1. On Monday of this week, at 12:38am I received an email from my dentist's office requesting I follow a link to electronically confirm an appointment for Wednesday at 3pm. At approximately 10:10am I did so.
2. On Monday of this week, at 3:00pm I received a text from my dentist's office requesting I text back "YES" to confirm an appointment for Wednesday at 3pm. At 3:01pm I complied with this request.
3. On Monday of this week, at 5:42pm I received a phone call from my dentist's office asking that I press '1' to confirm an appointment for Wednesday at 3pm. I was very polite to the robot lady and I pressed '1'.

I am sure that somewhere in the piles of paperwork I am presented (it seems) each time I grace a medical office with my presence, I have granted permission for communication by any (and I now suppose all) of these various transmissive thoroughfares. In the midst of these marvels of modern messaging, I vacillate between annoyance and amusement. In hindsight I am bewildered, and I am curious as to what I may learn from this.

Upon consideration one might think that this house of dentistry is not a trusting lot. But one also has to concede that this distrust may be well placed; after all, what better thing to blow off than a biannual confrontation between my soft tissue and their grinders, picks, and axes. And because of this, perhaps the numerous reminders are meant to play on one's guilt, knowing that "I forgot" won't hold up. Though for those of us who are responsible even in the face of pain and adversity, the overriding message is one of adversarial negativity.

Or perhaps I am over-thinking (and they are under-thinking), in that perhaps it is the ease and simplicity of the process that encourages us all to (at times) choose automation over animation; (animation being defined as 'personal human interaction that enlivens', and automation being defined as 'desensitized human interaction programmed for passive efficiency'). In this context automation (or for that matter, animation) may or may not involve actual human contact.

A closer look...

I believe that automation does have its place, but I do not believe that automation is conducive to sincere human interaction. With this in mind I see the spectrum of automation to run from a simple statement or presentation of fact (at one end) to any rote citation of certainty unsupportable by fact (at the other end). The 'fact' end feels solid and stable. The 'certainty' end feels slippery and treacherous. In the example from my dentist's office the first appointment reminder was a fact that felt like a solid business practice, but as they piled on, their degree of certainty (that this appointment was the most important upcoming event in my trivial and meaningless life) came to feel manipulative. So (to reiterate) the ease with which this automation was implemented encouraged a lack of serious consideration of other options (such as confirming that I have never missed an appointment and adjusting the reminders accordingly), thus leading to a dumbing-down of human interaction, and bringing me to their office with a bad taste in my mouth; (which I am sure was not appreciated).

I believe that even in this example of a visit to the dentist, human interaction holds much potential for inspiration and progress leading to a complexity and depth in learning and growth otherwise unattainable. One might argue that this brief, everyday transactional exchange is unlikely to produce much complexity and depth anyway, (made even more difficult by the fist in my mouth), but we never had the opportunity to explore because I came in (annoyed and amused) with a preconceived notion that based on their degree of automation, they were uninterested in animation.

So how does one pursue animation in an everyday transactional exchange? Or in the face of bureaucracy? Or cultural custom? Or bias? Or personal agendas? Or (the aforementioned) hard and fast certainty? These are all circumstances that when left to their own devices are more likely to lead to automation. Again, how do I choose and encourage animation?

I am at risk of repeating myself...

As always, one must begin with oneself...

Perhaps we need some rules for automation...

I recently made a rule for myself that before I do an Internet search to answer a question or resolve an argument that is not urgent and immediately applicable, I must wait 10 minutes; (examples of urgent and immediately applicable might include a recipe in the midst of cooking dinner, a homework assignment due in 10 minutes, or the Heimlich Maneuver). What I have found is that in some instances I discover the answer or resolve the argument without automated assistance, thus exercising my mind instead of my fingers. And (in the case of opinionated disagreement) this allows for a consideration of all (or at least some) other options for resolution specific to this circumstance, instead of strict reliance on precedent or resolution based on the current balance of power. In other instances I later remember forgetting a previous question showing the relative unimportance of that specific 'need' for automation, so a new 10 minutes kicks in; and I (of course) don't remember how frequently I have forgotten inconsequential trivia that otherwise would have been an automated waste of effort. And in those instances where I do eventually rely on some automated assistance I put a greater value on the acquired information, because I had to work harder for its acquisition. I believe, based on this week's thought, I will increase the waiting time for this circumstance to 30 minutes; but I also believe that each circumstance should be assessed individually to determine an appropriate wait. And this leads me to Rule #1: Purposely UNDERMINE the ease and simplicity of automation. Doing so, I also believe will increase the likelihood of animation.

I believe in addition to customizing wait times before implementing automation, we should, whenever possible, (Rule #2) CUSTOMIZE the degree of automation to fit each impacted individual. In the example of my dentist's office I have already suggested that they should have considered my track record before sending three reminders (all confirmed) in a period of 17 hours and 4 minutes. In the case of a customer service script or other typically brief, everyday transactional exchange, as one becomes familiar with a Customer, (or a Customer with a Customer Service Specialist), be bold and deviate from the script. I believe there to be one or more examples of automation customization for most any circumstance.

This brings me to Rule #3: SHARE personal stories and vulnerabilities, with a sense of humor. Remember that in context my written thought is a consideration of how to choose and encourage animation over automation in circumstance conducive to the ease and simplicity of automation. I believe admitting to uncertainty and fallibility (i.e. Being Human), and presenting with a sense of humor will lower barriers and encourage enlivening communication that may ultimately lead to productive relationships and progress. Serious certainty is counterproductive to learning and growth.

And this leads to Rule #4: ARGUE against automation, and for animation, to any receptive audience. There are varying ways to present your argument, but first and foremost you must have a receptive audience. A receptive audience is defined as one (individual or group) that acknowledges a choice. If one is focusing on current values and/or on the past (usually in the form of blame), this individual (or group) is less receptive and more likely unwilling to consider choices for the future. This individual (or group) is stuck in hard and fast certainty that is believed applicable regardless of circumstance, and any efforts to promote animation will be staunchly met with automation. In some of these cases it may benefit to argue (if for no other reason than) to practice one's technique; but If this is a group with a vocal spokesperson, or long-standing doctrine, or other constrictive parameters, one may still successfully persuade some individuals within the group.

Once receptivity is identified and/or an argument is launched an effective persuasion technique is by example. Personal human interaction can enliven, regardless of differences in values. If one can show that, and better yet, get another to reciprocate, then progress has been made. Often, due to situational circumstance, this emotional connection may be the only opportunity for persuasion, but in any situation persuasion is likely to be most effective when a sincere bond is formed.

In an argument against automation (to a receptive audience) one might also redefine automation, shifting attention from its ease and simplicity to the fact that it is lazy. One could also test the middle ground to determine another's receptiveness to moderation by redefining the opposing positions as extremes. These two examples are appeals to one's character (i.e. Lazy Extremist vs. Understanding and Diligent), and are used to strengthen the bond and widen the distance from automation, thus closing the gap on animation. But if presented before an emotional connection is made, one's audience may feel as if they are being insulted and/or attacked.

Effective argument and persuasion must be layered - from an emotional connection, to an appeal to character, and finally to an introduction of logic and reason. Logic is not logical and reason is not reasonable when another is serious about their certainty.

Automation - ('desensitized human interaction programmed for passive efficiency') - reflects certainty.

Animation - ('personal human interaction that enlivens') - percolates with uncertainty.

We should:

1. Purposely undermine the ease and simplicity of automation;
2. Customize the degree of automation to fit each impacted individual;
3. Share personal stories and vulnerabilities, with a sense of humor; and
4. Argue against automation, and for animation, to any receptive audience.

In six months I am going to connect with my Dentist.