Weddings Is it time to stop focusing on Weddings?
- Thread starter DJ Wes
- Start date
Talk to some of the current 20 somethings and it really makes you wonder. Being social has gone out the window. I don't think they would know how to interact in a household .. they can't talk without texting.
Odds are I'm one of a small handful of people on this forum who is actually qualified to speak on this topic...I'm at the very start of the Millennial generation (actually depending on the definitions, I'm part of the 4 year gap generation between the X'ers and the Millennials).
Weddings are not going away, the point in life where they happen though is being pushed back. It's not so much the young 20's that are getting married, it's more the middle and late 20's, even early 30's. It's a myriad of factors causing it to swing this way.
I'll agree there are some social interaction issues, but at the same time, they're social in a way the older generations will never understand.
What I think is really going on is the normal generational differences, but that gap has been expanded by the sudden boom in technology
Weddings are not going away, the point in life where they happen though is being pushed back. It's not so much the young 20's that are getting married, it's more the middle and late 20's, even early 30's. It's a myriad of factors causing it to swing this way.
I'll agree there are some social interaction issues, but at the same time, they're social in a way the older generations will never understand.
What I think is really going on is the normal generational differences, but that gap has been expanded by the sudden boom in technology
I agree that weddings are not going away. How is texting and not interacting .. being 'social in a way the older generations will never understand'?
If we don't understand, then help us try to.
If we don't understand, then help us try to.
For me it's very difficult to explain because I'm still not a digital native, I sit between generations. Being social and interacting have taken on new definitions. Millennials have grown up with technology and they're really the first generation where technology has been integrated into everyday life and they've never known any other way.
Let me phrase it this way. Right now, everyone on ODJT is being social, interacting with each other. For many of us this is something we've had to learn how to do and grow comfortable doing. Some of us still think this isn't really being social because we're not having a verbal conversation. For Millennials, they don't know life before this type of technology, so something like forums, facebook and texting are simply other forms of social interaction that have always been there.
Here's another way to look at it. There always have been and always will be generational differences. For every generation before the Millennials, social interaction was always limited to physical proximity, be it in person or having to be next to a landline phone or even sitting at a computer to type an email. For Millennials, technology has removed the physical barriers of interaction that existed for previous generations. This is something that we're not used to, to us it isn't interacting or being social, but to a generation who has known nothing different, it is being social, it is interacting.
Is this new method of social interaction right or wrong? I'd say that all depends on your viewpoint because you can find examples to support both sides of the debate.
I hope that helps some.
Not to derail the thread, but what I do find sad with the millennial's is that because most of them are growing up with
this technology, they tend to act like a heroin addict going through withdrawal when they lose their internet connection or don't have their smartphone with them. I have seen many first hand examples of the anxiety that comes over them when they can't check their twitter or instagram accounts etc.
They are so connected to the information highway that they act like the borg from star trek when they get cutoff from the collective.
As far as texting goes, it was never designed to carry on a conversation with someone, it was designed to get short timely informative messages to people who otherwise couldn't be disturbed, or where a ringing phone would be an embarrassment such as at an important meeting or the theater etc.
The phone companies have also played a big role in the proliferation of social texting as most of them offer unlimited texting even on the cheaper packages but not unlimited voice minutes. Even on the prepaids you can text more than you can talk for the same amount of money so economically it has caused people to trend towards that form of communication.
this technology, they tend to act like a heroin addict going through withdrawal when they lose their internet connection or don't have their smartphone with them. I have seen many first hand examples of the anxiety that comes over them when they can't check their twitter or instagram accounts etc.
They are so connected to the information highway that they act like the borg from star trek when they get cutoff from the collective.
As far as texting goes, it was never designed to carry on a conversation with someone, it was designed to get short timely informative messages to people who otherwise couldn't be disturbed, or where a ringing phone would be an embarrassment such as at an important meeting or the theater etc.
The phone companies have also played a big role in the proliferation of social texting as most of them offer unlimited texting even on the cheaper packages but not unlimited voice minutes. Even on the prepaids you can text more than you can talk for the same amount of money so economically it has caused people to trend towards that form of communication.
