Skip to main content

Want to know why your friendships have changed? Here's why...

We can all say that our friendships have evolved considerably with the passage of time. Gone seem the days when you and your buddies could plan an outing at the bar or mall at a moment's notice. While we can partly attribute the changes to shifting responsibilities like work and children, there's yet another factor to take into account: technology.

Technology is truly a double-edged sword. While it has made it easier to keep in touch with friends (via email, text, social media, etc), that very convenience has made such friendships much more impersonal.

We're now living in an age where it's acceptable to wish someone a Happy Birthday via text or congratulate him on Facebook for his promotion.

But we mustn't forget that just a few decades ago, we didn't have all this technology at our disposal, leaving us with only three alternatives: phone, letters, or meeting up in person.

Again, while I can certainly see the pluses to digital communication, I think some of us have relied too heavily upon technology -- to the point where we've stopped making the effort to meet up with even local friends. This, unfortunately, dilutes the friendship to a certain degree.

I've noticed that friendships in which people maintain contact only through digital means become somewhat weaker over time, and I'm sure you've experienced this is your own life.

I think friendships require that both people meet up in person at least occasionally. A digital smiley face just doesn't substitute for the real thing. Putting "lol" is no replacement for your friend's infectious laugh.

In other words, friendships need at least a little of the human element in order to remain strong. That's why it's a good idea to arrange get-togethers at least a couple of times a year with our closest friends.

For more posts on understanding people, click here: How to Understand People



Comments

DynamicD said…
where is your picture?

Popular posts from this blog

Do you have Isolophilia? Find out...

You're probably asking yourself, "What in the world does Isolophilia mean?" It sounds like it would be something negative, doesn't it?  After all, words that end in "philia" (e.g., pedophilia) tend to involve things we want nothing to do with. But Isolophilia isn't something all people deplore. In fact, introverts like me welcome it. Put simply, Isolophilia is defined as having a strong affinity for solitude. It describes a person who relishes being alone. While extroverts can only take so much solitude, we introverts find that it rejuvenates us. In order to recharge our batteries, we need to retreat to a quiet environment where we we're left alone to rest and/or gather our thoughts. Extroverts, on the other hand, become bored and drained when they're alone for a lengthy period of time. Social interaction is the fuel that drives them. So while an extrovert would probably do anything to avoid feelings of Isolophilia in most cases, an...

No response from someone IS a response

Make no mistake about it: When you don't get a response from someone -- whether they fail to answer your texts or return your phone calls -- it is  still a response, and a powerful one at that. When a person fails to respond, it's a direct reflection of their interest -- or lack thereof -- in the relationship. Few things are more aggravating than having to hound a partner, friend, or relative for some sort of reply after we've reached out to them. Yes, we get busy from time to time, but that doesn't give anyone the right to leave the other person hanging. A terse text with something like "Been busy, will reach out soon" doesn't say much, but at least it shows some effort to bring the other person up to speed on why they've fallen off the radar. Failing to provide a response for weeks -- if not months -- communicates that you are just not a priority, and that you'll have to wait your turn to get this individual's attention. This is n...

Women vs. Men: Who likes to backstab more?

Whether it's on TV or in the workplace, the general consensus seems to be that women gossip, backstab, and stir up more conflict than men do. But, as with every other topic, I thought it only fair to put this so-called stereotype under the microscope. If you watch reality shows like Celebrity Apprentice, you'll notice it's the women who spend far more time bickering. While the men do at times become embroiled in tit for tat, it's the women who are portrayed as meaner and more hostile. In the workplace, I have noticed that women seem to gossip far more than their male counterparts. I haven't really seen any cases where a person blatantly backstabs the other, but I have caught both men and women in little white lies. If it is true that women are generally more into backstabbing and gossiping than men, why is this the case? I believe that it isn't fair to make a blanket statement like "all women play these games while all men keep to themselves and pre...