The Price of Personal Technology on Communication

5 days of Uncooperative Conversations

Introduction

Communication patterns are changing among the youngest generation of technology users. Gen Zs (Ages 9 to 22) make up over 70 million people in the US and are beginning to display some concerning psycho-social statistics.

Reportedly, they have lower capabilities to read non-verbal exchanges, display a negative outlook on society, and struggle over 50% more with mental illness and suicide than any generation before them. Overall, this generation has been associated with language such as “silent,” “suffering,” and “distressed.” A commonly cited culprit for these changes is lack of physical communication as a result of their technology usage patterns, namely social media.

While no complex issue has one culprit, I have been intrigued by this relationship for some time. As a user experience (UX) designer, my primary job is to guide users’ interactions with their devices. A “successful experience” for a company maximizes the use of its product, but what about the psychological and ethical drivers of a “successful experience?” Many would say that these motives contrast. As a UX designer exploring the interactions between humans and conversational AIs (think Alexa), Voice User Interfaces (VUI) require many linguistic principles to create a natural interaction. While AI lacks the emotional component, the issues AI is now facing to understand and naturally communicate with humans aren’t entirely dissimilar to the struggles of Gen Zs.

How do the issues encountered when designing a VUI that processes decisions via text compare to the issues that Gen Zs are naturally learning through their similarly text-based conversational development? A key similarity that I’ve discovered is their mutual lack of successfully implementing the Cooperative Principle:

The Cooperative Principle is a linguistic principle proposed by Grice in 1975. It states that “participants expect that each will make a ‘conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange.’” In other words, humans work with others to understand deeper meanings based on context and assumptions are made from what we say and how we say it.

To better understand this question, I will be practicing uncooperative communication for the next five days, supplementing any necessary conversation with text-based interactions. I will be doing this as an empathy experiment to help inform my design perspective. If you are reading as a designer or parent, I hope you’re able to glean some insight from this experience to help inform your own experiences.

Inspiration: I’m doing this because…

As a 23 year old, I am on the cusp of the millennial and Gen Z generations. While these age associations may seem arbitrary, I have observed huge differences in behavior and motivation between teenagers 10 years younger than myself and adults 10 years older. Generational associations also drive much of the inner-workings of our society that relies on consumerism and marketing, so these are important considerations when developing successful products for happy companies and healthy humans.

Another driver of this is the social trend of older generations to discount serious societal issues, such as mental health and suicide, as the result of “sensitive,” “non-communicative,” “lazy” youth. While judgement of youth is common, the Gen Z population is facing serious psychological side effects as a result of how we have unintentionally designed the addictive cyber-world that they spend most of their lives in.

This issue is also close to home for me. Over the past year, I have watched my 15 year old sibling struggle with cyber bullying, reduced communication, anger toward others, and isolation, all while depending on technology for social contact. As a result, I have also spent hours in the hospital after multiple suicide attempts and watched my parents question their capabilities as they have struggled to relate to his isolation and communication struggles, having never encountered these issues themselves. He is improving, but only after setting the phone down, leaning into sports to fill his time, and relying on medication to dull the emotional effects. The more I interact with this age range, the more concerned I am by the fact that it isn’t rare. Anger, cyber-harassment, inhuman treatment on social media, dependency on technology to escape the issues encountered while on the technology, these are all common themes for teenagers today that I had very little experience with as a teen less than 10 years ago.

While the behavior of a generation can’t be attributed fully to online activity, their relationship with their devices seems to be a key catalyst in all of their problematic situations. To highlight the generational differences in tech time, below is the ScreenTime comparison of two GenZs, two Millennials, and two Gen Ys.

Gen Z (age teens) average tech usage

Millennial (age 20s) average tech usage

Gen Y (age 40s) average tech usage

As a designer, sibling, and future parent, it’s difficult not to wonder what your role is in this cycle. Ultimately, how can future interactions be made more human to reduce the psychological strain created by technology systems?

Goals: I want to…

1. Understand how the Cooperative Principle practically affects our relationships by identifying the effects of regular “communication failures” on others’ immediate and long-term interactions with a device or person.
2. Emulate social patterns of a mid-Gen Z (~15 years old) to better understand their communication challenges.
3. Understand effects of reduced communication and technology dependence on emotional stability.

The rules: For 5 days I will…

1. Only speak when absolutely necessary (ie ordering food) in as few words as possible (nods, confirmation grunts, yes/no).
2. Use text-based platforms to communicate all non-essential information to people both in person and remotely.
3. Record what I notice changing externally and internally as a result of my changed interactions.
4. Ask others I’ve interacted with throughout the day to report on their emotional reactions to and perceptions of our interactions.
5. I will include my Screen Time of the week before and after the experiment at the end of this article.

