When I go into a coffee shop, I see people on the phone. When I go into a restaurant, I see an entire family playing on their phones, and to wrap it up, a little five year old on an Ipad. I can't even visit a park without seeing people staring at their phones while walking. It is so sad, I swear. I agree that technology is a good thing, but people are addicted to their phones. Teenagers go everywhere with it, people don't have the decency to call people and physically talk. Even the older generations have been introduced to the phone, and some of them have caught on to the trend. It devolves communication skills, and sometimes leads to bullying issues, and God knows we have enough of that already. With every year passing by, the addiction grows more and more. It is sad to say, but people are way too wound up in technology.
When I look around me on the streets these days,practically all adults are texting on their phones and kids are playing on ipads. I especially think technology causes discommunication skills. It is ridiculous that people are texting and playing games practically 24 hrs a day,so I think people should put down the phones and start communicating with REAL PEOPLE!!!
The question itself is loaded from the start. How on earth would one even judge what being "too wound up" in is? It assumes there is some arbitrary standard that can be applied to technology use. What standard is such a scale set against?
The world evolves. The social values evolve with it. Yes, it was quite right for face-to-face conversation to be the norm a couple of decades ago. However, to expect those values to remain static whilst the society itself has changed is nonsensical. Surely the evolution of social technology implies that the value of those things (face to face, old fashioned communication) is decreasing? Humans don't routinely invent, market, sell and re-brand concepts that are useless or largely rejected by the public. The widespread use of social media implicitly suggests that by and large those individuals with access to these technologies support their use.
Counterarguments tend to revolve around the idea that old-fashioned communication is inherently better, or superior, but doesn't explicitly state why. Why is it superior to talk in such a way when you exist in a world where doing so is 1) unusual 2) less efficient? It's moral nostalgia at work.
Technology doesn't devolve communication skills, it merely encourages certain ones in favour of others. People who engage with it may have problems face-to-face or one-to-one but they have strengths in maintaining several relationships with distant persons, keeping in contact more quickly for example. It's not a case of their communication skills have weakened, they have been replaced with different communication skills. You can only argue they decrease if you make a baseline assumption that the only measure by which we can judge communication skills is those methods that favour the old-fashioned method- which is confirmation bias.
As our technology advances the ability to hold a face-to-face conversation with the skill and the grace of someone from "the good old days" will be near-meaningless outside of close friends and partners. Instead the ability to quickly cycle through information online, maintain contact lists that are lengthy will be necessary. You will notice that although these "kids" have "poor" social skills, their ability to communicate with their friends and peers isn't impacted, it's only directed at those they don't know. The ability to conduct a graceful face to face conversation with someone you are unfamiliar with will be supplanted in team as more and more interactions go digital.