It is argued that an increasingly large number of individuals turn to mobile gadgets as a form of communication replacing the conventional method, thus worsening their skill of physical interaction. I partially agree with this statement, as while the proliferation of technological devices for communication purposes can definitely reduce the quality of physical communication, it may not affect those individuals who use it reasonably and to a limited extent.
On the one hand, the emergence of electronic gadgets like mobile phones and computers has replaced considerably the need for communication in person. Individuals avail themselves of the opportunity to reach out to each other via fast and convenient ways of communication like messenger platforms, emails and phone calls. All of these remove the need for on-the-spot interaction, not to mention the need to provide a response immediately. As a result, the depth of communication may be lost as online messages by no means can realistically transmit the tone of the message, the genuine reaction and the intonation that are subtly ingrained in the real conversations. What’s more, people become accustomed to the opportunity to respond at the comfort of their schedule, with certain people simply ignoring a message simply because they don’t have a willingness to respond. All of these factors lead to the gradual deterioration of the form of communication skill that used to be incorporated in interaction between people.
On the other hand, there are still individuals who prioritize personal interaction over any alternative way of communication. This approach emphasizes the responsibility of every individual to be conscious of the influence of electronic devices on one’s life and not being at the mercy of the convenience of their use, as it comes at a great cost in the long run. I believe that it is reckless to put all the blame on gadgets since each individual has the power to choose their form of interaction and time allocation. Although the mechanisms of messengers are designed in a way that provide less incentives for people to opt for physical communication, human beings should not fall into this trap. Purposeful scheduling of real meetings, both professional and personal, might provide positive long-term results without granting technology the opportunity to dictate lifestyles of human beings.
In conclusion, while electronic devices have affected the way individuals interact with one another to a certain degree, I content that as human beings we should capitalize on our ability to choose, placing a higher priority intentionally on the physical forms of communication. Had more people been more mindful about the influence brought about by technology penetration, a greater portion of the society could have enjoyed a higher quality lifestyle.