NY Times Editor Claims Twitter Killing Conversation, While His Tweets Spawn Conversation
from the compartmentalism-in-140-characters dept
There's been some buzz about NYTimes Editor Bill Keller's recent column, in which -- in true curmudgeon fashion -- he posits that Twitter and such are a problem because they are killing deep conversation:As a kind of masochistic experiment, the other day I tweeted "#TwitterMakesYouStupid. Discuss." It produced a few flashes of wit ("Give a little credit to our public schools!"); a couple of earnestly obvious points ("Depends who you follow"); some understandable speculation that my account had been hacked by a troll; a message from my wife ("I don't know if Twitter makes you stupid, but it's making you late for dinner. Come home!"); and an awful lot of nyah-nyah-nyah ("Um, wrong." "Nuh-uh!!"). Almost everyone who had anything profound to say in response to my little provocation chose to say it outside Twitter. In an actual discussion, the marshaling of information is cumulative, complication is acknowledged, sometimes persuasion occurs. In a Twitter discussion, opinions and our tolerance for others' opinions are stunted. Whether or not Twitter makes you stupid, it certainly makes some smart people sound stupid.He then compares this to claims heard in yesteryear about how calculators meant people weren't good at doing math in their head any more, and how future generations with their brains and retinal displays jacked directly into the network would make people bad at remembering stuff. We've heard such claims before, but I think it misses the point. Yes, it's important for people to be able to understand the basic building blocks of things like mathematics, but is it really such a horrible thing if you can free up that part of your brain and let it work on other tasks?
As for the claims about the lack of deep conversations on Twitter, I think that's unnecessarily compartmentalizing communication. Twitter isn't designed for deep conversations, so asking it to do deep conversations and mocking it for not doing so seems sort of silly, doesn't it? And, yet, I know first hand that short bursts of conversations on Twitter have resulted in much deeper conversations outside of Twitter for me, as well as all sorts of connections to people and conversations I never would have had otherwise. That those didn't all happen directly on Twitter seems entirely besides the point. In many cases they happened because of Twitter, and that seems a lot more interesting and powerful than worrying about how some people sound "stupid" on Twitter. Some people sound stupid off Twitter too. Perhaps the problem isn't Twitter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill keller, conversation, social networking
Companies: ny times, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Twenty years ago, babysitting my niece after school, I was shocked that her particular school wasn't teaching simple phonics - sounding out words - but was sending home lists of vocabulary to memorize. No teaching on the basics of how words are formed, just rote spelling. After changing schools it became apparent she had a slight learning disability, but dammit, learning the very reasons for language translating from written to spoken and back again would've gone a long way to help her in the beginning.
I'm digressing, but Twitter, like the internet in general, is only serving to start conversations, as Mike said. Forums, articles, and blogs help to continue it, it then spills over into actual face to face conversation. Might as well blame news headlines for the same thing Keller is blaming on Twitter.
I'm a dope in person, stuttering, forgetting, but when I write I can organize my thoughts, edit, clarify, choose. I'm glad the internet works for me in that way. Keller's continuing the conversational damning of Twitter by writing a damn editorial that sprung from one Tweet, for crying out loud. Does he not get the irony there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, there's your problem...
If you sign up for Facebook with the impression that it's loaded with superficial navel-gazers, you'll find exactly that.
If you think the internet makes people stupid, you'll find no shortage of stupid internet users.
And once you find your conclusion, there's really no reason to look further, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, to a lot of people, yes. I've been having this kind of debate a lot lately (most recently it was about letting kids use spellcheck in school - which many people are apparently against, just like calculators), and the vast majority of people I talk to react with absolute horror when I suggest that it's okay for some skills to become less important while others take their place.
Several times I have tried pointing out that once the most important skill was hunting, and then for thousands of years it was farming for about 90% of people on the planet, but we don't teach those things anymore. Usually they just laugh and say that is silly and has nothing to do with anything. Cognitive dissonance at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for farming, it must still be important here in the US or we'd have ditched Daylight Savings Time several decades ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No offense meant to the actual journalists out there who actually report in intelligent manners and sometimes in very dangerous circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like opinion unsubstantiated by factual data.
"Solving increasingly challenging captchas every day gives our IQs unprecedented boost!"
This too is highly doubtful, got any data in support of this conjecture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds like opinion unsubstantiated by factual data.
Fact: your comment I'm replying to.
"Solving increasingly challenging captchas every day gives our IQs unprecedented boost!"
This too is highly doubtful, got any data in support of this conjecture?
Yes, my comment you replied.
Sorry, did not want to offend, just couldn't help. Peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As stated in the article: no, it's not generally good for long discussions, that's not what it's for. Congratulations captain obvious.
But so what? Um hey Bill, Twitter is just another social media site/app/whatever. And it's good at what it's there for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Keller is simply embracing a most pedestrian fallacy. The pre-Twitter data at which he looks is a body of literature composed by the highly selected group who were able to access the traditional media + his family and friends. That group is most likely composed of people whom he finds to be "not stupid" and most likely did not respond without carefully considering what they were saying/writing. (I can hardly imagine anyone remaining friends with Mr Keller for long if they did not display intelligence he would find of an acceptable level) However, his Twitter response must have elicited responses from a very large group of people who because of the lower barrier to entry are not up to the high standards of Mr. Keller. This says nothing about what Twitter does to your intelligence. All it says is that more of us can be heard by Mr. Keller and many of us might be inferior half-wits.
This experimental flaw is otherwise known in the sciences are mucking things up. In fact, given the obvious way Mr. Keller is simply trying to confirm his biases by deliberately creating a flawed experiment, it would probably give rise to an ethical violation. Thankfully, he is not a scientist but merely a scrivener of whom one could expect no better.
This of course all ignores the fact that if it was not for Twitter, Mr. Keller would have looked positively foolish when trying to discuss Twitter. One could quite probably have described him as a twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's kind of a contradiction here, isn't there?
I don't even really like Twitter... but this is just foolishness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently they can't coexist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely missing the point
That's exactly the point Mr Keller has failed to realise. Or does realise but has chosen to ignore to try make his point seem slightly less absurd.
Twitter is status updates. Twitter is very short, one to many, broadcasts. For a long time there wasn't even the functionality within the main Twitter interface to allow you to take part in a discussion based on one Tweet. That's changed recently with the new Twitter interface, enabling people to follow a "conversation", but the functionality is naturally clunky, as that just isn't what Twitter is for.
One of the most infuriating examples of Twitter use is when someone has a story to tell, and they split it out over 5-10 sequential messages. That's just not what Twitter is designed for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on, the name starts with "twit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitterpated
But then, I believe in IP as intended in the Constitution - even people under 30 are generally not that radical!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]