I'm with you on the top row, but what, really, is keeping the paper letter at #7? Simply that it takes so many times longer and thus expresses a deeper level of commitment to the dialogue? Or that because it takes so much perceived energy, it's harder than, say, e-mail to use the "wrong way"? Or that the act by the recipient of receiving, opening, and deciding whether or not to immediately throw away a paper message makes them engage more? If communication is about transferring knowledge to and from another party while maintaining attentiveness on both ends, I would personally be tempted to rank instant messaging, if not text and e-mail, above paper simply because on those media it is still possible to have a meaningful real-time or near-real-time dialogue (assuming, at least, one doesn't lapse too far into abbreviated webspeak). Or am I just too young and connected to understand the "proper" sense of communication?

Put another way, what is the component missing from electronic communication that keeps its physical counterpart so well entrenched? Is there room for an innovation that would grant the speed of the digital realm without compromising the intimacy of the interaction?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)