**In an ideal scenario I would match Gen Z communication trends with technology usage times but it’s not feasible to maintain both for a week and still accomplish tasks (as seen by the huge time commitment from Screen Time above).

Assumptions: Before beginning I think…

• Others around me will speak to me less often and interact less with me when I verbally communicate less.
• Others around me will be uncomfortable by my lack of cooperation.
• As someone who talks through thoughts and situations to process them, I will become more frustrated and confused as the week continues.
• The first couple days will be more difficult than the last few.
• This will be especially difficult with my cat who I speak to constantly in a confirming tone as our primary interaction.
• My interactions with my partner that I live with will decrease each day and we will choose more independent activities.
• I will avoid public situations more often so as to avoid awkward interactions.
• I will use my phone significantly more.

__________________________________

Day 1: 5/27/19

As expected, this prompt is difficult and I’ve found myself questioning the benefit and/or validity of it multiple times throughout the day. An unexpected side effect of this is the negativity I have received from everyone I have interacted with almost immediately, whether they were aware of my experiment or not.

I made a few unexpected observations throughout the day that I’ve included below:

Conversation requires a prompt

People don’t share their needs or requests with you without being prompted by entering into a conversation or commenting on the situation. Even when I was silent, no one filled the silence with details of their own day because they anticipated my lack of response. People just didn’t want to talk to me if I wouldn’t play along.

Humans use sound to communicate more than just verbal ideas

In addition to sharing ideas, we use sound to communicate tone, add effect to the experience (communicate seriousness or joy), and engender emotional connection. Throughout the day, I missed my regular singing and the surprising number of sound effects that I add when communicating without realizing it. Conversations felt very hollow and devoid of human connection without these. This was the meat of a relationship.

Conversation has varied responses and commentary based on context

I found myself repeating the same things to show emotion via text that I wouldn’t do in real life. Additionally, who you’re speaking to determines the appropriate response. One’s relationship with the person and contextual needs (where am I, what are we talking about, how do I feel, how do they feel) completely change how a conversation occurs.

I am distracted WAY less when I reduce the chit-chat BUT the conversations I do take part in become negative quickly

Like many of us, I tend to start conversations as a diversion or procrastination technique. Without the need to respond, I was listening to others less, chasing after my cat less, and communicating with others less overall. I was also connecting with others emotionally less because the effort to share an anecdotal story or short comment wasn’t worth the measured effort to type it. A lot more than I thought was missing from non-verbal conversations!

We search for non-verbal communication when not verbally communicating in person

Physical contact increased when verbal communication decreased. Humans seem to adjust for communication change by trying to add context in other ways (ie exaggerated expressions and movements, increased touch, increased eye contact).

…

Throughout the day I also encountered various unexpected challenges:

Conversation leads to compromise

My partner and I had a few petty arguments that were surprisingly difficult to overcome because we were unable to communicate in a healthy way about them. We lashed out more and acted more irrationally. It was shocking how much we regressed just by having our mature conversation patterns removed. When one person’s communication skills were toxic, the entire experience became exaggerated and immature. This was strange to us both when we had never argued in the past and found ourselves locking doors and giving one another the “silent treatment” in return for my already silent demeanor for the day. The most difficult component of this was the blame associated. Although we both understood what I was doing, I was naturally to blame for our issues because my behavior was uncharacteristic and inappropriate for the situation.

Can’t call my cat

Humans have many ways of interacting non-verbally, but animals don’t communicate with humans in the same ways. Lack of speech is a hinderance when interacting with animals overall because I was not able to offer verbal/tonal confirmation as to how I felt. Even my cat was disinterested in communicating with me throughout the day. Although this doesn’t seem like a big deal, pets offer comfort especially when there is chaos with other people. Without this, today felt especially lonely.

Neither of us carry our phones around regularly

An important part of our relationship is prioritizing human connection. When we’re both at home we’re focused on spending time together, not using our phones. It was hard to remember where the phone was when I needed it to say something and irritating to hang on to it constantly throughout the day.

Devices limit physical interaction in addition to verbal

Holding a phone is off-putting to a person when they are speaking to you. The speaker quickly becomes frustrated and stop speaking. In addition to being a hinderance to verbal interactions, you can only physically connect with someone so much when your hand(s) are on a phone.

