Blog address for all the posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
[15 minute read]
Happy Birthday, Fool
Long ago, before people in the technologically advanced countries on Earth had mobile phones, adult siblings would often not wish each other a happy birthday on their actual birthdays. Of course, many of them sent birthday cards, mostly when distances were so great that travelling for the annual events to the area in which the celebrant lived; was too time-consuming; or expensive. It is this valuation that intrigues me, particularly in light of being the recipient of birthday wishes by text messages from my sister, when we, in the modern world, both had mobile phones; now, more accurately, they are personal phones. It is this idea of mobile phones being personal phones in that they are considered to be an actual facet of a person, and not just a handy conduit to a person, that, for me, is strange indeed. What I mean by this, is that we are all only a decision away from having a digital implant in our brains that operates just as a mobile phone does.
How much someone values someone else used to be measured on whether someone visits someone else at Christmas and random times, or at least meets up with family; it used to be writing letters to family members; bringing back souvenirs, or sending postcards when you went abroad, or at least when someone went somewhere relatively far away.
How rude of my sister when she sent me a text message wishing me ‘Happy Birthday’ on my birthday, instead of calling me from the same device she had in her hand. Perhaps, she might have excused herself by saying she had no credit to make a call because she had free texts; but free texts or calls were only to numbers on the same network, in those days. Now, of course we have unlimited everything. Perhaps, I was only worth 10p to her, or the time it takes to write fourteen characters and my number followed by ‘Send’.
Furthermore, how did we come to think that an email was preferable to a birthday card? Did we really decide that a text with no nuances, or an email with no personalisation, such as handwriting, was suitable? When did we think that fulfilling a chore could be accomplished at arms-length and minimum effort or forethought, and that same desiccation of emotion would be welcome as an alternative to a kiss.
I brought you some grapes. Mmmm, these are lovely?
If we visit someone we know, in hospital, who are we doing it for? Do we feel a sense of duty, that for us, manifests within us as a personal need that we must fulfill; like having an itch that simply must be scratched; or do we visit them because the need we have is to make the hospital-bound person a little happier, by showing compassion towards them? Are we not merely satisfying our own need in both cases. So, when my sister sent me a text message on my birthday was she just being selfish?
But, is being selfish taken to a new low level when we now think that when a tourist venue offers financial concessions for certain groups of persons that means those people may enter for free upon showing a letter of recognised disability or financial hardship that demonstrates eligibility for the full concession, we might ask if a screenshot from a website that shows eligibility is acceptable instead? To be clear about this: A cathedral in Kent, England gives full concessions to visitors who are on government granted financial benefits that are paid to jobseekers or workers whose earnings are below a certain threshold. The cathedral website states a ‘letter’ of eligibility needs to be produced for free entry.
In Negotiation, there is an acronym, BATNA, which is: Best Alternative to A Negotiated Agreement. In Law, a contract is in place when an offer is accepted; there must also be something moving from one entity to another. That ‘something, can be either tangible, such as product; or intangible, such as a right or a freedom. A contract can often be expressed very simply using only a single condition; the presence of the conditional ‘if’ in a statement makes things clear for the average person – ‘If you give me that, I will give you this.’ Let us write this simple contract thus:
If you prove, with a letter from a government body, that you are in receipt of a government-issued financial benefit (Universal Credit) we will completely waive any entry fee for you, and you can enter for free.
What person would try to negotiate for the best alternative to this agreement? I will tell you: anybody in the modern world whose moral compass is so skewed by their acceptance that fulfilling one’s own need is the same as fulfilling a duty, or the same as making someone feel loved for a while. The recognition of duty to each other to comfort and offer assistance seems to have been completely washed away of late.
Yet, the UK government has decided that it will not issue letters of entitlement to people in receipt of Universal Credit so they can accept an offer for free entry as a visitor to a Cathedral, and instead gives advice to renegotiate a new contract for free entry with a screenshot of the benefit-recipient’s entitlement. What this means for the average person in receipt of Universal Credit and hoping to visit a cathedral with a full entry fee concession, is that they need to check that free admission is applicable with new conditions being met; typically a phone call that very near to the beginning of the conversation will use the conditional ‘if’ in a question – ‘If I show you a screen-grab / screenshot of my entitlement to government benefits will you let me in for free?’ What was simple; click the checkbox for your visitor slot and show the letter eat the entry point, is now complicated by an erosion of common-sense right at the top of the Government and at the fabric of our society.
When a government promotes that kind of behaviour we know we can expect a desertification of confidence in one another and a crumbling of the edifices of courtesy and manners through lack of maintenance because there are no more engineers left to check for decay.
I understand that this laxity in manners has come about because by having personal phones we simply cannot be bothered to comply with instructions or conditions when there are clear rules and guidelines, and so many of us simply phone up and renegotiate the conditions we can't be bothered to comply with. We do this because we get a buzz out of conversation, and we get a buzz out of settling something while avoiding greater effort to achieve the criteria a business has set out for eligibility; in other words – terms and conditions.
An email to my grandma on her birthday saves me walking to the post office for a stamp and an envelope; I don't need to find a pen. 'I know I had one, when I was at school!'; and the emoji or emoticon for a smiley face is cute.
