- Read: Sherry Turkle “The Flight From Conversation” (Remember to Tweet)
- Read: danah boyd “Participating in the Always-On Lifestyle” Link is to library e-copy of The Social Media Reader you’ll find the essay under “Sociality,” p71-76.
Watch the following videos:
Answer discussion questions: Who do you agree with, boyd or Turkle or both? Or do you disagree with both of them? What are you convinced by or not convinced by? Where do you see ethos, logos and pathos? What are their effects? What difference do you find between watching and listening versus reading?
Remember to Tweet! #rasp15
Turkle touches on this idea of a constant need to be connected. She introduces this idea of alone-togetherness which replaces the necessities of solitude and real relationship; this idea links back to the ideals of The Circle. She also shows how technology creates an illusion of companionship because there is too much demand in having a friendship. I agree to this idea that there is no real effort put forward to continuously make connections with people. It’s easier to just send a text message or write an email. Unlike a real conversation, technology allows for people to send texts or messages with the option of editing. Everything becomes a representation of the person you would like to be portrayed as rather than the person you actually are. In this generation, it’s just easier to communicate via technology because everyone else is doing so and because there is less hassle than a regular conversation. A text conversation doesn’t have as many awkward pauses or emotion, which makes it hard to actually connect to another person. It is a very valuable thing to feel comfortable with being alone; it is a skill that I believe must be learned through childhood. It is important to learn how to play in solitude as a young child because it produces an independence, a comfort with oneself. If this idea of solitude is taken away, Turkle’s prediction will be accurate that our children won’t ever know how to be alone. Those children will only know how to be alone-together, which is not conducive to the country’s ideals of a progressive society. Not being okay with being alone will set our generations back, it will restrict us because no one will actually know how to talk to people.
Boyd introduced this idea of knowledge is power but interpretation is even more powerful. I agree with the statement because statistics are used so often in efforts to persuade the general public to one side or another. Often, those statistics are not presented or interpreted correctly. So, it is important to have information but even more important to know what to do with it. I could understand what she meant by talking about the offender list, but I’m not quite sure how she expects to change it considering it’s already up on the internet. I agree that the connotation of the list could be different, but I don’t feel like she provided ways as to how. I feel like throughout her entire speech she had good points, but after listening to it I’m still unsure as to how she wants me to take action. Turkle’s speech appealed to me more because of her application of her own personal story of how her daughter texted her. I feel like Boyd wasn’t as personal with her speech so it came off as detached, whereas Turkle did not.
As Boyle mentions, just because we have our phones, don’t mean that we actually have to use them. There is a common misconception that teenagers never get off their phone, which is partly true in some cases, but also, we don’t surrender to technology, we have a choice when using it or not. And sometimes we do not actually use it. however, I don’t agree with her when she says that she does the best she can and then expects people to bitch to her about what she is doing wrong. I think that we should accept that modern technology and social media can and is being used differently by different people and that is how it should be. Modern technology or social media did come with instructions or with a age limit, finally we have something that is open to everyone, to use and to learn, and its up to every individual to make it their own. Which connects to her statement, information is powerful but interpretation is more powerful, which I agrees with. Since we have the power to transform media into what we want it to be, we can also interpret its uses and because there is no manual, no one can say you’re not doing it right.
“WE expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship.” (Turkle) Both agree and disagree with this statement. Surely there are machines that are in some way trying to replace the human interaction and contact, but will they succeed? I think not, because rather then replacing it I think it might be room for the both of them to exist. The invention of the telephone did not end human conversation but rather gave it another way to be expressed.
But I do also think that the pressure that we put on technology to work as a way of communicating within a relationship should be reconsidered. We spend so much time analysing what the meaning of a text is or the lack of a phone call REALLY means. Instead we should just come to terms with the fact that even though waking up to a “good morning”-text is lovely, technology does not always deliver the meaning that we want even though the message might be the same. We can’t expect technology to give us the same feeling as a real conversation does.
I agree with Boyd since her story about Megan’s Law and communities is true and terrifying. We are able to access information, but it is also hard for us to gain the whole truth about the information we have acquired. I am not very convinced by Turkle because I have had first hand experience in a corporate meeting with my father. No one is on their phones because it is disrespectful to the boss, and that being said, the only person on their phone is my father because he is the boss and he uses technology during meetings as a tool to show authority. And even though she is saying that people have this feel that no one is listening except on the internet, I am not convinced by it. I feel as though I have better conversations in person and I do not feel the need for others to listen to me on the internet. I can’t even remember the last time I made a status update on Facebook, and I didn’t have Twitter before this class.
Ethos is seen in both of Body and Turkle’s presentation, since Turkle mentions her earlier accomplishments like being featured on Wired Magazine and she is doing her second TED Talk. Boyd’s essay was published in a book and she lists statistics which she backs up with credible sources. Pathos is more obvious in Boyd’s speech, which I think is what made it stronger because she relates it to her own experience with her cousin being raped and also identifies connections with teenagers and how they can easily be placed on the sex offenders list. Turkle has logos in her speech by using examples on how we are unable to be alone by using robots and how connected we are to our phones. Boyd uses logos by using examples of different types of people who have been placed on the sex offenders list, and it i obvious they should not be considered a threat to their community, yet are viewed as a threat.
There was also more emotion when watching than just reading. What bothered me though was how slow of a pace they were going when I could read the article faster. But it was definitely more powerful watching and listening since they were passionate about what they were talking about.
