Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age

Trevor was 26 years old. He was an expert at texting while keeping his eyes on other people: “phubbing.” He said that conversation ended in 2009 with the rise of Facebook and that even classroom conversation changed.

The nature of conversation in a lecture hall is different, now that teachers must compete with phones for attention. Students also pay less attention to the comments of other students, and they are hesitant to speak out loud, worried that their words won’t come out right.

“The March of Generations with Their Generations of Technology, 2008-2014”

At the time of Reclaiming Conversation’s publication, texting was the preferred means of communication for teenagers. Snapchat then became more popular, in part because it demands even less attention than Facebook.

Many people tell Turkle that maintaining a Facebook profile feels too heavy. They want something less demanding and more ephemeral. Turkle attended a birthday party where she watches teenagers avoid each other as they text. A young woman named Amy told her that she can always be lively and playful in text, whereas conversations have uncomfortable lulls and dead spots.

“Friends Like Family”

Turkle talked to a woman named Rona in 2008. Rona was a high school senior who recently joined Facebook. She said she could talk to her Facebook friends in a more “relaxed” way. She felt required to respond to their messages and comments, however, which was not relaxing. Rona liked being able to fix her texts, demonstrating to Turkle that many people are more likely to share when they can edit. The ability to edit removes some of the vulnerability inherent in conversation.

“Our Phones, Our Selves: A Natural History of Texting”

A student named Oliver told Turkle that texting is the foundation of his friendships. Oliver’s friend, Jasper, said that even when he’s with a group of friends, he will be texting other friends who aren’t there. He prioritized the absent friends and the present friends equally. They could be ignored or paused as needed.

Kati, a college junior, was anxious about having many choices. Phones and social media introduced FOMO (fear of missing out) into her life. Seeing other friends having fun on social media could undermine whatever her current situation was. Kati constantly formed new strategies about how things could be rather than appreciating how they were. Social media and texting let her fantasize about potential futures rather than the present.

“Phone Phobia”

Turkle saw Jasper—a high school senior—and his friends going to great lengths to avoid phone conversations. Their parents took their calls for them, even when college talent scouts were trying to reach their children. In 2014, several women told Turkle that they were awkward on the phone, to the point where they would avoid phone calls at all costs. Listening on the phone requires attention for both parties to engage appropriately.

“Never a Dull Moment: Friends Talk About What Is on Their Phones”

Various people tell Turkle that their friends mainly talk about what they can share on their phones. A young man named Randall said that when he’s with a friend and things get quiet, it makes it hard to focus in the presence of the other person. At this point, Randall may pull out his phone and take a photo of himself and his friend and post it on social media. He said that this is his way of staying connected to that friend even when he doesn’t feel talkative. Technology fills the silences. Turkle remarks that such photos can make friendship more “comfortable” and that much of communication technology—texting, social media—are geared toward that end.

“Security Blankets”

Joelle, a college senior, described her phone as a security blanket. Phones allow her to look busy, making it less likely that someone will interrupt her. Haley, a college junior, told Turkle about the seven-minute rule: If you give a conversation seven minutes of effort and attention, then you’re then allowed to get out your phone.

“The Friend Beside You and the Friend on the Phone”

Turkle writes that phones instill a craving for interruptions: When people get ignored in favor of a phone, they feel invisible or set aside. She shares a story about a woman named Haley who was with a friend when that friend received upsetting news through text. Haley tried hard to engage her friend and console her, but her friend ignored her and instead texted multiple people about the upsetting news, sometimes reading aloud their responses.

Text offers the appearance of emotional connection, but at a remove; you don’t have to see how the other person feels. This means that you don’t have to see their grief, but it also makes it harder to comfort someone.

“Disruptions”

Turkle outlines another problem with phone communication as opposed to face-to-face conversation: When people have their phones out, it almost guarantees that conversations won’t become too serious. When everyone expects interruptions, it is almost futile to start deep conversations that will require sustained focus. This protects people from being vulnerable, but also disrupts attention spans and the nature of conversation.

