ShareThis Page
Tom Purcell

Tom Purcell: The higher tech gets, the ruder we get

| Monday, Sept. 3, 2018, 8:33 p.m.

Our rapidly growing incivility started with the invention of the telephone-answering machine.

Before the answering machine’s widespread adoption, people answered their landline phones with a pleasant “hello,” eager to learn who was calling.

To be sure, says social scientist James Katz, answering machines were considered rude in the ’70s.

By the ’90s, however, most homes had them and lots of people were using them, quite rudely, to screen calls — people like my pal, Griffy.

Calls to Griffy’s landline always made me grumpy:

“Hello, this is Griffy, leave a message at the beep.”

“Pick up the phone, Griffy, I know you’re there!”

Griffy demanded his friends leave messages on his machine, but always hung up on mine — until the invention of the “star 69” feature.

When you punched “star 69” into your phone keypad, you’d get the number of the jerk who had last hung up on your machine.

Boy, did that technology innovation escalate rudeness!

I had a telephone confrontation once with a fellow who had hung up on my machine. I keyed in star 69, got his number, dialed it, then got his answering machine:

“Hello, this is Bill. Sally and I aren’t in right now … .”

I didn’t know who the fellow was — I figured he’d dialed my number by mistake — so I hung up.

Later that day, after returning from a business meeting, I saw that someone had hung up on my machine again.

I dialed star 69, got the number, dialed it, then heard, “Hello, this is Bill. Sally and I aren’t in right now … .”

I hung up again. A few moments later, my phone rang. I picked it up.

“Hello,” I said.

“Who is this?” said the man. I recognized the voice. It was Bill.

“You called me and hung up!” I said.

“You called me and hung up!” said Bill.

“Nuh-huh!” I said.

“Yuh-huh!” he said.

Email was another innovation that escalated rudeness. I remember reading a Wall Street Journal story about two Boston lawyers whose email exchange went viral.

One lawyer, a 24-year-old woman, sent an email to an older, established lawyer, declining his job offer.

The older lawyer, miffed that the woman would email her rejection after she’d already accepted the job offer in person, fired off an email telling her she wasn’t very professional.

She replied that if he were a real lawyer, he would have made her sign a contract. He replied, in so many words, that she was a snot. She sent one last reply: “blah, blah, blah.”

These are just some examples of how earlier technology innovations made us ruder.

And now, the era of smartphones and social media — the era of nasty tweets and Facebook insults — is making rudeness, reports Psychology Today, “our new normal.”

The magazine cites research, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, that finds technology-enabled anonymity and “a lack of eye contact” are chief contributors to our growing incivility.

To wit: Technology is making it easier than ever to be rude to our fellow man, but we must fight this impulse, or else our already overheated public discourse will become increasingly uncivil.

It’s not going to be easy, though.

Even my parents use their answering machine to screen calls from my sisters and me.

Mom and Dad, I know you’re home. Please pick up the phone!

Freelance writer Tom Purcell of Library is author of “Misadventures of a 1970s Childhood!” Visit him on the web at TomPurcell.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me