I agree with Boyd and the idea that being connected to technology is not always a bad thing. Even though we are in this generation where we are known as “digital natives” we can choose when we are on it meaning technology and social media and when we are off it. Technology has still not taken over every aspect of our lives. In Boyd’s article, she presented a more convincing argument then her speech that I watched. In Boyd’s article she had an equal amount of ethos, pathos, and logos in her argument. She appealed to me in that I was able to relate to what she was saying. She used pathos when she said that not all teenagers or young adults are completely addicted to technology. I agreed with her and was happy when she pointed out that she disagrees with the fact that it is a generation issue and that with each new generation people are becoming more and more “all-on” to technology. She appealed to my emotions when she said this because I hate when people assume that I am tech-savvy just because I am always on my phone or that I prefer not to have face-to-face conversations with people. I agreed with her. There are plenty of people my age who still do not know how to completely use a Mac computer and there are people older than me that have been studying computer science for years and it is easy for them to rewire a computer. By using pathos Boyd also was able to exhibit ethos and logos in her argument because she was appealing to an audience of young adults who could relate to her and not feel like she was “talking down” to them and her arguments made sense. In her video, she was less appealing to me, but I still agreed with her. When she mentioned the rape of the seven year old girl and then said that a family member of hers was also raped she used a lot of pathos in her argument. I just felt that when she was talking she did not have as much ethos because it seemed she was not as powerful and to me she did not sound as confident. However, I did like the fact that Boyd talked about something different than what she did in her article.
In addition, Turkle made some very convincing points in her argument on how we are changing from “conversation” to connection”. I agree with her point about how by actually relying on technology to be there for you like Siri you are actually becoming less social and more lonely, but I thought some of her viewpoints were too extreme. I agreed with her point that we are becoming people who are fine with being “alone together” where we are physically next to each other but not mentally present, but I do not think this type of lifestyle happens all the time and it does not happen to everyone. Also, in her video when she showed the pictures of her daughter with her friends and how they were all on their phones but they were all sitting next to each other in the same room I thought this was offensive. I don’t think that this is the case for every young adult. Also, I thought it was annoying that she basically talked about the exact same thing that she wrote in her article. Overall, she did not appeal to me that much because I thought her opinions were too negative and too extreme. However, she is right in that people are relying on social media to give them reassurance that people like them, even though these people might not actually be their true friends.
Reading Turkle’s article, I am intrigued by the idea of how technology has devalued conversation. I myself am guilty of doing a lot of the habits she mentioned: texting without looking down so I can make eye contact during a conversation with someone else, reaching for my phone to avoid awkwardness of silences, getting lost in translation because of text messages that can’t interpret intention through tone or body language. Technology and social media allow us to feel like we’re in control of every aspect of our lives. We can dictate how other people see us, edit and delete imperfections, and be present when we’re interested and in another world when we’re bored. Not only is this possible with technology, but it’s convenient. When we are in control of our “social” lives, we don’t have to be social at all. Instead, our devices can do the dirty work and we can still be credited. It’s scary how much we rely on pixels on a screen to engage in the world around us, and escape the situations that seem too real.
Boyd, on the other hand, addresses how new technology and social media allow us to enrich our lives in ways that the world could not before. She claims that they help us to engage, rather than be held down. And to a certain degree, I think this is true. Technology definitely has its advantages as it comes with advancements, but I think it’s naïve to assume that everyone uses their devices in a way that is furthering their social, emotional, or intellectual development. While she may be using Wikipedia to better appreciate Italian architecture, how many people are using their phones for the sake of a new profile picture? And while blogging allows a sick man to better share his health experiences with his loved ones, that cannot replace the value of having that face-to-face conversation. I think Boyd is perhaps too optimistic in her assessment of how the a good number of people really use their technology.
I thoroughly agree with Boyd’s point she portrayed through her “interview.” Not many people consider how hard the media tries to manipulate its audiences. And though some things are said to help the community, it is so immensely misinterpreted that it ends up ruining lives. Boyd had great use of pathos by relating to the opposing side of her argument with really personal stories, it made her point even more powerful. Both speakers used ethos in stating facts and reasons to why they believe their side. But i feel like Boyd was more effective in using pathos because her stories were more personal than Turkles examples and explanations. I disagree with some of Turkles points. Such as when she claims the ones with the most friends on social media and usually the ones who are most alone. I disagree with this because it puts all of our generation into one group, there are plenty of people who have over a thousand Facebook friends and are thoroughly social and happy in and out of their cyber life. Turkles speech was almost offensive in my opinion because i feel like she is putting all technology users into one simple minded and technology obsessed group.
I find myself in agreement with certain aspects of both Turkle and Boyd’s arguments. I especially feel that I can relate to Boyd’s ideas regarding technology usage. She points out that humans are social and curious and technology allows us to seek answers to useful and relevant questions we may have about the real world. She also makes it clear that we each are free to have a unique relationship with technology based on individual preference. I appreciate this point because I so often hear generalizations about people my age being utterly dependent upon technology.
The part of Turkle’s argument that resonates with me most is her acknowledgement of the way that we pass by one another on a daily basis and rather than looking around, the majority of people are looking down at their phones. It can be a form of comfort during social situations, an easy retreat from physical interaction. This is really unsettling to me and I make an effort to surrender to the moment and not lean on the comfort of my phone when I walk from place to place.
I see pathos in the fact that both writers have experience within this field of research, which increases their credibility. Ethos exists in the provocative statements that they make about everyday scenarios that we can all relate to. It evokes a personal and passionate response. Logos exists throughout both pieces of writing as they provide logical information to support their points.
On video, Danah Boyd touches on some more serious points involving rape and murder. It increases the ethos aspect of her rhetoric. However, all of the attention on data took on a whiney tone.
When I watched Sherry Turkles’ TED talk, I was absolutely moved by what she had to say. She brought up some seriously thought provoking concepts regarding isolation formed from connection.
I agree with Boyd’s article over Turkle’s. I felt like Turkle was trying to say that the internet has basically begun to run our lives, which I disagree with. I still know how to have a conversation and do things without being on my phone. I agree with Boyd because I am definitely always connected, but that does not necessarily mean I’m aways on the internet. I do normal things that don’t require the internet, and I don’t feel like my life is being run by the technology. I always agreed with the video of Boyd because it is true that a lot of data is manipulated and doesn’t come out correctly to the audience. We need to double check the source and data that we receive before jumping to conclusions because it could end up really hurting someone.
While both articles bring up good points, I find myself agreeing with Turkle more than Boyd. Turkle makes the reader aware of the ugly truth; lots of people rely heavily on technology and it has gotten to the point where some people cannot happily live without it. Our interactions with humans have decreased from interpersonal communication and have turned into virtual communication. Like Turkle said, lots of humans now spend their time on their phones instead of talking to the person next to them. It’s causing our attention spans to shrink, for we are getting used to being instantly gratified with the technology we have right in our pockets. I also agree with her idea that being constantly connected gives us this illusion that we are never really alone, but “if we are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our children to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.” I am one who is definitely guilty of these actions, but Turkle’s article helped me remember that there’s more that exists outside of my phone.
Boyd, on the other hand, also had some good points that I found myself agreeing with. I agreed with her in regards to how technology can be used as a tool in discovering information instantaneously and keeping in contact with people around the world. However, her “always-on” notion is something that scares me personally, for I don’t like the idea of having my information on the internet at all times even when I’m not on. While she views technology in an optimistic manner, I can’t get myself past thinking how destructive it could be to our original human nature. However, this could just be a change that is bound to happen in the future and something humans need to adapt to. For both articles/videos, I found it to be easier to follow along with the article. When watching the videos, I often caught myself pulling out my phone or not really paying attention. It’s easier for me to read an article because the words are always there so I can go over it repeatedly if my attention span fails me.
I agree with both Boyd and Turkle, as they both have very relevant arguments that speak truth about the topic. For Boyd, I agree with her that just because people may be always-on, doesn’t mean that they are actually constantly engaged with their technological world and ignore reality. Personally, my phone is an extension to myself, and I use it as a tool to enhance my daily life. It is great to be able to instantaneously contact someone, like a friend or a relative, at any time, and it is also wonderful to use my devices to look up information and knowledge that I might otherwise not have learned. However, there are definitely people who, in my opinion, are completely wrapped up in their virtual worlds and cannot live half a day without their devices. There is where I agree with Turkle that perhaps the reason for this behavior is actually due to simply being lonely, which is actually self-created as people nowadays are unable to cope with being by themselves and alone. Personally, I also reach for my phone and fiddle around with it when I’m alone and, for example, waiting for my coffee at the coffee line. I don’t even remember the last time I chose a good old fashioned book over my devices, as sad as that may be. This want (or need) of always being connected is so ingrained in society now that it can be difficult to be without it, as Turkle mentioned “connection works like a symptom… and our constant, reflexive implies to connect shapes a new way of being”. Modern society’s need to be connected is so strong that being able to be alone is considered strange, and even weird to some people.
I am definitely convinced by both authors, as I think their arguments are two sides of the same coin. This topic is not black and white, and portions of what both authors discuss are relevant for different people. Yes, some may feel the constant need to be connected in fear of missing out, but others are also able to be “on” all the time but not completely enthralled in it. For what they are discussing, I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer, because this issue has so many layers that the authors are both right.
I see ethos for both authors, because they are both published authors and have done an extensive amount of research to backup their claims. Pathos was used, as they both used their conclusions and involved real-life examples involving observations and their own experiences. The use of logos was found when they discussed their findings and conclusions. Their effects was that both arguments were quite convincing, at least to me, making it hard to choose a side as I could understand what both were trying to get at. The differences I found from watching and reading was that I tend to sometimes zone out when I was watching the videos and miss a piece of information. Reading is easier for me, as I could re-read something and more fully engage with the context.
As I read both articles I found myself agreeing with arguments on both sides. Reading Turkle’s article reminded me a lot of videos and articles I have been exposed to in the past that urge us to put down our phones and live in the real world. Like these videos, Turkle’s article makes me think hard about my own experience with technology and feel guilty about my strong investment in my phone and computer. While Boyd makes some very valid points in her talk and uses ethos by showing a personal connection in her discussion about Megan’s Law and the sex offenders list, I find myself relating more with Turkle’s perspective, particularly when comparing their talks. Too often I find myself forcing my eyes away from my laptop or phone screen and wondering when the last time I looked up was. I’m entirely guilty of using my phone as a crutch in awkward social situations and unintentionally checking my texts and social media even when I’m in a conversation with someone. At the same time, I’m still consciously aware of how attached I am to technology. Though I admit I don’t necessarily do much about my bad habits, I agree with Boyd that it’s all about finding a balance when using technology. However, I think Boyd is a little overly optimistic about people’s intentions when using their devices and social media. While she seems to be emphasizing the potential good in people, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that someone is trying to “enhance the experience” (74) whenever they post a selfie on Instagram. Whether or not you agree with the extreme points Turkle made in her talk, I think Turkle’s argument is definitely something to consider as technology becomes more and more advanced and prevalent in our lives. As sad as it to say, I’m not surprised that while I’ve been refining my texting skills, my face-to-face conversation skills have gone down the drain.
After reading both articles and watching the videos, I seem to agree with Boyd more than I agree with the claims made by Turkle. I mostly agree with Boyd when she says that we can use technology and connections to our satisfaction. Moreover, I agree with her statement that social media is for our use, but it is up to us whether we use it for interaction, information or just to be active. I agree with Turkle when she says that when most of us are alone, we don’t think twice before reaching out for a technological device. This is true and I can relate to it immediately because this is something I do regularly. I disagree with Turkle when she says that our social lives are boiling down to technology. I don’t believe that personal conversations are becoming extinct. Many of my conversations, actually the majority of my daily conversations are taking place face-to-face.