“On Call”

Phones build a sense of obligation into relationships. People are expected to be ready with responses. Friends begin to feel like responsibilities, and returning texts—even playful texts—can feel like a heavy commitment.

“Middle School: The Feeling of Empathy”

Twenty Holbrooke teachers discussed their concerns. They didn’t believe that students were making real friendships. Ava Reade, the dean, said that students could no longer inhabit another’s perspective. Students were impatient and couldn’t listen. Holbrooke is a small private school where teachers can spend more time observing students, so they have a fuller perspective than teachers at other schools who have less time for each student.

The students were not treating their classmates like real people with whom they had a mutual relationship; they were treating their classmates as a means to an end for entertainment or fleeting affirmation. For the students, a friend was something you can turn “on” and “off” at will, much like a phone app. Students may have had intimate text conversations but then ignored that friend when they saw them in person.

To illustrate more of how technology is blunting students’ empathy, the author talks about how students may make Facebook posts that say cruel things about their classmates, but they won’t realize that Facebook is real and has real consequences. They don’t realize their online voice can still hurt others. She cites research suggesting social media can impair self-control while temporarily increasing self-confidence; this can lead to unkind words online.

“Hoarders”

Turkle interviewed Haley, who defined her friends as people who will return her texts. She “hoards friends” as if they are collector’s items. However, she considered deleting Facebook and getting back to real life. By the end of her senior year, she got rid of her smartphone, and this decision gave her retroactive perspective on how she viewed her friends. She said that not having the history of her conversations on her phone made her “unencumbered by the past. I am able to be more forgiving” (168).

“Empathy Machines”

Turkle writes about people who experimented with Google Glass. Google Glass is a pair of glasses that records videos from the wearer’s perspective. Andi was a 27-year-old subject of the experiment. Her Google Glass took a video every 10 minutes. At home, she took them off because her husband didn’t like the intrusion. He worried that if he said something wrong she’d always have a record.

Andi thought he would feel differently if he were also wearing Glass. People hope that Glass will become what Turkle calls an “empathy machine”: If you can literally show someone your point of view—show them the videos you took while wearing the glasses—they may better understand your perspective.

Turkle hopes for the development of devices or programs that will buttress conversation. The current devices not only change what we do but what we are like. For example, empathy requires eye contact, but phones require that people look downward. Anything that reduces eye contact potentially reduces the development of empathy as well.

“The Sense of Empathy”

We see the ostensible convenience of online contact as a superior form of companionship. Social critic William Deresiewicz said we are creating only the illusion of community instead of actually being in one.

“Next Generations”

At the Apple store, an older worker told Turkle he worries about the younger generations. As Turkle spoke with him, she imagined that texts are hindering memory formation: We remember something (or make a story of it) when it involves something interesting, but texting has smoothed out many interesting features of conversations. For example, people bond over the mistakes made within real conversations, and texts provide fewer opportunities for mistakes because they allow the users to edit themselves.

We expect people to always have their phones with them, and if someone has their phone with them, then there is little excuse not to respond immediately to texts. Therefore, when someone says that they care about us, we expect them to respond to our texts. However, Turkle points out, in romantic relationships, silences are common. She calls this the NOTHING gambit; when people flirt through texting, they strategize silence.

“The NOTHING Gambit”

In romance, people have the option to not respond to texts. When people text and receive no response, it makes them feel as if they don’t exist. When someone failed to respond promptly to 18-year-old Hannah, she felt tempted to track them online to see why they were so busy. However, she tried to ignore it. Hannah compared it to someone who looks away from you when you’re talking: The only solution is to ignore it and proceed as if nothing has happened. Turkle sees the silent treatment as a new and unfortunate mode of communication that relies on lack of empathy.

“Friction-Free”

The dating app Tinder renames rejection as “swiping left.” Eliminating someone from your potential dating pool is what Turkle calls “friction-free.” The unsuitable people are gone with the swipe of a finger, without the messiness of in-person rejection. Rejections now take place in batches larger than would ever be possible in person. The illusion of infinite choice makes a relationship fun to chase, but true intimacy does not come through screens. Turkle believes that our changing communication methods impact every stage of romance.