Being on tech constantly is cold

While the experience of using the technology is often thought of as a cold activity devoid of human connection. I found myself freezing throughout the day with my hands consistently cold from typing constantly. The feeling of being physically cold made me feel more agitated and unhappy.

You can only do one thing at once

Multitasking is nearly impossible when you have to hold a physical object in your hands to speak. This slowed down many of my activities and made me less likely to speak throughout the day. The attachment to my phone was both my primary communication tool and the reason I was increasingly isolating myself.

Communication takes a lot longer via text

Overall, the entire experience was slower. When you’re dependent on text-based communication, it’s harder to elaborate and you have to ask for regular clarification even from someone the same room because of the lack of context that the text provides. It’s also very difficult to hold a conversation because you think much quicker when you’re speaking than typing and waiting on a response.

People have difficulty understanding the intention of texted words even if that person is standing beside them

In addition to speed reducing communication success, it’s extremely difficult to read the difference between sarcasm and agitation as well as if a person is telling a joke. My dry humor translated poorly throughout the day even when it was to someone speaking to me and I was looking at them and typing back. Context is impossible without hearing tone, seeing body language, and elaborating on an idea.

Lack of respect for consent without speaking “No” or “Stop”

Maybe this is the nature of my relationship with my partner, but I had a very difficult time “putting my foot down” and telling him to stop doing things throughout the day. Because I trust him, I didn’t tell him to stop to see where this went. Initially, it was irritating watching him harass my cat when I would typically shoo him away from her. This escalated to him swinging me around and eventually accidentally whacking my head on the wall, to which I finally vehemently told him to stop messing around. Typically, I spend a lot of time throughout the day requesting that he help me around the apartment or stop/start doing something. This can be exhausting on a normal day but was even more exhausting and less effective when I wasn’t using the tone of my voice or my words to communicate my seriousness.

Ultimately, verbal conversation is necessary for in-person interactions to occur.

…

Today was Memorial Day and I spent most of the day at home and working in a cafe. My partner, with whom I live, commented on this experiment throughout the day and I recorded his responses below to show how it feels to be on the receiving end of non-cooperative communication:

• After only 2 hours he said “I’m starting to resent spending time with you.” He didn’t want to help me with tasks like doing the laundry together which we usually make fun but he was increasingly more agitated by my refusal to verbally interact.
• While we were doing chores together later he said, “This isn’t fun because it’s one sided”
• He also commented that these interactions felt like a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” When I asked him to elaborate on what this meant, he said, “I don’t want to spend time with you and I’m angry with you because you won’t talk to me. Then you’re going to be angry with me because I won’t do anything with you.” While this seems dramatic, it was strangely tense all day. It seemed like we were fighting an emotional cold war where neither of us knew why we were fighting or what to do next.
• To continue the “self-fulfilling prophecy” comment, he noted that this cycle is similar for teens. “It’s a self fulfilling prophecy for Gen Zs too,” he said. “They don’t know how to speak to each other so they don’t speak so they don’t have any friends. Then they’re upset because they don’t have friends. It’s just an uncomfortable cycle of inappropriate behavior where they don’t know how to express their emotions.” While this is an over-simplification of social issues affecting this generation, it was hard to ignore the parallels between what we felt and how our siblings were describing their difficulty understanding and connecting with others.
• At one point he said he felt angry and I asked why. I wasn’t mad or displaying signs of anger, so it was interesting that there was so much unprompted tension between us. He said it was because he wants to talk to me and feels unable and discouraged to because of my demeanor.
• Later, he was getting ready to run to the store and said “I was going to go to the store and usually ask if you want to come but I don’t even want you to come. You’re not going to say anything you’re just going to sit there.It’s not a good experience. I feel like I’m dealing with a child. I want you to come because I think you wouldn’t want to come, not because I feel like I want to spend time with you.” At this point, I should add that we have a very healthy relationship and treat one another with respect. The first day of this was just extremely stressful and he was being as transparent as possible about his emotions for the success of this experiment.

Later, at the cafe I noticed more interesting interactions below:

First, humans recognize abnormalities immediately and are quick to react negatively toward these differences. Other people quickly pick up on my abnormal social patterns within 1–2 interactions. I interacted with the waitress at coffee shop as minimally as possible at a shop I haven’t been to in awhile and as a result she avoided my table. Later, when my partner joined me for dinner, he commented “We seem EXTREMELY dysfunctional,” to which we laughed. However, I couldn’t deny how bizarre it felt to constantly text the person beside me in silence and regularly show my phone to them without any commentary.

