I feel like this is an extreme reduction of actual communication impediments and/or preferences. I, personally, have a lot of anxiety about my real-time verbal communication. I grew up in a time well before texting, and yet, making phone calls continues to be difficult for me. I do it constantly at my job, but no level of experience has taken that anxiety away. You may call that emotionally stunted, but what makes it so? It seems to me to be a reasonable reaction to the world we live in and the energy that is required to engage.
I am a great public speaker, assuming that I’ve had time to prepare. The difference for me lies in the reaction time. When I send a text or email, I don’t have the pressure to respond instantly which allows me to create a well thought-out and appropriate response that often provides an actual solution to the problem presented instead of stilted responses about how I’ll look into that and get back to you. You never know what someone is going to bring up, so you don’t always know how to prepare. Some people are better on the page than they are verbally. Personal relationships with the person on the phone make it easier, but not as easy as a text message.
You sound like an extroverted person. Do you feel energized after talking to others? If so, that’s great, but remember that for others, where you gain energy, they lose it. Communication and engagement are exhausting for many people. Some people are very good at quick responses, but that doesn’t mean that they are right. It doesn’t mean they are wrong either, but not everyone has that particular skill set, just as others aren’t as skilled at writing.
To say that people are emotionally stunted or socially immature because they prefer one method of communication over another implies that your method is the best method, and all others need to conform. Why? It’s a preference. Neither is wrong, and forcing others to conform to your arbitrary standards is both silly and impeding for many. Telling people to buck up doesn’t solve the issue, and just makes it seem like a personal failing when likely these people just actually give a crap about their social standing and don’t want to put their energy into a verbal battle with someone who thinks they are great at this aggressive version of conversation.
And no, not all conversations are aggressive, but many of us have learned that it’s more common than you’d expect and that it’s extremely difficult to participate in such a conversation.
My point here is that you shouldn’t minimalize people because they don’t prefer phone calls. Most of the time, we’re competent adults with different preferences, and an ad hominem attack is completely unnecessary, just as an attack on your grammar would be similarly unhelpful and pedantic. Success is not built on or defined by your personal preferences.
I don’t know which country you’re from, but in the US, there is a very good reason they no longer pay people for blood donations. They used to. But, they found that having it be donation based plays on people’s guilt, and they are far more likely to donate when they feel guilty or empathetic or like a hero or whatever emotion gets you up and out to the donation center.
On the other hand, when they pay you for it, people tend to ignore it, because the average person doesn’t really need the money, and since it has become a business transaction, they don’t have to feel guilty about not participating. Donation rates are much higher when the donors aren’t paid. They don’t lack funds; they lack donors, and this was a quick, easy solution to the problem.
It was my understanding that pwn mean you are “owning” them in like a winning way. Like instead of Saying “I just owned you” when you win at something, you say “I just pwned you.”
Am I way off? Does it have a new meaning? I’m so far out of the loop these days.
That’s probably true, but, at least in the US, nothing will really move forward without the populace backing it (or not knowing about it to begin with). Otherwise, those politicians will never get elected again, and whatever climate policy they created will be negated by the new politician.
So it seems like she’s trying to go the route of getting the populace backing first, and then she’ll have that strength to draw on when dealing with politicians. A bunch more people at that point would be also calling for change, so she wouldn’t have to do much convincing. The fear of losing their political standing would be the impetus for change.
In my particularly weird corner of the world, we are still trying to convince people that climate change is real. I can’t imagine how much the deniers would freak out if their elected official backed something that they think doesn’t exist.
So sweet (lemmy.world)
When you donate, do you ever think of the person that gets your blood and how high their hospital bill will be? (lemmy.world)
I used to be with it, then they changed what "it" is (lemmy.world)
Is “no cap” next? I’m like way old.
Quite a talent (lemmy.world)
Greta Thunberg detained at The Hague climate demonstration (www.theguardian.com)