“Where Are You? The Game Changers”

Twenty-four-year-old Liam used Tinder. He liked the app because all interactions are already set in a romantic frame: If two people on Tinder are talking, they have already expressed a baseline level of romantic or sexual interest. He saw himself as a product and Tinder as the marketing device. However, he had no girlfriend and was pessimistic about his chances. He was overwhelmed on Tinder because of the seeming infinity of choices. Liam experienced what Turkle calls the paradox of choice and the “psychology of maximizers” (183); a maximizer is perfectionistic and overconcerned with whether their every decision is the best one possible. Danny, a 32-year-old man, blamed technology for his increased resistance to commitment; he always felt that someone better might be online.

“Where Are You? In the Machine Zone”

Danny said that dating sites are toxic in their endless choices. He and others felt like they are always playing a game. The dating apps can also start to feel like a game because it requires skill to catch others’ interest. Turkle observes that the most attractive women can exclude more average-looking suitors as they monitor their messages. They receive so many offers for dates that they can afford to wait—or so it appears to them—for the best offers.

“Where Are You Now? A Question of Timing”

Timing a text conversation now implies the curation and interpretation of messages. Three high school seniors gave Turkle the etiquette for how quickly they respond to Facebook posts. Their strategy was to check Facebook without looking like they were monitoring it. They all agreed: If you respond to something too soon, you will look desperate.

If the outcome of a text conversation is unsatisfactory, people can delete the conversation, block the person, and pretend it didn’t happen. Women tell Turkle that on online dating services, men prefer to stay online for longer before meeting in person. It is getting harder to get face-to-face dates in the earlier stages of a potential relationship because men can be more confident—and avoid the pain of face-to-face rejection—online.

“Who Are You? An Army of Cyranos”

Friends help each other craft romantic texts. They also help each other interpret messages before responding. Texts are not ideal for flirting because they leave so much open to interpretation. It can be hard to convey anger, affection, and more in the absence of context.

“Who Are You? Technical Difficulties”

When Vanessa didn’t respond quickly to Julian on WhatsApp, it hurt him. He could see that she was online responding to others, but not to him. “Retro” phones without apps can be better for romance, ironically.

“Who Are You? Can Our Romance Be Efficient?”

Nine 20-somethings told Turkle that their significant others were always looking at their phones. Callie said she had to maximize her time with her boyfriend because she knew that he wouldn’t be able to concentrate on her for long. They did not make small talk.

“Who Are You? Imposing Order”

Efficiency is not a romantic word. Couples tell Turkle that they fight online so they can have evidence of what they said. Talia says that online arguments let her express herself without being cut off in the middle of trying to make a point. Learning to appreciate others requires spending time with them and watching how they react to situations, in person. Appreciating others is not necessarily aided by efficiency.

“Where Did You Go?”

Turkle says that many new norms, driven by technology, are unpleasant for at least one of the parties involved. A comedian illustrates this: During some of his shows, Aziz Ansari asked crowds if they ever ended relationships by stopping texts to that person, as opposed to simply telling them that it’s over. Several people always said yes, but no one ever said that they would appreciate being on the other side of that type of breakup.

Turkle shares another story about tech troubles in romance: A man named Evan texted Sloane to break up with her after a few dates, even though they had good chemistry. This is after he told her that he didn’t want “labels” on their relationship. Sloane played along and agreed with him; she felt that it was an innocent, necessary conversation without major implications for their future, which was still early in its development. Now she worried that she might have rushed Evan and caused the breakup, even though she doubted it. In any case, she couldn’t ask for more information because the breakup text was final.

“What Just Happened?”

Thirty-six-year-old Adam showed Turkle a three-year archive of his past relationship with Tessa. He wondered who he was outside of the relationship. He believed that the best version of him existed when he was with her, but he also admitted that when he chatted with her online, he would meticulously edit himself. The result was that his online persona differed quite a bit from his real personality.

The comedian Chris Rock said you send your “representative” on early dates. Relationships succeed or fail after the real identity emerges.

