"Email is for old people"

There have been a few problems at my alma mater of late, which have captured my attention sufficiently to get me to attend alumni meetings, where passionate grads are arguing the future of one of America's great institutions, Antioch College.

So while I'm sitting at the most recent one trying to follow the conversation, someone said something that has proved to be the only direct quote I recall from the meeting: "Email is for old people."

The speaker, whose name I've been trying to get but alas, she may not reply to email, went on to say that "young people post. They don't email."

I email and I post. Like right now. This is a post. I've been thinking since about what this might mean. Is there only direct 1:1 communication in public? In private forums that the public can join by registering?

We know from our research over the years -- and we are by no means the only ones recognizing this -- email has its limitations. Long discussions do not lend themselves to email. Bulletin boards, threaded discussions, and Internet buzzword of the moment, wikis, do.

Having been involved in computer conferencing (what the wiki idea stems from -- Hello, Murray Turoff and Starr Roxanne Hiltz) for 25 years now, I am a committed believer in "public," many-voice conversations. But I ain't throwin' in the towel on email yet. Nothing is better for 1:1 asynchronous (different time) communication (gospel according to me).

Comments

[Paul Levy]

Random thoughts:

Email remains an excellent business tool because of the asynchronicity (i.e, except for those poor folks who insist on having a Blackberry and therefore lose the ansynchronicity feature.)

It has always been lacking as a personal communications tool because of the lack of subtlety and nuance. I wonder if younger people have given up on it for that reason. If you are going to lack nuance, you might as well use IM and just telegraph ideas back and forth in real time and with lots of abbreviations.

I also think that the narcissism of posting makes it especially attractive. It is also slightly higher risk in that everything you say is there for the world to see -- and we know that younger people often enjoy that element of risk in their lives.

[Skooter]

There's an emerging meme in the world of higher ed marketing and admissions that kids who are looking at colleges these days consider email passe. The kids these days would rather have instant communication with a small group of people (IM, Gchat, etc.)or they'd rather communicate on their own time with a large but specialized group (messageboards). Email is kind of a weird combination of the two.

[jessica lipnack]

Paul, do you think that email lacks nuance because people don't really think about what they're writing, i.e. dashing off notes or replacing genuine responses with smiley faces :)?

[jessica lipnack]

Skooter, this is news to me. It reeks of a certain impersonality and lack of intimacy in the name of openness and sharing, no? Not that email is necessarily personal or intimate but I'm concerned about what it means that everything is "out there" when some of it really should be "in here," and just between real friends.

[Paul Levy]

I think people don't think about the multiple meanings their words might have.

As for :), for me it is a handy way to politley acknowledge an email, and say I am in agreement or enjoyed it, without having to spend time writing "Thanks. I really enjoyed that."

[Paul Levy]

I think Skooter has it right.

Also, for me, email is really a business tool. When you get hundreds per day, no single message can warrant enough attention to be intimate in the manner of conversations or hand written letters. When it IS used for exchanges with friends, it is for logistics (e.g., dinner plans) or to exchange a quick laugh or observation or pass along something of interest.