Cote Briggs
ENG-110 (English Composition)
Professor Miller
April 6th, 2024
All Show and No Action— Technology’s Socially Impoverished Adolescents
In life, we all require necessities to survive. Whether it is food, water, or shelter, these are the things that we have enacted on our primal instincts to acquire. However, what if I were to pose the thought that technology has made its way into our words as such? Exactly in the way that we require food, water, or shelter to survive, many of our world’s adolescents require the blanket of technology to sleep at night: enacting in rebellion when forbidden. I’ve literally seen this—as children refuse to sleep or even function, for that matter—without the presence of their favorite show at hand. My colleagues Liv Arvidson and Finley Morrison at the University of New England write about their concerns in [Insert Title 1] and [Insert Title 2], respectively. They highlight such behaviors of the newer generation of technological natives which have become increasingly concerning. On the contrary, Sam Anderson, a Writer for the New York Times, argues against such claims in his article “In Defense of Distraction,” affirmatively agreeing that such cognitive plasticity is crucial for the survival of the generations to come. Simply put, he claims it is a benefit to our society to prioritize our technologies as a necessity. While I understand the point of Anderson, I disagree with his demonstrations. While our generation may be shifting towards a technological outlook on life, along with its many benefits for productivity, we are struggling to balance our primal necessities.
To put this show of words into action, we are struggling to the point in which some form of LED screen—whether it be that of an iPad or a Television—is required for our newest group of adolescents to fall asleep, or for that matter, to simply function. Morrison deftly touches on this idea, where they put into play “My niece, who just turned four back in January of 2024, is what’s known as an “iPad kid.” She gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play non-educational games no matter what the time of day is. It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad” (Morrison). Here, they discuss the effects that their niece’s brain-rotting media introduced through technology has had on their relationship—which presents as a detriment. However, Anderson contemplates whether this is truly a detriment. “Theres been lots of handwringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t… maybe, in flights of irresponsible responsibility, they’ll even manage to attain the paradoxical, Zenlike stat of focused distraction” (Anderson 11-12). With the techno-cognitive shift towards a world in which technology had become our convention, he advocates a positive attitude toward such changes in hopes of a positive impact. When we reflect on Anderson’s statement, the key word for this previous statement is *maybe*. Yes, *maybe* along the line generations will be able to harness this techno-human essence— but do we really want to gamble our human element on a maybe? With such a large unknown with the techno-human condition of our generation, I find this assumption to be very risky, especially when there is a physically observable negative effect with our modern-day adolescents— a point Morrison clearly recalls. In a world where technology is becoming the glue to our cognitive function, we are crowding our necessities with nonsense.
Moreso, depending on the amount of exposure one experiences, there seems to be a fluctuation in adolescents’ competencies when introduced to technological devices. Arvidson shares in her personal statement on how she feels about technology: “I feel that enough is enough. I grew up in the perfect time when it came to electronics. Kids my age did not grow up with screens shoved in our faces, because they had not come out yet. We did not get phones as 7-year-olds, but often in middle- or high school. However, we also had enough exposure growing up that we know how to work the technology that we need to live in this world today. We are in the neutral zone; we have not had too much exposure like the younger kids, but we had enough that we are not clueless now” (Arvidson). Like Morrison, Arvidson doesn’t fail to include the observation of the younger generation. However, she also makes a distinct remark on the variations of technological exposure, noting that there may be different effects depending on the age and frequency of such introductions. Expectedly, Anderson attempts to counteract this argument with another notion from his article. “As we become more skilled at the 21st-century task Meyer calls flitting, the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information. The neuroscientist Gary Small speculates that the human brain might be changing faster today than it has since the prehistoric discovery of tools” (Anderson 12)…
As technology has become so frequently used in our everyday lives, some may believe we are better off without it, while others see we can benefit from it. From its vast collection of information and resources that technology provides, making our lives easier as it saves us from the hassle, we should recognize its impacts to people’s social awareness, especially those of the new generation. With all sorts of technology like phones and computers that we have become so immersed in it ultimately is playing a factor in our ability to socialize appropriately with others. Sherry Turkle, an author who holds a doctorate in sociology and psychology addresses in her work, “The Empathy Diaries” technology’s effects on human conversation in regard to the distraction it imposes leading to a loss of empathy. While two University of New England students also stress the idea of the relationship between technology and socialization. One student, Cote Briggs, shares in his essay, “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why” how social media use has been beneficial to him in forming friendships based on the various platforms for forming connections with others online. Then the other student, Elizabeth Gagnon, writes in her essay highlighting how technology is hindering our ability to communicate with others as we are losing certain skills by focusing our attention on our devices. All three writers focus on the importance of technology’s effects on human communication in a variety of ways. By consuming technology, it can provide a source to connect with others but is responsible for eating away human’s abilities to converse with others and build social skills.
Technology can be perceived as a place to meet new people but creates a missed opportunity to engage in face-to-face conversation with others. Through the many social media platforms or collaborative sites like online games allows people to find someone with common interests which can spark a friendship. In Brigg’s piece he shares his experience related to this idea, “The web and social media also allowed me to communicate with like-minded individuals… I was able to connect with those with like-minded goals and aspirations. Those who had shared my sense of humor. I’ve also been able to gain my own friends throughout the web over the years, typically through online games or forum discussions.”. Briggs recognizes that using technology has been helpful in terms of being able to interact with others and make new friends through the available websites that allow you to do so. While technology may be a place to discover and socialize with new people online, it also takes away our ability to appropriately communicate in person. Gagnon shares her concerns about technology’s effects on conversation as she composes, “Technology creates a bubble around you, isolating you from the outside world. Kids that grow up with an iPad in their hand are losing their people skills. I have seen that they cannot effectively convey their feelings, remediate conflicts with words, or hold a conversation with others.” Gagnon emphasizes that turning to technology all the time is altering our success to have face to face conversations as our skills involved are becoming weakened. Both of these students bring up points that I resonate with. I understand where Briggs is coming from in regards to technology providing the opportunity to communicate and bond with others over the shared interests, which leads to new friendships being built. As I too have been able to discover people through primarily the use of social media, therefore Briggs’ idea appears to be relevant in this day and age. Platforms either social media apps enable you to come across a new face that may spark an interest in wanting to get to know them better or when gaming online you may have to work with others to achieve the goal of that particular. Since those involved share the love of playing video games it can be a start to furthering the potential friendship that exists. I also agree with Gagnon as I can see where she is coming from when referencing how technology’s presence is hindering individuals’ ability to effectively engage in-person conversation. This is true to me as when we are so consumed and focused on the devices, we dissociate ourselves from fully being devoted to taking part in the interaction happening before us. As a result, we lose our ability to perform certain social skills as Gagnon previously mentioned. Consuming technology can be both beneficial and detrimental to social interaction as it can have platforms to generate new friendships, but damage one’s social skills when faced with participating in a conversation.
Technology can be a barrier to social interactions in a physical setting that leads to crucial skills being lost based on the huge distraction it causes. As our devices are readily available, we have them right at our fingertips. We’d rather focus on being involved in the digital realm rather than showing our undivided attention to those we are seeking a conversation with. Turkle highlights technology as a form of distraction when she writes, “we have become accustomed to a constant feed of connection, information, and entertainment. We are forever elsewhere” (344).
Digital technology is a highly-scrutinized innovation with many pros and cons. Its brilliance, and wide access to unlimited information is eye-opening. At an educational level, the vastness of the internet, especially, is very helpful for learning and keeping up with my classes. However, outside of the classroom, digital technology can be a very distracting thing that takes time away from what is most important to us. Conversations that we have with family and friends are being replaced by time on our phones or computers. Time for doing homework or assignments is drawn out, and takes longer due to the distractions of digital technology. Nicholas Carr, writer and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011, highlights these pros and cons of digital technology in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He details how digital technology can be a distraction, and causes us to have less attention for things we used to be able to focus on. There are a lot of comparisons between Carr’s writing, and some of my classmates’ in English 110. Liv Arvidson argues that technology today is becoming an addiction, and a huge distraction. She argues that screen time for kids needs to be limited so that they don’t grow up with bad habits. Her opinions on the matter of digital technology aligns with Carr’s; it is a distraction, and we need to decrease our usage of it. Jack Thurmond, another classmate of mine, underlines the importance of technology in a working sense, while also calling attention to the dangerous, addicting side of it. Thurmond emphasizes his addiction to his phone, specifically, while talking about how it can make him less productive and efficient due to its distractions. In this essay I will attempt to demonstrate how Carr, Arvidson, and Thurmond, along with many other readers like them, believe that digital technology is distracting, and we need to decrease our usage of it. We see a theme in these three writers’ experiences and opinions that digital technology can be detrimental, due to its addicting, distracting features.
Digital technology has a negative effect on our ability to focus, and take in information. Carr worries that we have become accustomed to relying on the internet for our source of knowledge. Everything is so quick and easy on the internet, so now anything more time-consuming will feel boring and unimportant. Carr furthers this idea, by writing, “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski” (2). The internet at times proves to be a nuisance when it comes to focusing and completing mental tasks. Its efficiency and ease causes us to lose our attention-span and patience. We’ve become so accustomed to the bulk of the hard work being done by digital technology that we are now ill-prepared for doing it ourselves. Thurmond, on the other hand, claims that the freedom and recreational use of digital technology causes him to be distracted and spend longer amounts of time when doing his work. He writes, “I can think of countless times when I have sat down to do a homework assignment and ended up watching tik toks, film and spent more time than needed to complete an assignment.” Thurmond’s work, and ability to focus are compromised by his attachment to his phone. This demonstrates how despite all of digital technology’s good aspects, it proves to be a burden when it comes to putting in hard, attention-required work. Arvidson sends a similar message regarding the idea of technology being a distraction while doing her work. She claims that, “We rely on technology in just about everything. Should something happen to our electricity for an extended period, many people would not know what to do or be able to go about their daily lives without it. I am not saying that we should start to learn to live without it, I am saying that we should not always rely only on technology. There are things that we can do without electricity or current technology, especially small things.” Arvidson’s ideas demonstrate a theme of people relying on digital technology to complete the work for them. She claims that we no longer are the same people we were before technology; it has changed us for the worse. This reliance on technology is one of the reasons for declining ability to focus and concentrate. Our dependence on technology is negatively affecting the way we complete our work without it. Humans in today’s world have become so accustomed to digital technology’s ease, and reliability that we are no longer able to do the same things at the level we once could.
Our dependence on digital technology has grown to be pervasive in an age of rapid technological advancement, influencing every aspect of our everyday lives. The popular presence of cell phones, as a symbol of technology, gives us unparalleled access to data and communication. However, despite the attraction of efficiency and ease, it is crucial to examine the complex effects of technology on people and society as a whole. In his fascinating piece “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why,” Cote Briggs explores the complex relationship between the advantages and disadvantages of technology, illuminating its revolutionary power. Furthermore, among a plethora of other variables, technology plays a ubiquitous function as a distraction, as noted by seasoned analyst Nicholas Carr on technology and its societal repercussions. As Carr’s claims concerning the disruptive impact of technology on cognition are valid, it is crucial to acknowledge that distractions can originate from diverse sources, such as environmental cues and human interactions. Therefore, despite technology’s undeniable prominence in the hierarchy of distractions, the complex network of factors influencing our attentional environment cannot be eclipsed by its omnipotence. By examining Briggs and Liv Arvidson’s observations about the effects of technology, especially on kids, we are forced to face the necessity of finding a careful balance between maximizing the positive aspects of technology and minimizing its negative ones. As Arvidson rightly points out, screen time restriction becomes an important factor in ensuring the developmental trajectory of future generations, highlighting the need for a nuanced strategy necessary to navigate the digital world. As such, this discussion aims to decipher the intricate relationship between technology, distraction, and social dynamics, clarifying the necessity of developing conscious interaction with digital interfaces in a society growing more interconnected by the day.