Adam tried to be as open as Tessa wanted, but he couldn’t always meet her version of empathy, at least in person. He thought that talking to her digitally gave them the best chance, because he could communicate thoroughly and craft the thoughtful language she appreciated. Given that it didn’t work, he concluded that the breakup was inevitable.

“Old Phones”

Adam showed Turkle his old phone. He had meticulously transcribed the old messages from Tessa onto paper. He was sad about the relationship ending, though he believed it needed to end. He said that Tessa helped him become more real.

“The Better, Edited Self”

Tessa wanted Adam to listen but not to give her solutions. After an argument, he sent her a funny text, even though he was scared about their relationship status. This edited version of him lessened the tension. Adam says that he acted more empathetic with Tessa, hoping it would make him a more empathetic person. He thought the fantasy version of himself gave Tessa unrealistic expectations, and he now believed texting both created and ended their relationship.

“What We Really Need to Know”

The Data Fallacy is when we feel that “online exchanges give us so much data that we now know all that we need to know about our partners. Certainly enough to get it ‘just right’” (203).

Adam had lapses in judgment during a late Gchat argument with Tessa. His attempts to reassure her didn’t work, but, talking to Turkle, he cited the lengthiness of his chat messages as proof that he was trying. He said he used to praise Tessa’s love of reading as a positive, but it made her insecure since it reminded her that she’d grown too busy to read much. Turkle thinks Tessa might not have pulled back if she could have read Adam’s body language instead of the texts.

“Closure and the Archive”

Tessa ended it with Adam after a phone call. Afterwards, they sent each other cutting remarks, made more acute by the fact that they were crafted and written. It is easier to be cruel at a distance.

Later, Adam saw the written record as valuable. He had evidence of who he tried to be, but he acknowledged that it also preserved his failings and her criticism. He wondered if it was still possible to really know someone. He did not enjoy the fact that Tessa’s messages—even the hurtful ones—were crafted and edited in the same way as his.

Turkle taught an MIT seminar on science, tech, and memoir. There were only 20 students. They gave their histories, and some of their stories were poignant. They said that they had been texting in class and felt bad that they weren’t giving more attention to important stories. Some couldn’t go two minutes without checking their phones.

“The Myth of Multitasking”

Attention is scarce, and our performance deteriorates when we try to do too many things at once. Students don’t think that texting in class diminishes their performance, but they’re wrong. A student named Oliver said that teachers shouldn’t be offended when students send texts during class; he thought he was lucky to be able to add to the global conversation at all times. His friend Aidan, however, disapproved of their inattention.

People with phones grow less tolerant of boredom. They get trapped in circuits of checking apps. When students see other students checking their phones, they may wonder if the class is boring. People who are addicted to their phones view it differently than they would view other addictions; heroin doesn’t have to be part of life, but phones do.

“The Opposite of Unitasking: Hyper Attention”

Some teachers use their students’ fragmented attention as an opportunity to find new ways of teaching. Katherine Hayles, a literary theorist, says this “fractured attention” is simply the way of the 21st century and that it’s unhelpful to nostalgically fixate on the days of “deep attention.” She recommends framing the situation as “Hyper attention.” Hayles thinks it is more realistic to change the educational environment than to change the students.

Boredom presents an opportunity for imagination. Children who are raised to multitask may be unable to return to unitasking once they are older; it is difficult to develop deep attention past a certain point.

Maryanne Wolf, a neuroscientist who was accustomed to skimming academic literature, realized that she was having a hard time reading one of her favorite books. She panicked and began to study the effects of skimming on deep thinking and concentration. Wolf believed that the brain has plasticity and that even if someone loses some of their ability for deep thinking, they can re-cultivate that ability.

“Grazing”

John Palfrey and Ura Gasser are the authors of the book Born Digital (2008). They refer to skimming information as “grazing.” The web is their “information prosthetic.”

Thirty-two-year-old Maureen said in an interview that without her phone, she didn’t believe she had anything to say. Her mother, on the other hand, recited poetry and had a formidable array of memorized facts. Maureen struggled to memorize; she had a hard time connecting facts to a larger narrative.

“They Want the Right Answer. Quickly!”

A focus group of teachers told Turkle about their rushed students. They couldn’t get their students to understand that having access to facts is not the same as knowing the facts and being able to deploy them in academic work and normal life. 

What we know—not what we can access on a phone—makes it possible to think in new directions. People treat phones as external memory storage.

“Seduced by Transcription: Putting Machines Aside”

Carol Steiker is a professor at Harvard Law School. She requires students to take notes by hand. She noticed students with laptops losing their attention; they acted more like stenographers than learners. She noticed that her law students resisted interruption and expressed irritation when called on while transcribing the class. Now that her class is free from devices, Steiker sees improvement.

“MOOCs to Think With”

MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Courses. MOOCs comprise video lessons accompanied by tests. In theory, MOOCs offer opportunities for people who cannot be in college classes. MOOC groups are the new communities. However, they are shown to be more effective when blended with traditional, in-class learning. Students who struggle with conversation must be engaged in conversation.

“With No One There, Everyone Can Be Heard”

Daphne Koller, the co-founder of Stanford’s Coursera, believes that the online environment equalizes opportunities to be heard and that no one can monopolize online conversations. However, the long-distance format has its pitfalls. For example, one student disliked that she could be present with a charismatic teacher with heavy teaching accolades. The most powerful teaching always takes place within relationships, and in-person relationships have more teaching potential.

“Showing Up to Something Alive”

Project Athena, “an educational initiative that used computer software to substitute for traditional classroom teaching” (234), arrived at MIT in 1983. Some faculty resisted relinquishing the in-person connection; they said that their lectures helped them think and to bond with students. Lecture halls form a community, and watching a teacher think in public might inspire students to pursue academia as a career. A young student said he comes to class to see “something alive” (238).

“Being There”

Lectures also provide discipline for teachers. Lectures require improvisation and pressure testing for professors’ theories. When developing online courses, the creators considered using professional actors to deliver the lessons, pretending to be teachers. Several students told Turkle that they felt they had a better chance of being heard in an online environment because speaking in class made them anxious.

“Real Time”

English professor Lee Edelman says that getting students to engage each other in a thoughtful way is his biggest challenge. A human resources manager told Turkle that new hires have difficulty expressing themselves in meetings. If a conversation makes students nervous, it is the duty of the schools and professors to work on that. Students should be able to defend their ideas in real time.

“Clickers Versus Conversation”

Political theorist Michael Sandel only calls on students who are willing to raise their hands; his classes are conversational in format, and anonymous answers are not an option. In contrast, some teachers use something called a “clicker,” a device that “allows students to express an opinion without revealing a name” (238). However, many teachers say that classroom conversations would be less engaging with clickers. Students and teachers must grow comfortable with awkward moments and silences.

“A Love Letter to Collaboration”

Turkle asked students to collaborate on a project. They chose to collaborate in Gchat and Google Docs. Their work was good, but they never met in person. Online collaboration can keep people on task, but also gives the illusory conviction that people are always doing their work. Increasingly, when given the chance to collaborate, students do so virtually.

“Office Hours”

When people have hours with Turkle, they prefer to email her because they do not recognize the potential value of in-person meetings with her. Additionally, students tell Turkle that they avoid office hours with their professors because edited emails feel more controlled.

Audrey Lister is a legal partner at Alan Johnson Miller and Associates. She told Turkle that she would often talk with her colleague, Sam Berger, when they were new to the firm. It helped them bond, and some of their best ideas came from those sessions. Now, in the absence of formal and informal meetings, she said work has lost some of its family atmosphere.

“A Day in the Life”

Early on, Lister’s conversations did not always have a structured agenda or a desired outcome. She and her colleagues got to know each other as they meandered through ideas about cases. She tries to encourage younger members to talk face-to-face, even when she knows it is unlikely.

“Meetings That Aren’t: The Hansel and Gretel Experience”

ReadyLearn was a consulting firm with dwindling in-person meetings. ReadyLearn’s vice-president, Caroline Tennant, was always busy. Her online meetings gave her little time to think.

Turkle provides statistics on what employees do while on a business call. The results include doing other work, checking email, eating or cooking, and more. Lister didn’t understand why she should have to make presentations to people engaged in other tasks.