Let me tell you why I am thinking that there is an overall erosion of sensibility in modern society. I was offered a job which I formally accepted. The start date was agreed and everything was in place and understood. I even received an email saying ‘Welcome…..see you on [date]’. And here is the kicker – it went on, ‘If you have any questions email me’. About a week later the recruitment agency, through which the job was arranged, questioned me on why I did not reply to that email. ‘I have no questions.’ I said. ‘But, you should thank them for giving you the job and tell them you are looking forward to starting.’ I sent an email to the business to tell them I cannot take the job because we must eliminate this third party element (job recruitment agency) immediately. I was told by the business that the third party element cannot be bypassed. I rejected the job. Apparently there is now, in the modern world, a requirement to unnecessarily and inanely chatter once a contract is in place. The agreement to work for the business was to do a particular job for x amount of money and for x amount of hours. – end of! Nothing else, terms and conditions fulfilled. No need for reassurance. Would you work for an insecure business owner? Not I! I owned and ran a very successful international relocation business. It worked like this. Tell us what you have to move; from where to where; and when to move it, and we will give you a guaranteed price and a guaranteed start-time AND FINISH TIME on your chosen day, with a GUARANTEED PRICE. (We also made it clear on the website that if you lie to us we will impose unlimited penalty charges, that equated to our penalty charges for being late to the next job, if we are delayed by your deceit).
Once the quote was accepted we sent an email with the details in it to the booker. There was then no more communication. Now, ten years later, we would need to send an email every week just to say we have not forgotten our agreement, and everything is on target, and there are no changes to the price or the time or the dates. In effect, everything is the same.
We stopped trading at the peak of our success because suddenly, in 2020, everyone got scared and they have never got well again. Nothing had changed with us; we still honoured contracts and those contracts did not include petting and patting nervous entities. Successful businesses, offering excellent service at the best prices, do not have the resources to stroke and tickle nervous customers without different sensible people paying for it. Of course, ‘added services’ for product sales was already billowing, with an ill-wind, throughout honest trade to show, like a waggy-tailed puppy, shallow and delighted attention (that is likely to be revised and diverted at a moments notice when there is a distraction).
Would you trust someone who says they will be at a meeting place once, or someone who constantly states that they will be there? Think for a moment; why would the second person feel the need to update you? Because one of you is unreliable. However, once you get used to obsequious service you kind of miss it and start to feel nervous when you don’t get it anymore. Ultimately though, the customer ends up paying more money for something that would otherwise have been very simple.
According to Statista , in 2005, the USA sent a total of 81 billion text messages; in 2011, 2.3 trillion; and in 2021, 2 trillion (down from the years 2020 and 2019). With approximately 370 million people in the USA, including infants, that 2021 figure comes to 5405 messages received by each person in that year. (an average of 14 - 15 messages every day)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185879/number-of-text-messages-in-the-united-states-since-2005/
In the UK, according to sellsell.com, in 2012, almost 151 billion SMS and MMS messages were sent; and every year since 2012 the number has decreased so in 2022, 36,440,000,000 (36.44 billion) were sent. With approximately 70 million UK people, that means approximately 2,157 messages were received by each person in 2012; in 2022, approximately 520 messages were received by each person that year. That is an average of 10 messages per week. Clearly another form of social media is used in the UK.
https://www.sellcell.com/blog/how-many-text-messages-are-sent-a-day-2023-statistics/
Realistically, we have to consider that these figures may only reflect the number of messages that were received by individuals because messages are also sent by businesses. The point is not lost in recognising that the recipient responds to a message by looking at their phone and reading the message; and even looks at their phone when their phone has not notified that a message has been received and when there is not a message to read.
MTV, the music-TV channel, launched in 1981, was one of the first to put
streaming 'ticker-tape' type text at the bottom of the music video.
Some people had difficulty in watching the band playing and reading the
scrolling text. However, we soon developed the ability to comprehend
both. We now desire multiple streams of entertainment simultaneously;
hence the anticipation of texting and social media interaction that many
of us experience throughout the whole of our waking lives.
While I do not condone recreational drug use, some studies have shown that a marijuana smoker is as attentive to their work environment as a person who consistently checks their SmartPhone and responds to messages throughout the day. Given the choice, as an employer, of whether to hire an illegal drug user or a regular user of a SmartPhone, the pot-head wins. The pot-head only loses out if they are dealing too. I mean let's face it; try getting a SmartPhone addict to do a repetitive job. Each of these people-type examples, it seems clear, is trying to ameliorate, what they perceive to be a boring existence, with a panacea, different for each but still a panacea. It is sad that we need drugs to put up with our banal lives and make it through the day. 'Whew! Made it! Oh, wait. One last check of my phone, or one last toke, to take away distraction and help me sleep.
So,
what does all this
come down to? The thrill of anticipation of a return text or expected
telephone has
become
an addiction to dopamine, which in turn, has twisted into a
malevolent paranoia that things are not well, when the pleasure
centre (Am. center) of our brains in not triggered often enough, simply because
all is not well because we are not getting our ‘fix’ of dopamine
often enough. If nobody calls us or texts us, we feel unwanted and
left out, if we have not yet become a junkie. And like all addicts,
our judgement is impaired when
we both, get our fix, AND
when we don’t. As an
employer, given the choice between a dopamine junkie and a clean person with
the same experience and qualifications, the dopamine junkie would not even get
an interview for a job I
might offer. The questions
that needs to be answered are: Are you selfish? Are you insecure?
and, will work be a
sufficient distraction from
your
need for connection?
What distracts you?
I once got asked when, conducting research, I applied for a job, ‘What distracts you?’ I thought, ‘Nothing’. The question was actually code for, ‘How many times a day do you look at your phone?’ I left their premises very much saddened.
All of us are a single decision away from having digital devices implanted in our heads.
Bibliography
‘About duty-based ethics’, Duty-based ethics, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml
