The Intrusion of Autocorrect and Auto Responses

I never thought I would end up condemning the use of autocorrect functions when producing written communications. They were always just there, morphing and modifying as word processing platforms and texting software evolved and became available for general use. However, recently I have felt that these functions are starting to intrude and indeed trespass over my right to choose my own message.

I am entirely comfortable with a red underscore to indicate that a word has been misspelled, or a blue line to indicate a possible grammatical error. These are inobtrusive methods of flagging things that might need correcting, and the author can easily investigate and make determinations over their original choice. This is useful and prompts an opportunity to learn and correct.

The automatic changing of words to something else, though, is annoying and rude. The construction of sentences is a privileged moment for a person, as they are choosing in real time the message they wish to convey – this can involve specific word choice (even deliberately misspelled words). Everyone plays with their word choice in order to give their sentence three dimensions; they want the reader to have a personalized response.

Everyone works hard to determine the best way to communicate with their family, friends, and peers, and how we do this evolves with us over time. To be interrupted, therefore, as one is banging out a thought, is just plain annoying and it can intrude on the spontaneity of the moment. It’s an unwanted overseer, stamping on or even stealing your words as you attempt to send them on their way to the recipient. If we’re serious about our communication, we should see these interruptions as enraging and unnecessary.

People have a right to misspell words. Presumptuously changing a person’s words frustrates and confuses. Let them send the words they want to send; the errors should become evident (or there’s enough popular use and backing for the misspelled word to become right).

Auto responses excise the recipient from thinking about how they wish to respond, and could even train them out of not caring how to respond; if words are put in the mouth before there’s a been a chance to think, then thinking will stop. As a gen-Xer, if I’m aware that no human thought has gone into a response, I’m convinced that my original message was not well received and it will discourage further communication.

Errors result in difference and variety that can result in thought and amusement. Errors provide endearing idiosyncratic traits and dimensions to personality. People should encourage others to know that language can be used effectively in different ways for different reasons. While spelling and grammar are important in academia and systems where there is a huge premium on the written word and well-constructed sentences, day-to-day communication does not have to be judged the same; the important thing is that language is used, repeatedly. As the old neuroscience adage goes, use it or lose it.

So let people make their errors. Let them have the privilege of a moment with their thoughts, free from intrusions and error messages.