“Attendance: Who is Present?”

Multitasking during meetings is contagious. Turkle wonders whether meetings should still be called meetings. Open laptops or devices encourage distraction. Many people describe themselves as “too exhausted to brainstorm” (258).

“Another Meeting That Is Not Quite a Meeting”

Turkle interviewed Alice Rattan, who taught unitasking. She was surprised when her clients would multitask even when she was talking to them about their own accounts. These were people who designed apps but were socially maladroit. She banned phones from meetings and allowed two 10-minute phone breaks. However, she was empathetic with her employees. She knew that they worked the way they worked in school. They did what they knew. Promising thoughts went awry and vanished because her consultants couldn’t keep focus.

“Breathing the Same Air Matters”

Victor Tripp was a technology director for a financial company. He saw himself as a mentor in sit-down meetings. He believed that in-person meetings prevented small problems from becoming large ones.

The author also interviewed stage director Liana Hareet, who saw something similar. Her in-person meetings generated chemistry and enthusiasm leading up to a play. However, she now found herself having to get people to focus on each other during meetings. Her actors resisted the awkwardness of community.

“The View From the Cockpit: Seeking a Measure of Control”

In an interview with Turkle, 35-year-old Raven Hassoun says that she worked in finance and went to great lengths to avoid in-person discussions. Her screen granted her the illusion of control, and control mattered more to her than social norms. She simply did not believe she had the time to work in-person with others. Her regimen has taught her brain that it wanted to multitask.

“Get Together. Have a Conversation”

Stan Hammond, the CEO of a consulting firm, said he believed that Hassoun’s approach will work against her. He didn’t want email-only interactions, and he found that people in their forties are more open to in-person talks.

“Dispersing the Workforce”

Remote working on an international scale has made it so that many workers have never met their supervisors. Decentralization is framed as progress, but it is harder for teams spread over the world to bond. Tripp, the technology director, believes his teams will only grow smaller.

“Bringing People ‘Home to Work’”

The CEO of Radnor Partners grew disillusioned with telecommuting in 2004 and decided to get his team back in a physical space. At first, there were complaints about his new culture of face-to-face leadership, but most of his employees later admitted that it helped their morale and performance.

“Conversation Dates”

The CEO of Stoddard told the author that he started “breakfast dates”: A group of managers would meet together weekly for breakfast, with no purpose other than to be together and talk. It helps with bonding and problem solving.

“Designing for Conversation: Culture Counts”

Turkle provides examples of how companies and other organizations can design their systems and their spaces to encourage conversation. Each company that prioritizes conversation sees promising results.

“HeartTech: Build It, but They May Not Come”

At HeartTech, a company in Silicon Valley, leaders prioritize conversation. However, even though the company is well designed, people feel they have no time to talk because they must always be available online. Designing for conversation is a start, but it is not enough; managers must model behavior.

“Dialogue in Medicine”

Medicine has a unique relationship with conversation. Newer doctors find it difficult to focus on the patient during an exam, trusting instead that diagnostic knowledge will illuminate the situation later. They are less likely to listen to details about anxiety or depression, preferring instead to focus only on the physical ailment. Young doctors are losing their empathic connection with their patients. Some medical tests make it impossible for the doctor to make eye contact with the patient because the test demands that the doctor focus on a screen.

“Next Steps: Inventions and Interventions”

Business leaders can help with the next steps. They must insist on—and model—conversation. Starbucks made it easier for baristas to talk to customers by introducing name badges and lower counters. At other companies, there is also the problem of younger hires struggling with the solitude their jobs require, and some of these workers struggle to think creatively when they don’t get immediate affirmation. Managers must remain aware of the nervousness that disconnection creates. As workers experiment with solitude, managers must support them.

“A Drink and a Handshake”

While researching material for Reclaiming Conversation, Turkle interviewed hundreds of business leaders. She asked each interviewee about the times when face-to-face conversation is necessary. Most of them responded that conversation is critical during rapport building, and they wished they had more time to speak face-to-face once they saw the positive results.