Diagnosing Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology

Diagnosingthe Digital Revolution: Why It’s Grasp on our lives might be for the why itmight be  for the better or worse!While reading an essay “Diagnosingthe digital revolution:  in this article,writer Alison Gopnik, a professor of psychology and affiliate professor ofphilosophy at the University of California at Berkeley. I came to theconclusion that our reliance on technology might be sucking our souls away fromthe real pleasures of life away from us. In this article Gopnik is talkingabout Sherry Turkle’s new book, Alone Together: Why we expect more fromtechnology and less from each other.  SherryTurkle, is the Abby Rockefeller Maize Professor of the Social Studies ofScience and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In AloneTogether, MIT technology and society professor Sherry Turkle explores the powerof our new tools and toys to dramatically alter our social lives.

(“SherryTurkle. “Ted Talks Connected But Alone, 30 Feb. 2012. Web. Feb 30.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2012.)  In the Video Turkle Describes we tend tobecome less reliant on people because the technology from our devices isbasically encompassing the needs we would get from others, she also states thatchildren and adults who hesitate to use the phone because it seems awkward andintrusive; it is much easier, they say to dash off a text or email. At the sametime, Turkle points out, because of this very convenience, people expect quickresponses, having experienced this first hand in life she might be on tosomething, I’ve been in situations in which I haven’t responded in a shortmanner, I had friends or loved who were truly upset, but I still got back tothem, maybe this is a sign that technology is making things worse? Why would itmatter that I didn’t respond back right away?Well Turkle describes theanxiety of teenagers when they do not get an immediate reply to their textmessages. One girl talks about needing her cell phone for”emergencies”; it turns out that what she means by”emergency” is having a feeling without being able to share it, peopleneed that feeling of instant satisfaction nowadays.

(Turkle, Sherry, AloneTogether: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other New York:Basic, 2011. Print.) Turkle shows how our Internet communications mix thedeliberate with the unconsidered. On the one hand, I can see how people putgreat effort even into short email or text messages. On the other, they”test” ideas and expressions in formation to see how others react.Some create fake online profiles just to try out different sides of theirpersonality. The problem with suchexperimentation is that it is conditioned almost entirely by online reactions,often reactions of strangers.

There is little room to form thoughtsindependently. By reading and understanding Gopnik’s arguments, the reader iscapable of engaging in deep thoughts that ask what makes something acorrelation effect or a causal effect. By evaluating whether something can becausation or correlation, Gopnik leads into her question of why it is so hardto tell whether technology is really affecting us. Gopnik’s interesting articlepresses its reader to question technology and what is its effects. Many people,for example, blame technology for the various negativity that occur in ourworld today.

She uses the instance where a girl skyping with her grandmother,who lives a while away, guiltily emails a friend.  Many may say that thisdemonstrates cons within technology. They might say that the girl’sattention is divided when it should whole heartedly be given to her grandmother;after all, no one knows how much longer the grandmother must live. However,in all actuality, the opposition’s argument is quite flawed.  Alison Gopnik breaks down their argument andrefutes it peace in two basic parts. Gopnik first begins with the fact thatthere was never a time when teenagers ever gave their grandparents theircomplete and undivided attention.

The fact of the matter is that whetherit’s technology behind the grandchild’s unfocused attention or any otherreason, the grandchild would still find a way to only pay partialattention to their grandparents. Gopnik’s article then points out that the even if the grandmother was given theundivided attention that the opposing side claims is so crucial for the bettermentof the grandchild, it is important to note how the undivided attention would begiven would be Skype. Skype is none other than a means of technology. Many may say that thisdemonstrates cons within technology. They might say that the girl’s attentionis divided when it should whole heartedly be given to her grandmother; afterall, no one knows how much longer the grandmother must live. However, in allactuality, the opposition’s argument is quite flawed.

Gopnik breaks down theirargument and refutes it peace in two basic parts. Gopnik first begins with thefact that there was never a time when teenagers ever gave their grandparentstheir complete and undivided attention. The fact of the matter is that whetherit’s technology behind the grandchild’s unfocused attention or any otherreason, the grandchild would still find a way to only pay partial attention totheir grandparents.

 Gopnik’s articlethen points out that the even if the grandmother was given the undividedattention that the opposing side claims is so crucial for the betterment of thegrandchild, it is important to note how the undivided attention would be givenwould be Skype. Skype is none other than a means of technology. Our thoughtprocess has not changed due to digital media. The Internet has not provoked ourthought process to adapt a varied method of retaining information or relayingit.

Adaptive learning is cause, we learn what our brain has not been exposed toyet. I’m sure that Alison Gopnik would not agree with what I’m suggesting, butwho better suggest it than an individual of this technological age. We createdthis community through designing the kind that reflects us as a new culture.Just as the great industrialists of the 18th century found sufficiency in theuse of metals, we of the 21sh century find solace in the digital world. Wecannot be classified as living in an outward community simply because weutilize the technology of our time. To do this, would be of equal damage tofault the Romans for using chariots as a means of transportation.

It almostseems reasonable for generations prior to ours to label us as having adisconnect to reality. Regardless of which periodthey live in, what they hold dear, is what they know. We live in variouscommunities, non-separated or determined by reality, but understood by us thepeople of the digital generation. Gopnik illustrates both sides, the argumentsfor both pros and cons of technology, and ends up questioning whethertechnology causes any of the present-day situations that people blame ontechnology. The point she makes is that it is hard to tell whether something iscausation or correlation. Technology is not a cause to the negativity that theopposing side presents in their argument. It is just a matter of correlation.In the end, even if it was a matter of cause and effect, the pros of technologyoutweigh what is claimed to be its cons, so it makes sense to make use of it byreaping the best qualities that it provides