In the digitally connected world of today, technology has ingrained itself into every facet of our lives, including social relationships, work, and education. Cote Briggs makes a compelling case that there are many advantages to technology that improve our capacity to learn, plan, and interact with like-minded others. “Without the plethora of knowledge the internet provides, I wouldn’t have been able to sufficiently fuel my brain with the resources necessary to carry out these educational goals of mine.” (Briggs 1). I agree with this statement because technology is only part of everyday life and has been incorporated into work life daily now and only helps to improve knowledge for the fields that are more evolved each day. I agree with Briggs that technology has been essential to broadening one’s views intellectually. Particularly the internet acts as a huge information warehouse, giving users access to a multitude of resources that were unthinkable only a few decades ago. People can now pursue their educational aspirations with never-before-seen simplicity and efficiency because of this abundance of knowledge. Through websites for education, scholarly journals, or online courses, technology has made accessible education by enabling individuals to interact with a wide variety of topics and viewpoints. Technology also makes it easier to organize and be productive, simplifying work and helping people handle their jobs more skillfully. Carr mentions, “If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. ” (Carr, 7). Carr discussed how integrating AI into human brains would be a better way to advance evolution. Digital calendars and project management tools are just two examples of how technology gives us the tools we need to keep on top of our tasks and meet our goals. Technology also facilitates meaningful connections by creating communities of like-minded people who can work together, exchange ideas, and encourage one another’s attempts. Through social media, virtual networking events, and online forums, users may interact with people who share their interests and hobbies without having to physically be in the same place. But it’s important to recognize that technology can also have negative effects, such as possibly reducing in-person connections and encouraging a culture of disengagement. Nevertheless, technology can be a potent instrument for both professional and personal development when utilized wisely and intentionally. In conclusion, I completely concur with Briggs’ claim that people may now accomplish their goals and form deep ties thanks to technology. Technology will surely become more and more important in determining how we work, study, and communicate with one another as it develops.
Liv Arvidson shares her experience of growing up without being surrounded by technology and believes that children constantly exposed to screens are negatively affected. They argue that people must regulate their screen time and not rely entirely on technology. Arvidson also expresses concerns about the long-term impact of growing up with screens on children’s social skills and their ability to interact with others in the future. “However, we also had enough exposure growing up that we know how to work the technology that we need to live in this world today. We are in the neutral zone; we have not had too much exposure like the younger kids, but we had enough that we are not clueless now.” (Arvidson 2). I agree with this statement because as a generation, we tend to use technology to our convenience yet we also know how to use it in some ways that others don’t. This is almost like a parent or grandparent asking for help on their phone. From Carr’s work, he agrees that kids are affected by technology. “The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.” (Carr 7). However, there is a weak point where the two viewpoints meet. Arvidson and Carr agree that it’s critical to comprehend and navigate the complexity of the digital environment. Arvidson’s claim to be in a “neutral zone” points to a more complex view of the effects of technology, and Carr’s criticism of technological distractions emphasizes the importance of using digital devices with awareness.
Many people feel differently about technology. Lots of the different feelings appear between the different generations. The older generations that have only had digital technology at the end of their lives may be more apprehensive about it, while the younger generations who have used it for the majority of their lives cannot imagine what they would do without it. There are the rare few across different generations who share the same opinion. One of my classmates, Finley Morrison, shares the specific opinion that the amount of technology introduced to young minds today is very detrimental with Sherry Turkle, renowned author of “The Empathy Diaries,” in his work “Digital Worlds: Teleportation at your Fingertips.” Sherry is also a clinical psychologist with a joint doctorate degree in sociology and personality psychology from Harvard, and she teaches at MIT. Another one of my classmates, Hailey Cloutier, highlights all the different personas that technology can take on: how it can be good, but also bad, in her work “The Balancing Act: The Good, Bad, and Problem Solving.” All these authors accentuate the need to regulate our intake of technology while it is still manageable. I agree with these writers in that technology has many different sides. Technology can be so incredible, but it also can be used badly if directed to. Technology’s dependence on whether it is a tool, or a danger relies on the person using it.
Technology can be whatever you make it out to be. People who have had bad experiences with it may see it negatively, whereas others may have had only great encounters may believe it to be something that everyone should come to love and enjoy. Technology can be used in many different areas of life, so there are many different opinions on the use of technology in our day-to-day lives. Finley believes that “ultimately, no matter how you view it, technology has the ability to be whatever you want it to be and take you wherever you desire to go. How you use the internet is how it will reflect your views on it…it’s man’s own obligation to make sure that he’s properly equipped to navigate safely around the flames.” Grown adults have the information available to them: they are well educated on the negative effects of technology. If they allow themselves to be consumed with it, it is on them. They could have changed the way they exploit the usefulness of the internet. Hailey agrees that technology can be used in many different ways, and she “think[s] that there needs to be some form of regulation or restriction for it so we don’t ruin something that has helped so many lives. People shouldn’t be in fear of what the internet and technology have to offer.” With the vast amount of sheer information the internet holds, it can be used in many different manners. The person who uses their tech writes their own narrative on if it is good or bad. In the end, the user determines whether internet will be their savior, or their villain.
Mature adults are able to control their usage of technology, but children are not expected to. The adults in their lives and the society they grow up in influence how they use technology. Their use of it in school and personally can be controlled by educators and parents or guardians, respectively. Young kids are given technology, but often not given sufficient instruction and rules on how to properly use it, and this leads to the increased usage of technology that does not educate them. Finn sees the effects of technology on young children personally: his four-year-old niece “gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play noneducational games no matter what time of day it is. It takes her minutes to return to reality after she is done with her technology…[she] genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad.” The unregulated use of technology for such young children is a shock to their system: it is not what the human body is meant to do at that age. They are meant to learn about other people and themselves. They need to learn emotions and feelings and how to exist with others. Sherry Turkle also sees the decline in social awareness in young children who have grown up attached to technology. To Turkle and some teachers she has met with, “it is a struggle to get children to talk to each other in class, to directly address each other. It is a struggle to get them to meet with faculty…they sit in the dining hall and look at their phones…[and] seem to understand each other less and less” (345). Children are using technology to degree where it is becoming detrimental to their social abilities. They have become engulfed in technology, but it is not their fault. Children are being handed the technology and not given enough instruction early on to help them navigate this incredibly important tool. Without help navigating the internet, as the users, children are not able to find the educational, useful side of technology. They, instead, only use it for games and hiding away instead of learning necessary life skills, because that is all they know.
Technology has a place in all of our lives. We have embraced technological innovation and carry it around with us everywhere we go, in the form of our smartphones. While it is convenient to have all of this access at our fingertips, it may be more detrimental than we realize. Cote Briggs, a student at the University of New England, wrote about his concerns regarding how technology is affecting us in his work, “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why.” Another author and student at the University of New England, Hailey Cloutier, shared how technology has changed our behavior in her work, “The Balancing Act: The Good, Bad, and Problem Solving.” Sherry Turkle, a professor at MIT and author of ten books, writes about her fears of how technology has affected us in her work, “The Empathy Diaries.” All three authors make their point about the effects of technology. Technology is changing our behavior, making in person conversations less frequent and our attention span shorter than it already is.
Our ability to converse with one another has been diminished by the introduction of online chat options. Children now, are growing up with screens in front of their faces, making it so they never learn the social skill of an in-person conversation. A college freshman describes “As I began my collegiate pursuit, I found myself at first to be quite timid in real-world encounters. I initially wasn’t much of a conversation starter, and hoped others would approach me instead” (Briggs). Briggs shares about how technology has changed how he interacts with others. He used to be more outgoing and willing to start conversations, but his introduction into the online world has changed that. This quote relates to Turkle beliefs that technology is changing conversation between individuals. She thinks that in person conversations are so important for society and that technology has hindered our ability to participate in these types of interactions. Briggs agrees with this point in his work, he notices a change within himself due to his access to technology. “From the early days, I saw that computers offered the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship and then, as the programs got really good, the illusion of friendship without the demands of intimacy. Because face-to-face, people ask for things that computers never do. With people, things go best if you pay close attention and know how to put yourself in someone else’s shoes” (Turkle 346).
“There is no need to truly learn anything when you can get an answer in a shorter time googling it than going to a library and researching it. It has almost become unheard of to go past the first answer page in Google; people just click the first link skim and then find their answer. People don’t have to depend on their knowledge or schooling anymore when they can get the answer in under five minutes of googling” (Cloutier). Turkle talks about our level of distraction in her essay. She believes that technology has made it so we are distracted, and our attention span is shorter. Cloutier agrees with this idea and furthers it to how we are using the internet. She notices that we are simply skimming texts and trying to do things as quickly as possible. We are not taking the time to genuinely do things anymore because we no longer have the attention span. “We are forever elsewhere. At class or church or business meetings, we pay attention to what interests us and then when it doesn’t, we look to our devices to find something that does” (Turkle 344).
Hailey cloutier “I believe that while technology does so much good, there are still struggles with technology and the internet being a breeding ground of hate; and that to stop the issues from growing there should be rules and regulations in place to counteract the problems.”
Cote Briggs “Ultimately, the web serves as an integral part of our world; while it is important not to abuse this tool, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t embrace what it has to offer. With respect to oneself, the digital world serves as a favorable tool for both scholastic achievement and impactful discussion.” These two quotes relate to each other because they both talk about how there are positives and negatives to technology being so immersed in our culture. They both acknowledge that technology is vital in our society. Both believe that we need some sort of regulation on it and that we have to hold ourselves accountable for how we let it affect us. I agree with both of their points, technology is neither all good nor all bad, it depends on how we let it change our behavior. Our problems from society so far have resulted from us letting technology consume us and change how we interact with one another.
Over the course of this semester my classmates and I have been drilled in and focused on writing about the future of technology and the effects it has on younger generations and what it’s doing to students and adults today regarding attention spans, forming relationships, and holding conversations that have meaning and emotion tied into it. My classmates have discussed in almost every class our viewpoints on technology and what we think solutions could be and what is the problem with an overuse of technology. Each day we talk about different authors with different views on technology but from the start of the semester and the first author that stuck with me was MIT professor and author of “The empathy Diaries” who expresses her negative feelings towards technology explaining that that over usage causes kids to lack social skills and limits their chances of creating relationships founded on being able to interact with meaningful interactions. A classmate of mine, Hailey Cloutier, who I have read her essays twice now agrees with Turkle and I, expressing concern for these younger generations with the amount of unlimited time and opportunities they have with technology. But there can be an argument that technology allows us to escape a harsh reality and oftentimes people use it as a safe haven. This idea was brought to me by a student named Cote Briggs, an Idea that I totally agree with but running away and resorting to a life with technology has brought us a few new problems.
At this point between Hailey, Turkle and I it is three against 1 but that does not mean I do not disagree with Briggs. Technology is a confusing subject, we use it everyday to do some of the easiest things just so we can get it done faster. Technology plays a huge role in our everyday life but in Cloutiers first essays she brings up a good point that I can relate with as well. She talks about growing up and going to the doctors and writes “Even doctors as a kid would tell you that it is okay to spend time on devices as long as screen time is limited”. (Pg 2, Paragraph 2)This quote and experience that Hailey brings up and is important in thinking about future and younger generations. Now when I go to doctors and doctors today, do not bring up this issue and ask about screen time nor do they ask you about how you use your phones and how much you use them. I think this is an important fact to bring up about using technology, we should have doctors and our parents put an eye on our screen time. The fact that there is no more constant reminder, or check in with doctors and parents is a bit worrisome to me, I feel that a lot of people have already come to conclusion that we do have a technology problem and we are unable to fix and control younger generations from the overuse of technology due to the fact that it is everywhere and controls us. This ties into how kids act today, there are no boundaries as Cloutier begins to talk about. These younger generations learn and see how influencers act and they begin to feel entitled and impulsive, and parents today want to act more as friends to their kids and have a hard time saying no and setting boundaries and rules for their kids, every kid wants to have that cool parent all their friends love I have learned growing up. Cloutier expands on these thoughts by writing “parents are afraid of telling their children “no”… Without these boundaries in place, children become dependent on their technology, because it can act like a companion when they aren’t getting the needed support from family” (Pg2, Paragraph 3) This passage stands out to me especially with this generation, politics, and violence within the country. When children and teens are free to explore technology with no boundaries this can be dangerous, with no restrictions and young minds easy to be molded can be dangerous with what you can find on the internet.