In my opinion, ethos is utilized by both Turkle and Boyd. This is because Turkle mentioned that this is her 2nd Ted talk and Boyd has provided a piece that has been printed in a book. Moreover, both Turkle and Boyd also utilize logos as they use logical explanation to provide concrete backing to each of their claims. For example, Turkle says that face-to-face conversations are slower as we take longer to open up in person. Moreover, both authors provide quotes from different people that also elucidate their writing. I am more convinced by Boyd’s piece and therefore, I believe that pathos is used more by Boyd than Turkle. For example, Boyd mentions the event of her cousin being raped. As a result of which, she utilizes personal experiences that make her writing evocative and easier to relate with for the reader.
For me, watching and listening is much better than reading. This is because I do not get easily distracted while watching something as it does not take as much effort from the brain as reading does. As a result of which, reading is something that I get easily distracted from and prefer to watch and listen as I can focus more and reflect on it better.
I agree with both speakers, but I found myself more convinced by Turkle’s argument. I am not exactly sure why, but I couldn’t help but find Turkle’s speech much easier to follow. It might have been because of her use of logos. It seemed like she brought up a valid point that I could logically agree with every ten seconds. When she said that devices are so psychologically powerful, they not only change what we do, but change who we are. I was skeptical at first. But she proceeded to drop valid point after valid point to support that original statement. In a lot of social situations today, we are seen together, but are not actually together. And why do we use technology? Turkle says it is because we want to customize our lives, and what matters most to us is control, and with technology, we can control exactly what, when, and where we place our attention. Although Boyd uses pathos well with her personal experience with a sex offender, I still was more convinced by Turkle’s use of ethos. Turkle showed us from the start that she had credibility by stating that she had spoken at previous ted talks, was writing a new book, had been on the cover of wire magazine, and had had a conversation with Stephen Colbert. If it is a speaker like Turkle, I would rather watch it, but if it’s a speaker like Boyd, I would rather read it. Turkle’s delivery of her message of developing a more self aware relationship with devices, each other, and ourselves made the speech that much more meaningful to me, and that would not have happened if I had read it.
For me, both of these talks were very convincing. In Boyd’s case I felt it was very smart to focus on a particular example to explain the issues regarding transparency. My familiarity with issues surrounding the sexual offenders list gave me the advantage of understanding her perspective. This example was affective enough that I started thinking about how interpretation affects my life, and how people perceive things on social media sights. In particular, I reflected about the typical thoughts many people have when they view pictures of others. It was discomforting to think about the various inaccurate assumptions that could be generated from the typical profile picture. I agree that spinning information is just as powerful as the original true information itself. For the majority of online users its hard to filter what is legitimate and what is not. Ultimately I was mostly convinced by her use of logos and ethos. Although I didn’t feel that her outfit and her sticker decorated computer portrayed an extreme amount of authority, I felt her authoritative position once hearing about her extensive research. Her logos was convincing since it matched with my own experiences. There was bits and pieces of pathos, but to me a narrative didn’t seem to dominate the majority of her talk. In Turkle’s case I thought pathos was much more affective. From the very start she admitted that she was a digital user like all of us. Her talk was intelligent in that it didn’t ask for society to disown technology all together, but asked society to acknowledge the risks of using technology and social media in place of actual conversation. I was particularly convinced by her ethos. How she carried herself drew me in immediately. Plus, I was further convinced knowing that she herself had talked about the expansion of technology almost two decades ago. Her shift in perspective led me to conclude that she was very contemplative. I admired her ability to identify negative aspects about technology she previously may have promoted. Additionally, I felt her logos consisted of examples I identified with.
In both cases I believe that I was profoundly influenced by how they talked and visually presented themselves. I believe that how something is delivered can be very influential. However, I was convinced by the readings as well. For me the only difference between watching and reading was that while reading I had time to pause and think. During the talks there were times I would contemplate something, focus back on the speech and realize I had missed a point. The speeches demand the audience to focus more and be fully connected with the speaker’s train of thought.
After reading both articles and watching the videos, I agree more with Sherry Turkle. I think her use of ethos was more relatable. She gave an example of a family sitting at the dinner table, where each family member is on their own device. This really hit home for me because often times I catch my family doing the same thing when we go out for dinner. I also agree with Sherry Turkle in that technology has provided us with a world in which we are alone together. I also believe that “friends” or followers on social media are not true connections. In fact, I don’t think there is any way to form real connections over the Internet. For example, I have 563 followers on instagram. Of those 563 I would probably consider less than 100 of them to be my friends. But I didn’t build connections with these real friends online. These are people that I met face to face and got to know in person. I agree with Danah Boyd in that technology puts us in different contexts depending on what type of social media we are engaged in. However, I think the rest of her article is overdone to the extreme. She claims that hacking time, traits, and cognition are common traits of people who are always-on. I disagree with this claim because I don’t think the majority of people today really devote that much effort to being connected via social media. I personally don’t know of anyone who purposely alters their sleeping patterns just to be on social media sites for longer periods of time, so I think Boyd is making an inaccurate overgeneralization. I think watching the videos made me see their point of views more clearly, however I still agree with Sherry Turkle in that we are alone together.
I partially agree with both speakers. Boyd did an excellent job explaining how we must consider the consequences of making more information transparent through the internet and how the more information accessible by the public, the more opportunities are inherently created for different interpretations of the information. This has the potential of leading to fairly dangerous and inaccurate interpretations of it. While I agree that as time progresses, we will fight over data, I think that this will not be applicable to the entire populous, but rather strictly the highly educated, wealthy, powerful, and technically gifted (including both individuals and corporations). Cyber warfare for everyone is simply not realistic. Yet, Boyd still ends on a note of making more information accessible, which was contradictory to arguably the strongest parts of her arguments. Technically speaking, this was Boyd utilizing an appeal to the audiences’ sense of pathos in order to connect with them on an emotional level with the ultimate goal for her to encourage them to change their viewpoints.