Build better voice apps. Get more articles & interviews from voice technology experts at voicetechpodcast.com

By evening, my partner was tired and irritated by our day of broken communication. Upon asking him why he was so agitated toward me, he replied with “I have to fucking play charades all day. I’m tired of playing. I have to deal with you pointing at things and expecting me to read your mind.” Additionally, I was having a difficult time keeping the minimal communication going. Despite his irritation toward the situation, he urged me to continue to keep it up even though it was an obvious strain on our relationship short-term.

Today, I’ve learned that humans are highly sensitive to communication abnormalities and extremely dependent on conversation to feel emotionally and psychologically validated BUT this is only Day 1. We still have four more days to go with countless uncomfortable interactions ahead!

__________________________________

Day 2: 5/28/19

I began today by exercising at home. My partner and I typically work out together every morning, but today’s workout was miserable without the ability to joke around and chat as a distraction. While this usually starts off my day strong, I felt disconnected and irritated coming out of my hour workout.

Throughout the day I realized that it’s difficult to do this experiment justice with all of the face to face communication I have. A smile or nod isn’t verbal but it’s still cooperative. The goal is to be uncooperative, not to play charades. In person interactions were difficult to navigate and determine what the “uncooperative” response would be in each situation. I found myself trying to converse somewhere in-between disconnected and mean. To be uncooperative is neither to ignore the other person or be intentionally mean, but others tend to perceive your interactions as either one or both. If you intentionally say the wrong thing and people think you’re being mean, don’t say anything at all and they think there’s something wrong with you.

This was especially difficult when I was around a class full of people who weren’t aware of this experiment. I found myself avoiding eye contact to avoid the conversation altogether. For the people who did walk up and say hi, I smiled and nodded to which they met with a strange look as if to ask “are you okay?” When I didn’t respond, they intentionally ignored me or found someone else to speak to. Uncooperative conversation physically pushes others away. People weren’t comfortable pushing the conversation forward especially if they didn’t understand my intent.

If I didn’t have anything important to say to them I didn’t text or engage them beyond these initial greetings. Again today, it’s been a challenge of gauging what’s worth the effort of talking and what’s worth letting go. Close to half of the conversations I would typically start or join haven’t occurred because it wasn’t worth the effort of explanation or using the devices.

Those who did know about the experiment reacted completely differently. One friend chose to text me while sitting beside me because she said it was more uncomfortable talking “into the void” than texting. When one person is uncooperative, the other person matches their behavior. For people who chose to talk to me verbally, they quickly became frustrated feeling like the conversation was “one sided” despite my text responses.

I also noticed others around me that I wasn’t talking to quickly became uncomfortable when I was obviously speaking to the person privately in front of others. The secrecy of what’s being said creates a negative experience for others and automatically leads to a fear that you’re saying something about them. Texting those that I was sitting beside created a very socially uncomfortable space for everyone in it.

I finished today by going home and continuing to work. Even my cat seemed to be disturbed by my silence when she finally sat down in the kitchen and meowed loudly for 5 minutes until I called her name. Out of everyone who complained about this experiment, I didn’t expect her to be so vocal about my lack of verbal affirmation. It would appear that even animals psychologically depend on human conversation.

__________________________________

Day 3: 5/29/19

Today I’ve noticed that people that are unaware of my experiment act differently from one another when they initially interact with me. Depending on the person I’ve had frustration, worry, ignorance, and avoidance. For someone with little social awareness, they may talk to me for awhile before realizing I’m not responding. With one conversation today, the woman spoke to me this way as I continued to push the uncooperative bounds. First I didn’t respond, which she didn’t seem to notice, then I put headphones on. This also didn’t act as a deterrent. Finally when I refused to make eye contact and was working on my computer she ended the conversation. Our entire one-sided interaction lasted almost 20 minutes.

Another person, in contrast, immediately asked if I was okay when their greeting was met with a small smile from me. When I didn’t respond they immediately started pressing me further. Both interactions were with acquaintances who picked up on my non-verbal cues very differently. Based on my contextual knowledge of each of these people, I believe this disparity in reaction is mostly aligned with social awareness and ability to read body language.

Interactions between men and women varied quite a bit also. The women that I interacted with throughout the day would ask for an explanation of why I wasn’t talking. Some wanted to know details, but beyond that they continued on as they would normal speak to or text me. However, men generally didn’t ask for an explanation of the experiment, preferring to make assumptions of how it was going and why. One man directly asked “Is everyone putting words in your mouth?” as he continued to assume how it was going. Another man asked me if I had been able to maintain my bodily autonomy “when I wasn’t able to say no.” Men seemed to focus on power exchanges significantly more than women, who didn’t seem to make a connection between autonomy and speech.

