"Instantaneous communication" leaves us asking for more.
In a post by Andrew Keen, he addresses a question that our "always-on" Internet culture has been asking:
"What is the point of instantaneous global communication?" In this short post, Keen posits the notion that, instead of ideas moving around the globe at light speed, and in doing so, delivering these ideas and insight so much more efficiently, that this may not be the case. His theory is based upon a piece by New York Times writer David Brooks who sees our new-found communication tools as creating a culture of "uniform conformity" as opposed to diversified debate. As we take in and process information that is "instantaneous," do we also create a void where that information is processed? Are we in too much of a hurry to consume and then regurgitate instantaneous content as truth, fact, or norm just because, "we read it here first?" Recently, I have questioned the long-term effects of this "global immediacy in 140 characters or less" culture we are quickly beginning to master. I have noticed, within myself, that my eyes are teaching my brain how to process instantaneous information. I am not so sure this hasn't affected my ability to think deeply about a topic and process alternative ideas or further discussion. Maybe we are just evolving. This is all part of a new application of thinking. It is a new way. Instantaneous information leads to instantaneous decisions. And we know the usual outcome of making decisions too quickly don't we?