Technology: Reducing the quality of Human Interaction

According to Distraction.gov, cell phone is the most alarming of distractions as it requires visual, manual, and cognitive attention (1). Those can't be said for your passenger distraction you mentioned. If you notice other distractions listed it also is mostly consisting of technological distractions. You mention alternative distractions as an excuse for this one. I would argue that less distractions the better. You already conceded the fact that people often times go to texting instead of talking. This is the type of disconnect that comes from technology. You still haven't refuted the findings of the ncbi mentioned in round 2. Your argument seems to be continually that there are other negatives therefore somehow minimizing the impact of technological quality impacts. This in and of itself is a concession to the fact that it has a negative effect. No matter how minimal you haven't proven that it doesn't affect the quality of human interaction. In your example of asking the professor via an e-mail, the quality of this interaction is dependent on your ability to communicate via e-mail. The professor doesn't get a chance to know and meet you formerly. This is a brief introduction to who you are. E-mails to professors are to be formal/professional. This doesn't give the professor a full picture of who you are. The convenience you mention of technology doesn't at all pertain to this discussion as I am in agreement with you about that positive. It however isn't an indicator of human interaction quality. At least not in the present argument you presented. A newspaper can't be read all day, and only certain sections are going to be utilized by individuals. Once again this is not a fair comparison of the technological usage. There are 168 hours in a day. According to a gallop poll Americans sleep on average 47.6 hours a week (2). This means the average technological use of 60 hours takes up roughly 50% of the time awake in the day. You can't compare that to any previous "substitute" that you presented (newspaper, snail-mail) (3). Intimacy, you described is not the intimacy that I was describing. We are talking about introverts that are substituting real interactions with their online substitute. Sex is an essential part of a healthy relationship (4).You mention infidelity, and I would argue that the prevalence and increase in cyber-affairs is making a new avenue of cheating and thus negatively impacting the quality of human interaction. The more opportunities to cheat the more likely it is to occur. Especially when the availability to do so is now 60 hours a week (using the online usage weekly mentioned above). You suggested that I am too generalized, I would argue that the statistics that I've laid out don't lie. Not to mention your constant defense of technology has been the introvert (who make up only 1/3 of the populous) the other 2/3 aren't benefiting the way they are according to your argument. I think I've clearly laid out the argument that technology has negatively impacted the quality of human interaction. Both in it's distracting nature, it's addictive nature, it's marital strain, and simply put the crutch that we have discussed for the introvert. Thank you for your time and arguments. I enjoyed this discussion. (1) http://www.distraction.gov... (2) http://www.gallup.com... (3) http://www.nielsen.com... (4) https://bewell.usc.edu...