Megatrends: Not So Fast, Technology!
The second chapter of John Naisbitt's Megatrends discusses a trend more complex than the first, the conflict between "high tech" solutions and "high touch" social interaction. Some of the examples he uses seem shoehorned. For example, he suggests that the backlash against polygraph tests is because they're "dehumanizing", a better reason to discourage their use is that they're inaccurate. A few other examples are just bizarre: He suggests that the metric system will be rejected because it's somehow more impersonal than the alternatives (according to Naisbitt, the US system is better because it "fits the hand" and Japanese architects and engineers prefer shaku and sun). Of course, the persistence of tradition is not unrelated to the drive to fulfill social needs, but they're not the same thing. A few predictions are dead-on, he correctly disagrees with the futurists who way overestimated the adoption of teleconferencing (a useful tool, but as far as I know, that has yet to cause a crash in the demand for offices).
Naisbitt's biggest mistake in this chapter is his overemphasis on "anti-technological backlash" (medical diagnosis tools vs. family medical practices, word processing vs. hand-written notes, automated factories vs. quality control circles, designer brands vs. handmade originals, modern hospitals vs. hospice care). Of course, this dynamic does exist, but Naisbitt overestimates its success, and underestimates the success of patterns that combine technology with social interaction. He does mention a few trends that fit this pattern, better aircraft leading to more in-person meetings, video-recorded presentations being used as a precursor to in-person sales, and "video dating", but seems somewhat dismissive. In my opinion, though, this sort of trend is far stronger. Consider the incredibly wide adoption of answering machines (and then voice mail), email, cell phones (and now smart phones), social networking software, etc.
Then again, from what I've read about studies on the subject, technologically-mediated social interaction tends to also increase interactions of the less mediated ("high touch") kind. So Naisbitt still has a point on this one.
Naisbitt's biggest mistake in this chapter is his overemphasis on "anti-technological backlash" (medical diagnosis tools vs. family medical practices, word processing vs. hand-written notes, automated factories vs. quality control circles, designer brands vs. handmade originals, modern hospitals vs. hospice care). Of course, this dynamic does exist, but Naisbitt overestimates its success, and underestimates the success of patterns that combine technology with social interaction. He does mention a few trends that fit this pattern, better aircraft leading to more in-person meetings, video-recorded presentations being used as a precursor to in-person sales, and "video dating", but seems somewhat dismissive. In my opinion, though, this sort of trend is far stronger. Consider the incredibly wide adoption of answering machines (and then voice mail), email, cell phones (and now smart phones), social networking software, etc.
Then again, from what I've read about studies on the subject, technologically-mediated social interaction tends to also increase interactions of the less mediated ("high touch") kind. So Naisbitt still has a point on this one.