Turkle’s presentation is extremely questionable, especially in regards to her validity as a speaker. By formulating multiple generalizations and compartmentalizing many members of the tech generation into groups, she not only appeared as mildly offensive, but also as a less credible speaker. Yet, both in her writing and speech, she aggressively tries to build her credibility through appealing to the audiences’ since of ethos. Specifically she attempted this by repeating the fact that she had been performing this research for over 15 years and therefore is extremely knowledgeable about the topic and credible. Due to my own personal experience though and prior knowledge, I am able to put this aside though when she discussed how oral communication is becoming a lost art and how we as humans are evolving in a way that we prefer communication through digital technologies such as SMS. I agree with her because of my personal observations of the world and we share a similar sentiment that this is ultimately damaging to human society.
In regards to reading the text compared to viewing the video recording of the presentation, I found that the text appeared as more scientific and believable to me since it looked more academic than the casual video presentations. Also during the presentations, I frequently found myself distracted by the presenters’ body language, apparel, and phonic tone.
While reading both Boyd and Turkle’s points of views, I seemed to agree with what Turkle had to say. I found myself more convinced by Turkle’s argument mostly because he made me interested. I think that her points seemed valid and were very easy for me to agree with. The argument that resonated with me the most was her acknowledging the fact that with technology we tent to pass by one another rather than acknowledging one another. The quote from her article, “ When people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device.” I think that we as a culture have become very attached to our devices and live with them. It has gone so far that now our social skills of conversation have become weak. I see Pathos in these readings because the writers have experience in this field of research. This experience increases their credibility and makes us as readers trust them. I find Ethos in the statements they make about everyday situations that we all have experienced. This stimulates an emotional and passionate response.
After reading Boyd I have learned that she believes that interpretation is more powerful than knowledge. I do agree with what Boyd has to say how transparency is the goal but one is able to achieve a lot more than that. I agree that knowledge and pinning the truth are equally as powerful. Boyd seems to believe that we need to go beyond transparency. I think that these factors empower people and that we need to grant people the skills to process the information. I also think that one is able to attain information through the use of the Internet which makes it readily available. Boyd seems to think that having easy access to technological devices is not a bad thing. I definitely support her idea that through modern day technology we are able to explore another universe that would not be able to be attained in any other way..
In Turkle’s presentation she informs the viewers that humans constantly feel the need to be connected to some form of technology. She tells us that in a way hand-held technology tends to be viewed more as a friend or companion because of the extreme necessity that has been ingrained in our society that tells us that it is unacceptable to be accomplishing a simple task as walking to class by oneself. I strongly agree with Turkle about how technology has almost made conversation extinct. Technology in a way enables one to always have a companion at their side. I find it very interesting and true when Turkle says that people are constantly using technology throughout their day more so than face-to-face communication.
After completing the assignment I have come to the ultimate conclusion that I agree with both Boyd and Turkle. I have also come to the conclusion that Boyd makes use of pathos while Turkle attempts to utilize both logos and ethos. In my opinion both of these women did a great job at presenting their view causing me to not choose a side.
Both Turkle and Boyd make some valid points, but I think overall Boyd has a better understanding and grasp of how technology is really used by us. The images that Turkle draws of friends on their phones together, or family members texting at the table are pretty accurate depictions for some occasions (the one about people at meetings texting, I’m not so convinced by). But, for me at least, my phone has always be somewhat of a space filler, like doodling, or daydreaming. When a class or a meeting seems to drag along, I might just finger through the apps on my phone absentmindedly, just as I tend to make flowers around the punched holes in my paper. My point is, when have we ever been truly, 100% engaged in the conversation of our company? My dad has looked me in the eye as I have told him stories only to ask me to repeat myself because he was thinking about something else while i was speaking. Other times, when I’m out at dinner, or with a grandparent, I won’t even check my phone. If I’m walking by myself, sometimes I’ll have my phone with me so that I don’t feel so awkward, but if I’m walking with someone, I never look at my phone. I’m usually talking with them, laughing about the class we just left from, or asking questions about their weekend. I would say that perhaps technology has made us more afraid to be alone with ourselves. I’m somewhat of a recluse. I like my own company, and I’m not much of a “social butterfly.” I actually prefer being alone with myself and my thoughts. But some people might be afraid to go there with themselves because they feel so unconnected. So, they constantly check the Facebook or twitter feed to feel less isolated. I’m not sure if I’m “always on” like Boyd (I don’t have any social media, really. Just twitter which I created for this class, and a Tumblr blog that only has three followers that I don’t know and no personal information about myself). In fact, I was once told by someone who checked for an Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter account under my name that I don’t really exist since she was unable to locate me through these mediums. But I know people who have all of these applications, and can still hold a conversation and know when is an appropriate time to actually be on their phone. After looking at the videos of both ladies, the first thing I noticed was that Boyd was considerably younger than Turkle. This might indeed be the reason for the gap in the understanding of technology and how we all use it. Turkle made sure to use ethos in proclaiming her position as a psychologist. She also used pathos in including her own personal story and pictures about her daughter. Both ladies brought up valid points about technlogy, and through Boyd, transparency. Though I don’t think Turkle truly understand the multi-tasking ability and conversational skills of a lot of my peers, her viewpoint is still understandable, and it does force you to be more conscious of your phone use.
I agree with both to a certain extent. Turkle makes a valid argument about the importance of communication and about the recent loss of it because of technology. But Turkle goes to an extreme with some of the arguments she makes on our preference of being alone. Boyd on the other hand, makes valid arguments about transparency and the importance of date, but her article does seem extreme in some areas. Although i thought that Boyd’s argument about hacking time, life, and biology is funny and true in a way; after more evaluation this seems to stretch the truth. Both had pathos in one form or another and since I am a more pathos driven person these arguments convinced me at first. Both use real stories of real people and thats how they use pathos, both use statistics and credible information so that’s where ethos and logos come to play. Boyd’s video was filled with information and was a real eye opener, her article was a more relaxed version and therefore not taken that seriously. Turkle had the same information in both the article and her video which helped me see a consistency in her argument. Turkle’s argument seemed believable but when the exaggerations and generalizations came in, her credibility was debunked.
