I suspect this thread belongs more in the lounge than here but ok....I'll bite.
Please bear with me and lets just follow the logic here to see where it goes.
You're not 'following logic' - just your particular view and opinion. Nothing wrong with that but it's very different to fact and logic.
If one receives email by phone, how is texting better? I guess you could say you can send a message with fewer clicks and without having to open email to do it, but its such an insignificant difference. You have to pay extra for this triviality and the larger price for this is that people spend more time staring at screens and tuning out of reality. In this regard
In no particular order....
- Not all phones have email capability. Not everyone has email setup on phones that do have the capability.
- I'm guessing you're in the US or Canada? (simply from the use of Z over S in some words - apologies if I'm off the mark). In Europe it's the 'norm' for generous text message allowances to included in contracts and often data (that email would use) is a paid for bolt-on - the opposite from the scenario you describe.
- Texting allows for a continuous thread of conversation without the need to send the previous messages along or go to the trouble of deleting out that previous message. Far quicker and easier than email less "distraction from reality" - faster to navigate the conversation.
- If you do have a data allowance - texts between iDevices via iMessage text are effectively free.
On the basis of these facts I'd argue it takes longer to hold an email conversation than text.
On the subject of "tuning out of reality" - reading a book on the commute to work can do this or listening to the radio in your car. You use the phrase in a derogatory sense, but it's all about the context.
it's pretty addicting and damaging.
Subjective. You argue that email gives you exactly what texting does so surely has the same addictive and harmful properties? I'd argue you can see addiction in many things and for many reasons. I see no argument to sway me that any form of electronic communication is more or less addictive than another.
What's addictive, if anything, isn't the platform, but the content. A rapid exchange of ideas, a flirty conversation, a an exchange of cross words. Each compels you to return the previous message. In these and other examples you can see addictive qualities but only in the extreme would you consider it damaging.
As far as all the products with the overlapping features, since there are more ways to get media, it also means more distractions. In addition, most of these products and features create a perceived need on the part of consumers. More detachment from reality.
More ways to receive information doesn't mean more distractions. Even with modern mobile devices you, as the user, still dictate what content reaches you and how. Simultaneous, overlapping information from multiple sources is exactly what the human mind deals with every day. Determining what is and isn't important or relevant in simple and complex situations.
Getting multiple, overlapping media feeds just pulls together differing opinions, information and widens choice. Regardless, people only have so much time and attention span to absorb this media.
Far from detaching people from reality I'd argue it puts the worlds activity in an accessible and easily consumed form.
Look at the way social media responded to Sandy....... Lots of chaff and noise as with any group of people. But news, pictures, help, advice. All bought together faster and more effectively than 'traditional' methods could manage. That's about as real as it gets.
You can argue the pros and cons of the consumer society but mobile devices have revolutionised information exchange.