This remained a consistency that was proven on day one when I wasn’t able to assert power over myself without speaking it out to my partner. Men generally didn’t listen or respect my requests without a verbal directive. This was further proven when my partner’s employer commented that he should “Do everything that he can get away with this week while I wasn’t able to yell at him.” The assumption that my opinions mattered less when I wasn’t able to speak bothered my partner and led us both to the strange question of why people assume that autonomy requires speech.

When I mentioned the day’s discoveries to a friend, she equated it to how women’s voices are consistently used for cautionary messages, such as “watch your step,” while men are used to communicate warnings. As a society, we seem to subconsciously follow the directives of men more than women.

__________________________________

Day 4: 5/30/19

Today, I further explored yesterday’s autonomy discussion as it applies to those outside of my personal experiences, especially the teens I’m trying to better understand.

This connection between speech and autonomy was especially interesting when considering our perception of groups that weren’t able to communicate the same as us, from the disabled to children. On the first day when I couldn’t get my partner to respect my requests to leave the cat alone, I grabbed her and locked us in the office so that I could work in peace. This action when I was speaking would be considered extremely immature and an unhealthy way to communicate. Why was this the assumption from that action?

Realizing now that we take physical measures to be heard as a response to people when we aren’t being legitimized made me seriously consider the actions of children that caused us to associate this behavior with being “immature” or “childish.” For teens today, they are often seen acting more rashly than their older counterparts. With outbursts of anger, locking themselves in isolation, or physically lashing out. After personally feeling helpless to others actions as a result of our different, no less legitimate, requests for autonomy, I now see that it’s vital to understand these outbursts as serious non-verbal communication tactics from two parties with friction.

Parents and teens today have very different ways of communicating partially as a result of technology as teens primary communication method. This was never the conversational interface for today’s parents, so they developed a completely different language of communication norms and expectations. With technology as a catalyst, we now have two generations communicating with friction as a result of their differing communication languages.

It would be interesting to compare this understanding of autonomy as it is linked to verbal communication for different generations. How do our grandparents’ understandings of communication compare to young adults today? Can this younger group legitimize themselves using the communication language they’ve evolved to speak or will they be expected to match the methods of older generations, similar to the passage of oral traditions from old to young?

__________________________________

Day 5: Final Thoughts

Human’s communication tendencies tend to be more visceral or unconscious responses to “odd” behavior than consciously considered responses to the interaction we’re having. This seems to reference our human tendencies toward tribe culture where communication and cooperation was necessary for survival. We socially wean out the uncooperative in an attempt to survive.

Is this a detrimental or necessary reaction in today’s society? We no longer need to survive the threats of our tribal ancestors and our culture is politically more inclusive to individuals with known communication disorders like autism. However, we still seem to discard uncooperative individuals socially.

How does this apply to voice interfaces and conversational AI? Humans are naturally deterred by uncooperative communication. This follows our modern distaste for “poor experiences” leading to a rating culture where product and business reviews drive purchasing decisions. Humans love products that look beautiful, easy to understand, and transparent. If there is friction in one’s ability to use the product, the user is likely to discard the product with a tarnished outlook of the associated brand.

For AI especially, cooperation is key to humanizing and legitimizing the user experience. If we follow the cooperative principle and pay careful attention to how humans work cooperatively, AIs existence in our lives and products that surround us will be much more valid. Cooperative communication is as vital for the survival of the voice interface as it is for human civilization.

Screen Time Before

Screen Time After

Above I’ve included my Screen Time from the week before this experiment and the week of the experiment. While the overall time spent each day is very similar based on what I do throughout the day offline and other external factors, the way I’ve used my time during the week has changed. The number of text messages I sent this past week has increased by over 200% while my time spent having verbal conversations on the phone dropped significantly as a result of reduced verbal communication. On Monday, when I chose not to speak at all and had a day off work, my social media use was significantly higher than other days.

Another primary discovery through this has been that the content of conversations change when they move “online”, becoming less efficient and overall uncooperative without intentionally guiding them in a negative direction. This has been discussed extensively by former Google ethicist, Tristan Harris, as “blocks of time” taking different forms and eliciting different emotions based on where you’re communicating.

As he outlines in his interview below, once designers recognize these differences we can start orienting our product decisions around ways to empower humanizing interactions with one another. As digital designers, we should be asking ourselves when users want to have rich meaningful interactions on social media and designing methods that steer users decisions in a direction that validate their values and emotional needs.

I highly recommend 2:50 min — 6:40 min but the entire interview is insightful.