I do agree with Turkle’s argument that in today’s age of being “always-on” conversation is a lost art. I am a communications major, and have always been a people person and to me face to face interaction is really important and an essential skill to have in life regardless of technological advances. Yes, social media and smartphones help us stay connected 24/7, but that does not mean that we should stop learning how to have a proper conversation and be able to convey our emotions and opinions effectively through speech. However, I also agree with Boyd’s view that technology enhances the human experience. I try my hardest not to use technology as a crutch, but I definitely appreciate how it makes my daily life easier, and I love using it to stay in touch with the people I love. My parents are definitely more at ease with me being away from home for college because I am always only a call or text away from each other. Boyd states, we’re “passionate about people and information” which I completely agree with. It is human nature to want to know what others are doing, especially those in our lives and we want to let them know what we’re doing as well, which is why I love how social media lets me share parts of my life with others. I think that instead of trying to shun technology (which I think is impossible for anyone to do in this day and age), we need to learn to adapt to a lifestyle that is assisted by technology. Boyd is right when she says that we have to choose- we aren’t mindless robots handling technology- a lot of us still remember what it was like not to have a smartphone and be connected 24/7. Each of us has a choice as to what degree we are “always-on”. Technology will only move forward- and it will more forward quickly. It would be better to find a well-balanced lifestyle adapting to technology sooner rather than later.
I agree with both Boyd and Turkle by them both having true facts of where our society is shifting. Boyd presents us with the fact that knowledge is power and the fact that we have the option to get this knowledge quickly and pretty easily now is within our reach. Also she talks about how knowledge of certain topics could get us in trouble, as seen with her getting slandered by the Attorney’s general for two weeks since they saw that her data she had collected was wrong, but she stood her ground saying that her data was consistent and right. Turkle says that although social media and being connected isn’t that bad, we are slowly progressing to no form of actual human interaction, in which I agree with. With the pictures and the examples she showed of how people are during formal events such as presentations and board meetings, some people will not give their full attention or any attention at all and will do things that will satisfy their needs such as go on Facebook, or play some kind of game on their phone, just to pass the time since they are not interested in the matter at hand. The power that technology has is influencing us in ways that we don’t see nowadays, and it’s changing who we are as a person. Our actions online are slowly digressing into who we are in person. They both show great forms of Ethos, Pathos, and Lagos as they are very engaging in the videos, show great examples, and the fact that they have a large audience and state pretty hard evidence, and do it in a way that is engaging. They demonstrate the three traits needed for people to actually be convinced. I notice that actually listening to the conversation compared to reading it is a lot better since through reading, you do not feel the power as much as hearing it in person, because the human interaction and seeing the emotion and power giving off by the person will capture another person’s attention, in which I felt with both Boyd and Turkle.
Turkle makes the point that no matter what, we are always connected. With today’s mobile technologies, we always have access to basically anyone or any information that we want. And for this, I am truly grateful. Turkle argues that this attachment that we have to our technologies prevents today’s youth from being able to effectively communicate. However, I would argue that it provides the opportunity to be able to connect with each other via a different means. I think that being able to communicate using technology is becoming increasingly important because we live in a globally connected world. While I do think that there are some teens who have become too consumed in their phones and laptops that they do struggle with face-to-face social interactions, those who have found a balance between speaking both real and digital language are at an advantage in many aspects. Boyd makes a point that while she always has the ability to be connected, how much time she devotes to being connected with others depends on the context. I think that this is an excellent trait to point out because I think that the context is everything. As she points out, she is happy to interrupt her wait in line at the DMV with almost anyone. However, in a business or social situation, while her phone may receive a text, she doesn’t always reply. I think that knowing when it is appropriate and inappropriate to use technology is of the upmost importance.
At first glance, I definitely agree with Turkle. Technology is not something we often think about at all in our every day interactions. It is now second nature to wake up, turn off our alarm, and quickly check Facebook to see what happened in our last 6 hours of sleep. Turkle’s video really startled me when she gave so many examples of how connected we are to our “bright screens”. Her theory of society being “alone together” is worrisome. It’s not something I think about often, but is always noticeable when at a dinner with friends. As soon as the current topic in the conversation seems exhausted, you can already see the phones start to slip off. The conversation may not even be dying. It may be very engaging! But one participant will quickly check their phone because it buzzed and his neighbor might find it necessary to check his phone just in case his phone buzzed. Very quickly the whole table is quiet and looking at their media devices. By talking about our lack of ability to hold conversations scares me and appeals to my Pathos as I think of my own experiences, but as Turkle continues in her video, I begin to see far too many quotes about people admitting they are unable to interact with one another. Here, she loses touch with me as her audience. Sure, many are attached, perhaps even addicted, to their phones, but we understand how to talk to one another. It is very rare that I find someone who is unable to converse with me. Often times, if they pull out their phone and being to detach themselves from a conversation, I might point it out through a joke. Usually the response is something along the lines of, “Sorry, I wasn’t even thinking!” or “Wow I’m being rude, my bad.” As Turkle says, “we are tempted by machines that offer companionship”, she begins to lose her Ethos with me. She is certainly not wrong in the pull social media has over us, but Turkle alienates me with her generalizations of social media users losing the ability to interact ¬– to be human. Turkle certainly uses pathos in her argument, building one argument off of the previous, which is what made me originally agree so strongly with her. On a second glance, however, I find myself agreeing with elements of Turkle’s original argument, but more so with Boyd.