I'm in the same boat as @DJ J Mac where I'm sort of on the cusp of being a millennial (depending on who's numbers you use) being born in '84. I prefer texts over talking on the phone though that's mostly due to my speech impediment. To me texting is a whole lot more efficient than a phone call. A phone call requires my full attention where as I can text (just to catch up or disseminate information) with 5-6 people at the same time and basically at my leisure. It's a lot less "work" than a phone call.
At the same time I have the "damn kids get off my lawn" line of thought about keeping up with all these social networks. I stick with Facebook pretty much. Instagram, Twitter, etc can go suck an egg. I'm not sure if it's just me or a generational thing but I do tend to get frustrated when my phone keeps chiming with new text after new text. When home my phone stays on mute and I reply from my computer or when I feel like picking up my phone.
When I see my friend's tweens and teens on their phones it boggles my mind the speed at which texts, instagrams, etc go back and fourth. Here I thought I spent a lot of time on my phone - my head would explode if I ran at their speed.
As far as marriage goes it's not very important to me. When my older aunts "Ask when you gonna meet a nice girl and settle down"? "Someday" is the best answer I can give. I'd most definitely "test drive" marriage by living with the girl for a year or two to see how we're going to get along together long term before asking for her parent's blessing and plunking down money on an engagement ring.
Last edited:
I totally understand what you are saying. From a familial aspect, how does this 'digital interaction' translate to finding and keeping a life partner?
Hence the thread / discussion about this. More and more are moving this way.
No, I don't think so.
Communication by text or internet is not enough to constitute "social" connection. That we type and exchange words on a chat board for example, does not mean we are "socially" connected. No one here on this board should think that we are friends, associates or even well acquainted simply by virtue of some electronic information or opinion expressed here.
Facebook, Twitter, etc. do not constitute social interaction unless the people you are communicating with are also socially connected to you in the real world on a frequent or even daily basis. "Followers" are not social connections - they are voyeurs. No one has 1500 active friends. Most people are lucky to have one or two real friends. When you post something to social media you are not communicating you are broadcasting.
I am broadcasting my opinion right now. Despite the quote - I have no particular subset of ODJT members in mind that I am trying to address, or whom I believe are intimately interested in what I think. If you are reading this and believe that I am speaking to you personally - then that is the problem. This over-sharing world of social media and text/email/cell phone is creating a world of delusional thinkers - where a contrived sense of social connection indeed - insult, adulation, understanding, appreciation, and even romance - all happens inside their own head.
Real social interaction, true connection is supplanted by electronic ego gratification. Voyeurism is not connection. Broadcasting, posting, and self-promotion is not interpersonal communication. Despite electronic links we live in a society more disconnected than at any time in social history. We can send information instantly - but, that is not really what sharing means in the context of true social connection.
Last edited:
What you term as "real social interaction" is what I'd now call "in-person social interaction". I'd have to disagree that the electronic version is any less "social", it's just different. My opinion, there are now varying degrees and types of interaction that are happening, and the types are being constantly redefined as we speak. Do I consider a lot of the forum members here my good friends? You betcha I do. Even though we may not have met in person I have faith that I can count on you guys when needed and I hope you'd feel the same about me.
And as for being interested in what you think, come on. You know that I just LIVE for what you think.
Hi guys. I won't bother quoting entire posts in my response, but I would like to comment on digital communication.
I agree with Bob's definition of social interaction in regards to followers/voyeurs. However, I disagree that "Communication by text or internet is not enough to constitute "social" connection.". Social interaction is the process by which we act and react to each other. This has nothing to do with physically being present with someone. As Rick just alluded to, a great many of the exchanges in this forum alone have led to or influenced mutual bonds, emotional support, heated debates, services rendered, personal decision making, etc.. Whether it be via carrier pigeon or video conferencing, communication is social interaction.
Sometimes digital exchanges are preludes to real world ones. I have physically met quite a few people in the real world from online socializing. The meetings enhanced our relationships, but certainly did not define them. We were friends long before anyone walked through a door. I also have many more "non-delusional" real connections with real people that I may never meet in person. If both parties perceive it as such, then it's valid.
Is there "a contrived sense of social connection" out there today? Absolutely. But you get out of it what you put in. Just like in the "real world". In my opinion, being open and honest is the key to being social. I can successfully socialize online because I don't squander a lot of my time and thoughts on anonymous users and content.
