One concern seems to be that over reliance on texting and the like is eroding a whole generation's competence at an invaluable skill set. To the extent that such a concern is grounded in fact (and that extent could well be zero) I would say any such erosion is cause for alarm. To the extent that there is a silver lining in possibly granting greater access to some who would never have managed that skill set in the first place, I would say a silver lining doesn't obviate the need for an umbrella.

Now, I'd invite you to read more carefully.

I didn't purport to engage in any strict reasoning so I'm not sure why I need concepts like “ideas” to be concrete before I can use them. I appreciate there are circumstances in which it's necessary to be much more concrete, clear, and distinct — occasionally I do write like that — but this isn't a circumstance like that.

Second, thank you for agreeing that my preference for technical language is a preference: “prefer” is the same word I used. I also believe in balance — but my stated concern is that there has not been a balance: society has largely benefited those who are better at informal communication; now society is increasingly rewarding people who prefer technical communication — which might end up going too far — but that isn't as obviously bad as Bauerlein argued it is.

You already know I don't accept that position so why are you trying to use it as a premise to argue against me?

Third, I didn't say “text allows greater access to those non-proficient in navigation of in-person contextual cues” — as in, I didn't mean access to in-person conversations, i.e. the same roads. I meant, we're building new roads — new kinds of roads.

[I edited that last paragraph for clarity.]

And finally, again, you ended up trying to use the position I'm criticizing as a premise to invalidate my case.

Do you have any positive or alternative suggestions?

One concern seems to be that over reliance on texting and the like is eroding a whole generation's competence at an invaluable skill set. To the extent that such a concern is grounded in fact (and that extent could well be zero) I would say any such erosion is cause for alarm. To the extent that there is a silver lining in possibly granting greater access to some who would never have managed that skill set in the first place, I would say a silver lining doesn't obviate the need for an umbrella.

Now, I'd invite you to read more carefully.

I didn't purport to engage in any strict reasoning so I'm not sure why I need concepts like “ideas” to be concrete before I can use them. I appreciate there are circumstances in which it's necessary to be much more concrete, clear, and distinct — occasionally I do write like that — but this isn't a circumstance like that.

Second, thank you for agreeing that my preference for technical language is a preference: “prefer” is the same word I used. I also believe in balance — but my stated concern is that there has not been a balance: society has largely benefited those who are better at informal communication; now society is increasingly rewarding people who prefer technical communication — which might end up going too far — but that isn't as obviously bad as Bauerlein argued it is.

You already know I don't accept that position so why are you trying to use it as a premise to argue against me?

Third, I didn't say “text allows greater access to those non-proficient in navigation of in-person contextual cues.” I wrote that text might itself have benefits — nothing to do with affecting other modes of communication — that Bauerlein doesn't appreciate.

And finally, again, you ended up trying to use the position I'm criticizing as a premise to invalidate my case.

Do you have any positive or alternative suggestions?

Second, Hall's informed use of the term notwithstanding, “non-verbal communication” is inseparable from “verbal” communication. The verbal/non-verbal distinction is akin to the text/context distinction, which is to say, there never is one without the other. You might enjoy scanning Hall's “The Silent Language”, particularly the section on learning styles, in the nomenclature of which I would say your preference for what Hall calls “technical communication” is only that, a preference. A healthy human successfully navigates in all three, formal, informal, and technical.

Third, saying text allows greater access to those non-proficient in navigation of in-person contextual cues is arguably akin to saying printing dmv materials in various languages allows various non-English speakers greater access to the roads. True as that may be, it does nothing towards increasing access to the communication systems which in fact govern our world, those of interpersonal relationships and communication. (That is, Hall's formal and informal learning styles, and the communication systems associated with them, have far more influence than the technical.)

But, hey, anyone who cites Hall gets high marks from me, and I often enjoy a provocative post even when I strongly disagree with its premises and conclusions. Peace.