On a separate note, I ended up reading the article while watching the video and was able to switch between the two medias. I often would pause the video if I wanted to reread a part of the article and would stop reading if I really needed to hear a part of the video again, but the simultaneous interaction kept me very engaged in the reading. Ironically, this may of course help Turkle’s argument, that it took both a literary and visual media source to keep me engaged.
In the past blog topic, we had to determine whether we were a digital native or a digital immigrant. I had concluded, after reading through all the articles and watching all videos, that I was a mix of both a digital native and an immigrant. I think my decision made then also influenced my opinions after reading these articles. After reading the article by Sherry Turkle, I immediately began applying the points that she had made in her writing to my own life. Do I edit my words before sending them out to my friends and to the public to see? Yes. Do I, not often, but always go on my phone even when I am supposed to be spending quality time with my friends? Yes. Technology is great and can improve our lives, but if our entire life is spent being immersed in that technology, then what’s the point of improving a life wasted in a virtual world? Some of the best conversations I’ve had are ones that have been about times and topics that have nothing to do with technology.
But at the same time I can appreciate what Danah Boyd is trying to convey through her articles. Generalizations can be dangerous and the generalization that exists about our generation being sucked into technology is one that can become even more problematic if allowed to continue. One thing I noted was that Boyd touched upon the idea of anonymity through technology. While harmful in some ways as Turkle pointed out in her article, I believe that the anonymity that is created through technology can be beneficial in a lot of ways including being able to share things with other people on the internet that you wouldn’t normally be able to share with the physical people around you.
Between the videos and the articles, I definitely appreciated the videos more. They allowed for me, as the audience, to unconsciously note and absorb things that I wouldn’t have otherwise through a written speech. The body language, the emotion in their voices and the atmosphere surrounding the audience are all cues that are lost when looking at written words as opposed to physical person.
Personally, I have always believed in the concept of having a balance is best for everything, including “conversation and connection” (Turkle). Turkle’s argument is based on the extremity of how social media and technology has taken over physical human interaction, and transform that connection into supposed conversation in the minds and ethics of human society. Boyd argues for the power of information and technology that can be interpreted and altered to fit the best need of the group holding the rights to such information. For me, I agree AND disagree with both of them in the claims they presented. For Turkle, she supposed human society as a whole is riding on a wave of ethical revolution in which the adaptation of technology has overhauled human interaction ; for instance, using technology while being in the presence of others has become acceptable mannerism. Some of this is right, as I can clearly notice the transition within a society such as the American one, but in a third world country, this transition has just begun. Conversation is still extremely valued, and it is still considered rude to use technology in the presence of others, but the younger generations of both places that I have been to (Vietnam and the U.S.) have resorted to technology as a way to set up a filtered barrier for their social life.
Through the videos and the articles, the use of pathos can be seen in both as both authors utilized personal anecdotes and examples to present their point. Ethos can also be seen from the fact that Boyd’s article is presented in a professional edited book based on the topic of social media while Turkle’s article is posted on the New York Times’ opinion site. Logos can be seen, but on a very limited scale in terms of culture as it is quite obvious that the perspective of both author’s tend to focus solely on westernized’s culture and ethics of social media.
Last but not least, personally, I preferred watching the videos of the authors presenting their points rather than reading because it adds an emotional aspect that is not seen within the readings, and as Turkle stated, physical conversation is a more genuine and powerful form of human interaction than simply being connected through words and texts.
I think that I agree with both Turkle and Boyd. Our society today is extremely connected over technological advancements. It seems to be very good that much of the world is connected in this way. Teens of today have an advantage because most have mastered the art of being socially and technologically sound. However, many teens have found that being both technologically and socially sounds are difficult. Many teens would describe themselves as socially awkward because technology has taken away much of human face to face interaction. Technology in the lives of youth can be both helpful and harmful. It can be helpful by advancing the ways that youth can learn. It can also be harmful in the aspect of anonymity. There are many cites and applications nowadays that are completely anonymous. Youth can be bullied online and unfortunately some have taken it very hard. However, the idea of anonymity can also protect people.
I found that the videos were much more engaging than the reading. The reading was just as informational and profound. However, the videos were able to show the emotion and expression behind the words.
I agree with Sherry Turkle when she talks about how “we’ve been accustomed to a new way of being ‘alone together’”. We Skype and FaceTime with family and friends across the country and even across the world. This is an amazing thing. However, we need to know when to put down the devices and interact with people face to face. When I have dinner at home with my family we all sit at the table together, we turn off the TV, and we put our phones away. I really like the rule that we cannot use our phones. We connect more as a family when we simply just talk at the dinner table. We talk about our day, what happened at school, what happened at work, the news, sports, anything. It’s sad to think about that boy that Turkle mentioned in her article and her Ted Talk about how he would someday like to learn how to have a conversation. I hope that he is just being funny but sadly, that is actually the case for some people. They are so caught up in their own little world.
I liked Danah Boyd’s speech about “Connecting Communities”. I think that the public should know what is going on in our country. Through the Crimes Against Children Act, we as citizens have access to information that allows us to see sex offenders in the area. This is definitely a big step for transparency and furthermore, safety. Every time I think about how we have access to this information I think to myself, why are sex offenders even released back into the public in the first place? Obviously there is overpopulation in the prisons right now because of various reasons. However, Boyd gave me a different perspective on the sex offender list when she talked about Wendy Whitaker and how difficult her life is because she is on that list. She is not even on that list for being a rapist or sexual abuser. There are more people like her in the registry. So, the problem with this is how the public interprets the information in the registry. Body said, “Information is power, but interpretation is more powerful”. She argues that the public needs to be educated on how to interpret in order for information to be used to its full potential and I completely agree with that.