The answer is not to dismiss the way we now connect, but to demand more from it.
I agree with Bob's definition of social interaction in regards to followers/voyeurs. However, I disagree that "Communication by text or internet is not enough to constitute "social" connection.". Social interaction is the process by which we act and react to each other. This has nothing to do with physically being present with someone. As Rick just alluded to, a great many of the exchanges in this forum alone have led to or influenced mutual bonds, emotional support, heated debates, services rendered, personal decision making, etc.. Whether it be via carrier pigeon or video conferencing, communication is social interaction.
Sometimes digital exchanges are preludes to real world ones. I have physically met quite a few people in the real world from online socializing. The meetings enhanced our relationships, but certainly did not define them. We were friends long before anyone walked through a door. I also have many more "non-delusional" real connections with real people that I may never meet in person. If both parties perceive it as such, then it's valid.
Is there "a contrived sense of social connection" out there today? Absolutely. But you get out of it what you put in. Just like in the "real world". In my opinion, being open and honest is the key to being social. I can successfully socialize online because I don't squander a lot of my time and thoughts on anonymous users and content.
The answer is not to dismiss the way we now connect, but to demand more from it.
Last edited:
That's precisely the kind of untested assumption I'm talking about. I think you're actually referring to the idea of these people as friends. Yes, you have resources and helpful individuals available to you through your contacts here but, I would not want to confuse a method of connection for the substance of a connection.
If we had these conversations by phone - what would change? Well, voice cues would define what is or isn't an important comment and discussions would be shorter and less potentially volatile.
If we met in person - we might not have these conversations at all. Our first impression of who's in the sand box might cue us to simply move on.
So, friendship is kind of an over-statement of the connection we can make online since most of what we take away from it already exists in our own head. Without a more personal and real world context we see the interaction the way we want to see it.
Relationships cannot be adequately defined when they funnel through a singular electronic point of connection. Friendship for example, is defined by both the variety of points at which people connect and the quality of those connections.
Last edited:
I would disagree with Hank's interchangeable use of the words communication and connection.
Communication is transactional. We can acquire emotional support through communication if it is a mutually agreed, or implied part of the exchange. That does not mean we have a connection. This is an important concept - because, emotional derision (cyber-bullying) works the same way. When we perceive emotional connection simply as an outgrowth of communication then, we are over-invested and skipping over a lot of necessary steps.
People associate vulnerability with connection but, over-sharing is not vulnerability or connection. A lot more than just communication has to happen before people become worthy of connection.
Communication is transactional. We can acquire emotional support through communication if it is a mutually agreed, or implied part of the exchange. That does not mean we have a connection. This is an important concept - because, emotional derision (cyber-bullying) works the same way. When we perceive emotional connection simply as an outgrowth of communication then, we are over-invested and skipping over a lot of necessary steps.
People associate vulnerability with connection but, over-sharing is not vulnerability or connection. A lot more than just communication has to happen before people become worthy of connection.
Last edited:
Hi guys. I won't bother quoting entire posts in my response, but I would like to comment on digital communication.
I agree with Bob's definition of social interaction in regards to followers/voyeurs. However, I disagree that "Communication by text or internet is not enough to constitute "social" connection.". Social interaction is the process by which we act and react to each other. This has nothing to do with physically being present with someone. As Rick just alluded to, a great many of the exchanges in this forum alone have led to or influenced mutual bonds, emotional support, heated debates, services rendered, personal decision making, etc.. Whether it be via carrier pigeon or video conferencing, communication is social interaction.
Sometimes digital exchanges are preludes to real world ones. I have physically met quite a few people in the real world from online socializing. The meetings enhanced our relationships, but certainly did not define them. We were friends long before anyone walked through a door. I also have many more "non-delusional" real connections with real people that I may never meet in person. If both parties perceive it as such, then it's valid.
Is there "a contrived sense of social connection" out there today? Absolutely. But you get out of it what you put in. Just like in the "real world". In my opinion, being open and honest is the key to being social. I can successfully socialize online because I don't squander a lot of my time and thoughts on anonymous users and content.
The answer is not to dismiss the way we now connect, but to demand more from it.
Totally agree Hanky.
Coming full circle back to deep relationships with the current generation .. how do they happen without intimate social interaction?