Broadly speaking I suppose we can mostly agree that the slack-jawed who wander..

[Hiheels]

..down busy city streets staring at their phones are a pain in the proverbial.
However, has this wave of social media that is, in many ways one step removed from "real" interaction, actually been a gift to introverts and it's only the extroverts, who perhaps before seemed to be the majority (mostly because they're out and about!) that are loudly objecting to it? They're not getting the attention they crave?
Real human interaction is good, when it's what you want and when you want it, at other times a cyber-wave across a crowded room is perfect before shutting it all out.

Incidentally, by saying it's removed from "real" interaction I am in no way saying you can't care about people you've only ever typed to.

What do you reckon and which camp are you in? I'm definitely an introvert.

[P-Kasso2]

 

What an intriguing question....In short, do mobile phones bring out the Introverts? And are the Extroverts missing the attention they normally crave?

From what I have seen, mobile phones certainly do allow Introvert kids to blossom into Extroverts or even into online bullies and terrorists. At least, most computer geeks and hackers seem to me to be typical Introvert stuff. Coincidence?

And present day Extroverts just go on banging out boring selfies and being crass and boring to everyone except themselves.

The only hope is that Introverts use their mobile phones rather like Introverts in the past used their quill pens - and that is create something the world wants to read.

My major worry is that mobile phones (which are just the beginning of this revolution) do not amass or come to represent 'real' interchange between people. People must still interchange rather than hide away in darkened rooms satisfied with 'virtual reality' interchanges.

EM Forster foresaw all this and wrote a slim volume called "The Machine stops". It is chilling.

When iPads, mobile phones and whatever else is in the pipeline come to fruition we have to be really carefully that interacting is a human thing, that it worth preserving and fighting for. Everyone can do their bit to make sure computers do no replace real human interface.

Snog a stranger tomorrow.

[Cosmos]

I'm not sure that there is a greater percentage of people staring into their mobile devices than there ever was staring at newspapers . If there seems to be more isn't that because there are more people nowadays?

I'm an introvert but not one to stare at either mobile device screen or newspaper while moving . Sitting waiting somewhere I check my mobile device but I'm aware of the physical problems it can cause and behave accordingly . I don't usually interact with others by typing on the mobile while I'm out .

[P-Kasso2]

I'm not sure that there is a greater percentage of people staring into their mobile devices than there ever was staring at newspapers . If there seems to be more isn't that because there are more people nowadays?

I'm an introvert but not one to stare at either mobile device screen or newspaper while moving . Sitting waiting somewhere I check my mobile device but I'm aware of the physical problems it can cause and behave accordingly . I don't usually interact with others by typing on the mobile while I'm out .

Point well made and point taken, Cosmos I'd say I am speaking as more of an Introvert than an Extrovert that goes bouncing up puppy-like and slobbering all over strangers.

But where you say you're not sure if there's a "greater percentage of people staring into their mobile devices than there ever was staring at newspapers" I don't see hordes of teenagers ambling down streets and getting run over while crossing intersections while engrossed in reading newspapers.

The thing is that mobile phones (much like TV sets) demand our full attention - whereas newspapers or listening to radio is something that can be done while doing other things (such as thinking, washing up, composing the next great symphony etc.)

No, I reckon the problem with mobile phones is that they totally take over the user's whole attention - and Introverts are probably more susceptible to be being drawn in to the mobile phone bubble than Extroverts. Or am I totally wrong?

[Cosmos]

I'm not sure that there is a greater percentage of people staring into their mobile devices than there ever was staring at newspapers . If there seems to be more isn't that because there are more people nowadays?

I'm an introvert but not one to stare at either mobile device screen or newspaper while moving . Sitting waiting somewhere I check my mobile device but I'm aware of the physical problems it can cause and behave accordingly . I don't usually interact with others by typing on the mobile while I'm out .

Point well made and point taken, Cosmos I'd say I am speaking as more of an Introvert than an Extrovert that goes bouncing up puppy-like and slobbering all over strangers.

But where you say you're not sure if there's a "greater percentage of people staring into their mobile devices than there ever was staring at newspapers" I don't see hordes of teenagers ambling down streets and getting run over while crossing intersections while engrossed in reading newspapers.

The thing is that mobile phones (much like TV sets) demand our full attention - whereas newspapers or listening to radio is something that can be done while doing other things (such as thinking, washing up, composing the next great symphony etc.)

No, I reckon the problem with mobile phones is that they totally take over the user's whole attention - and Introverts are probably more susceptible to be being drawn in to the mobile phone bubble than Extroverts. Or am I totally wrong?

I used the word was very deliberately . The newspaper has been very much replaced by the mobile device . Fifty years ago you could have seen a similar percentage on the street engrossed in a newspaper .

[P-Kasso2]

[to be being drawn in to the mobile phone bubble than Extroverts. Or am I totally wrong?

I used the word was very deliberately . The newspaper has been very much replaced by the mobile device . Fifty years ago you could have seen a similar percentage on the street engrossed in a newspaper .
[/quote]

You are right, Cos.  In fact my mum always used to say she first bumped into my dad when he was crossing a busy road with his nose firmly stuck in The Racing Post and she was equally engrossed in a spiffing knitting pattern in Woman's Weekly. The rest, as they say, is history.

[moonzero2]

Again I find myself in the minority.
 Mainly because I avoid social media like the plague.
I tend to be a pretty private bloke, so I prefer using a nom de plume.
This brings its own problems as so many abuse that anonymity, to basically bully others.
So many of our internet brethren seem to forget that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[P-Kasso2]

Just a quick and serious correction to my earlier post... This is written with me on my knees...I managed to make no fewer than 2 very serious errors in a short 14 word sentence!  I can only apologise to any one who has tried to find the book and say a) well I did read the book 50 years ago when I was 17 and b) my memory isn't much cop at the best of times.

Back to business. In my post (of August 18th) I was talking about an amazing book by HG Wells (first error!) that foresaw how technology will irresistibly take over communications and make people into introverts and zombies. 

The book was actually authored by EM Forster!

And not only did I get the author completely wrong, I even got the title of the book wrong!

It wasn't called 'When the Machine Stops' - It is called "The Machine Stops". By EM Forster. Not by HG Wells. I feel like an idiot and apologise unreservedly.

EM Forsters' book really is a chilling read and a gripping one. It is also totally modern to read even now, 109 years after it was written. It doesn't read as old fashioned.

Ebay have it for £3.24. And it will scare your knickers right off.

[moonzero2]

If you have a Kindle Amazon have it for £0.75 or £0.49 as a stand alone short story.