an example of such interaction if the player is treating the characters in the game as a real person. In such a case, is it the fault of the game or the fault of the player that such a situation exists?

True, but with the lack confrontational conversations, people are more inclined to ASSUME that such conversations are NOT AS REAL as the one in REAL LIFE. Although they have themselves to be blamed for conceiving such a perception, it should be noted that most people are less socially welcoming today compared to the past, due to the inferior amount of confrontational interactions they have managed to achieved in the modern world today.

LOL at many replies here starting from before several last thread
and now finally see the thread going according to the title.

But i couldn't agree on "Technology make human miserable",
afterall, human decide things on themselve, how to say that this technology decide the bad path for human being?
Even with those supporting phase like lack of communication in real life, independant on the ease of completing task too much,
this only shows the advantage of technology
However, doesn't really show the miserable of human having this type of technology
I would prefer this phase to be an adjective

So, i would insist human to be praise or blame for they own doing
Lack of face-to-face communication, texting, lesser real life confident, being slave for machine,
this only can be blame for depending on the technology too much, its up to individual to get out of those life and stick to the real life,
or continue staying in the world of technology they wan which is most easy and fast
After all, human the one to decide to use the technology or not
If they wan, they can keep going;if they dont wan, they can just dump aside
of course, best if individual know technology is mean to be use not to be totally rely on
And able to stick with improving real life socializing skill
And also able to survive when there's no electricity

ok... but this is technology... it solves one problem while create another....

car solves our transportation but it too kills the determination that we once had on walking to get to our destination, and it create aonther solution, entertainment in car so that we wouldn`t get bored while travelling



I could foresee Japan will be the pioneeer of this... creating virtual sexy AV star that would greet you when you come home, talk to you, comfort you.. and maybe, have virtual sex with you....

fulfilling your wildest fantasy..... again, it solved another problem... sexual craving and create another... make human as lustful as never before....



This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Nov 24 2009, 01:15 PM

Somehow you are misinterpreting the question that was asked. I'm not asking who would come up with. I'm asking why would such a product exist in the first place. Technology doesn't just pop into existence by itself, the need for it have to be present before someone would start working on it. So who's fault is it that such things exists in the first place?

It has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, the one that chooses to use a particular technology is the user. There is nothing to prevent you from not using technology. It is your choice and you'll have to live with the consequences of making that choice. Want to use electricity, you are gonna need to create some pollution as a result. Want to use clean energy, you will have to pay more for it.

The example of the movie Wall-E is more about what happens when big business make the decisions in your life. Specifically making you buy and use technology that is not needed. Thinking for yourself is no longer "cool" so we follow what we are told without question due to fear of becoming the odd one out.

You may wanna quote my comment too.