I agree with both Boyd and Turtle, in the sense that they both have valid point in both talks. I strongly agree is Turtle, just because it hit home. The topic that she bring ups, deals with peoples everyday lives, and I personally was raised that way. Whenever I would come to the dinner table I would always have to leave my phone or my computer or whatever electronic device at the dinner table. Dinner meant being with family, not with others over the phone. I think it is fascinating the point that she brings up, in terms of wanting everyone at a distances, yet close enough where we are able to talk to everyone at once. It is crazy to think that because we think that we are social, actually pushes us further away from another. Its a weird concept but one that holds much value if understood properly. I find it extremely crazy that the more we are involved with these devices and social medias that in actuality pushes us away from truly being social. I think that the points that Boyd brings up in terms of his pants he is extremely valid. I believe that the List that defies a sexual offender is very hard to distinguish. I would agree with the fact that we do need to decide as a country of what falls under the distinct categories, rather than leaving such a grey area to find it, and allow individuals that do not fully understand the boundaries of categorizing others. I believe that both speakers fully impose all three aspects of persuasiveness with the ethos logos and pathos. Because both speakers are able to incorporate those three means of persuasion, they are effective speakers however daily look at different topics in terms of content. I think that is important to note that no matter how strong the social media’s or technological communications progress, nothing will be more powerful then person-to-person conversation.there’s something that needs to be recognized with the power of human interaction rather then human to computer interaction.I think that’s one of the main reasons why lots of parents and families choose to have their children put away the technological devices and focus more on the conversation and how everyone’s day was. I find that watching and listening versus reading this much more effective, because it invokes the senses that we as humans depend on the most, whereas just reading is one sense. With understanding the argument that Boyd tries to make, I would pose the question to her is transparency considered a good thing always? And if so why? I think that they are profound instrumental trouble in terms of productivity and connecting, however it can also be dangerous because of the addiction and the lack of understanding that it is a fake world.
I find it hard to go one way or another in terms of which argument I find the most appealing to me, however, I believe that Boyd and Turkle both make very good points and at the same time, I find myself being a little hesitant when it comes to some of the points they drew across.
I’ll begin with by examining Boyd, where she draws attention to the issue of maintaining a track-record on sex offenders and the impact of digital media. I believe she uses rhetoric quite well throughout her arguments and is able to use pathos in order to make a statement. I believe that by bringing in her personal life into the matter, Boyd is really able to take on a rather controversial topic. However, this isn’t the only type of rhetoric she relies on, there is also a large involvement of ethos and logos. Boyd begins by closely detailing her arguments and telling the audience that she will be using “clear data” in order to display her point of sexual assault and connections in general. Overall, I believe that her argument was rather strong and find it a relief that she is pushing towards lessening the amount of times we spend on screens.
On the other hand, Turkle also uses her presentation to convey a different perspective on things. Her point that young people nowadays have a harder time connecting with each other seems to be a recurring one. My personal view on how technology has affected the way we interact with each other is that it allows us to stay more connected with the people that we know already yet limits us in meeting others. Say for example, that I’m on my way to class and walking next to me is someone I’ve never met. Rather than introducing myself, I pull out my phone from my pocket and text my friends asking them what they are up to. As you can see, I’ve cut myself off from having a connection with the person walking next to me and have now reached out to my friend.
In one of the past discussions, one of my classmates talked about the possibility of us being part of a generation that did not grow up attached to their cellphones but still has memories of playing outside. Ever since I heard her suggestion, I have been thinking about it and I agree with her. I remember growing up and going through the awkward phases of being a pre-teen and trying to listen to my music on a walkman during dinner time only to be told by my parents to put that away. Today, I see my younger sister who is thirteen and brother who is twelve try to us their cellphones during family meal times only to be told by my parents to put them away. Because of my personal experiences I do think that Turkle is kind of an extremist who took the technology and social media perspective to a whole different level. Her arguments excluded many people who are not extremely attached so social media but still know how to play the game. Personally, my friends and are very attached to our phones and use social media to communicate with other people but when it comes down to having conversations, I know of no one who prefers to have a conversation through text messages. I do think that conversations through messages are possible but rare. Like Turkle mentioned, when messaging I sometimes become impatient and dumb down my answers/questions in order to get a faster response. But I have had some deep conversations through social media that have helped me get important points across to people. Even though I value a face to face talk, I also think that that is not always possible so we need to be comfortable developing a conversation through messages. When doing so though, I do find that I edit myself quite a lot. For example, if my first reaction was to curse and i actually typed it, I will erase it and put another expression in order to appear vulgar. On this note, even though I agree with some of Turkle’s arguments, I also agree with Boyd. The thing that i got the most out of Boyd’s article and video was how important it is for the general public to know how to find out the right data and be able to translate it and come to a conclusion by themselves. It is hard to come across news sites that aren’t even a little bias. Sometimes, their way of being bias is so sneaky that is hard to notice and at the end I end up being influenced by it. For me Turkle’s argument was a bit more general because it sums up what I feel is a lot of people’s thoughts and feelings but Boyd’s speech was more interesting since it is kind of like the beginning of a movement to improve how people translate the data that is out through social media.
Overall I believe that both authors are being to extreme and generalizing too much. However, if I where to put by bias aside I would have to partially agree with Turkle. Especially with the phrase “I share, therefore I am.” In today’s reality we don’t have the need to send a picture or even a text to all of our friends or family memebers individually. Nowadays all we need to do is simply post a status to facebook or a photo to instagramm and in an instant tens or hundreds of our ”Friends” can see and know what we are up to.
But I don’t agree with how she attacks the younger generation, taking it to the extreme and stating that many don’t know how to engage in a conversation. Although it may be true for some exceptions, I don’t believe it to be true for all. Instead of treating communication via social media as an equivalent to human interaction (as Turkle does), I think we need to understand that social media interaction is aimed at a way more broader audience than just our inner circle. It just helps us maintain links with those who are far away and not present.