Journal #22
English Comp
Mr. Miller
4/5/24
Charles Cristoforo
Everyone uses their technology differently and it has become an integral piece in a lot of people’s lives. Personally, I find myself reliant on my phone, utilizing it for a variety of tasks. Tasks range from scheduling meetings, staying connected with loved ones, and listening to music. But there’s others in this World and they probably use their technology differently. It’s unlikely a person in their seventies would use a phone with the same proficiency as someone from the “screen age” generation like mine. That’s an interesting thought to think about though. Why can’t my generation stay away from their phones, while other, older generations are able to keep their impulses under control. It could have been because we were born into it. We were born into being part of this “digital generation”. Sam Anderson, an author for New York Magazine, nurses multiple generation’s concerns in, “In Defense of Distraction”. To put it briefly, he gives his thoughts on overstimulation, and how distraction may be good for us. I aim to compare Sam’s ideas to two of my peers’ essays on their relationship with technology. Finley Morrison’s essay “Title”, and Liv Arvidson’s “Title”. Both students’ essays give us a glimpse into the feelings and thoughts people have about the digital world today.
In today’s digital landscape, the various forms and nuances of technology are an integral part of our lives. They have become part of us. I aim to critically think about the influence of generational differences with technology and I wish to explore the varying perceptions of technology within these different generations using the essays I’ve lined out. Through an exploration of individual technology habits and patterns, I will try to understand why trends may emerge and how they can answer complicated questions I have. Furthermore, I intend to think on the social constructs that either help or hurt us when we use technology. With this thought on the intersections of technology, generations, and societal constructs, I aim to build a deeper understanding of the different ways in which individuals engage with and interpret technology in their lives.
When diving into the influence of generational differences in technology usage, it’s essential to consider the many ways in which different age groups interact with and perceive our digital tools. While older generations may exhibit a more restrained approach to technology, younger generations, like mine, often find themselves deeply established in the digital realm. This contrast poses intriguing questions about the underlying factors shaping these polar behaviors. One such factor, as suggested by Sam Anderson in “In Defense of Distraction,” is the idea of overstimulation and its implications for our relationship with technology. Anderson proposes that distraction, often viewed negatively, may actually offer benefits in the modern era. “The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction. Unwavering focus, the inability to be distracted, can be just as problematic as ADHD” (Anderson 11). This quotation invites us to reconsider how we perceive our constant connectivity and the role it plays in our lives. What Anderson is saying is, our tendency to view distraction as solely detrimental overlooks its potential benefits. We look at a kid today using a phone and say, “Damn, that kid really shouldn’t have a phone”. Morrison demonstrates this in their essay, “It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad” (Morrison 1). Morrison’s portrayal of their nieces’ disconnect from reality after using technology is indeed disheartening. Their use of the term “brain-rot” emphasizes their view point and the potential negative effects of an overexposure to the digital world. I imagine their view point to be similar to that of an older generation, looking on in disbelief as their niece comes out of the digital world. To me, the word “brain-rot” is a little scary. I’ll be it, an overexposure to the digital world is unhealthy, though I believe we are tuned out of the potential benefits that Anderson hints at technology being able to do. I want to be distracted sometimes. Sometimes, I want not to think about school, life, or friends, I just want to scroll on my phone for a little while. This distraction is therapeutic for me. Is my brain rotting while I do this? I don’t think so. I will say there’s a fine line between how I use my device, and how Morrisons niece uses their device. This line between how we use technology makes this conversation complicated and raises the question, is it the technology that’s brain rotting, or is it how we use the technology which allows for a brain rot to occur?
We are currently living in a digital age, where the internet is a sea of vast information spread far and wide. It has transformed to become the gateway to our knowledge, connections, and entertainment; but is this sea becoming a Bermuda Triangle of fear, anxiety, and insecurity? Kevin Kelley, the author of “Technophilia”, Liv Arvidson and Finley Morrison, students at the University of New England participating in the English composition class, highlight their beliefs on technology and how it is shaping the minds of the younger generation. The modern age of digital technology is creating a whirlpool of dependency, a collapse of personal conversation, and a breakdown of personal morals. Our technology has become a basis for most lives, we use it for work, school, and our personal lives, and I agree that this is creating legitimate social and emotional issues with the upbringings of our younger generation. We need to start finding a solution before life as we know it becomes swept away into a tsunami of digital feeds.
Children today are growing up in a world that is built upon technology, and they have never known anything otherwise. While technology has become a boon for life on Earth, we can start to see the mental effects it is having on our younger generations. Children have become sucked into a world of information, videos, movies, and shows. There is so much mental stimulation that the internet provides, that it is creating almost addiction-like responses in our youth. Both Kevin Kelley and Liv Arvidson argue that children today are becoming ever so dependent on technology that they go through withdrawal-like symptoms when it is taken away. Addiction is characterized usually as a chronic dependency and persistent engagement with a drug or behavior. If we can see this type of reaction in our children what does that say about the technology or the parents that should be limiting the kids? In Liv Arvidson’s personal view, “I have a cousin who is 8 years old, and he cannot go very long without his tablet, because his parents have always allowed him to have it whenever he wanted. Now, when they say no, he throws tantrums and acts out because he does not know life without it.” Arvidson saw personally what happens to children when parents don’t have the needed control to limit their children with technology, so the child builds a dependency on it. Once the technology is taken away, the child acts like a drug addict going through withdrawals. In addition, Kevin Kelley recounts a story of an acquaintance’s daughter who acted the same, “Immediately the girl became physically sick. Faint, nauseous, and so ill she couldn’t get out of bed. It was if her parents had amputated a limb. And in a way they had. Our creations are now inseparable from us. Our identity with technology runs deep, to our core.” Kelley talks about how we have become so deeply intertwined with our technology that it has become another limb. I sometimes feel it too, especially when we use technology for work, school, and personal activities. I always feel pressure to use technology, whether it is to talk to somebody, avoid strangers, or even just a cure for boredom. While I share the belief with Arvidson and Kelley that as a people we are becoming so deeply intertwined with technology that it is becoming another limb, I also believe that we should then advocate for more parental involvement in monitoring and regulating children’s screen time to form a healthy boundary with the internet and technology. Especially in cases like Arvidson’s when a child is so young they need to be taught by a parent to form a healthy boundary away from technology. We should be fostering an open environment by talking about concerns related to technology use between parents, educators, and adolescents.
Not only is internet addiction heavily affecting younger generations, but comparison culture is also sparking along the internet and technology and it is causing children and adolescents to have more negatively impacted personal worth and self-images. Online personas and AI are creating a hostile environment for children and teens to grow cognitively and emotionally when all they come across is judgment and self-deprecation. Kids today are being dealt unrealistic and impossible expectations about a person and once they try to fix themselves they find that there are feelings of inadequacy because they cannot do the impossible. Finley Morrison discusses a story of their close friend who was impacted by AI with comparison culture, “A close friend of mine has been struggling with motivation to continue his art degree because of the backlash he receives, comparing his soulful works to lifeless drawings thrown together based on a sentence or two.” The story Morrison gives us shows how comparison culture leads to motivation and self-worth issues all because of being compared to an electronic machine made to create and spit out work, but not put any beauty or poise into it. People are finding themselves compared and judged by others for unrealistic expectations set upon by comparison culture, and then find themselves stuck in a whirlpool of doubt, insecurity, and fear.
Wesley Chandler
ENG 110
Prof. Miller
April 5th, 2024
The Hypnotizing Effect of Technology
Technology has played a crucial role on how we live our lives and get work done on a day to day basis. Whether it be us sending a simple text to our friend or working on our laptops for work, the use of these devices always ends up finding time to end up in most of our days. Overtime technology has shown us that though it can be used in a very productive manner and a very negative way as well. These devices have caused us to lose our attention spans, struggle with in person conversations with our peers, and begin to affect us mentally as well. Kevin Kelley, a famous scientist who has studied people and the love they get for inanimate objects. Kelley’s concept of Technophilia sheds light on people’s continuous fascination with technology and its humongous influence on our society. I was also able to get an insight on technology from a younger generations perspective by reading two of my classmates’ writings, Jack Thurmond and Cote Briggs. These two young and up and coming students shared how technology played a role in their lives from a student athletes perspective and full time students look in each of their writings. While technology does offer an endless amount of opportunities for progress and innovation, it also presents challenges and complications that require careful consideration by one. Kelley believes if we begin to embrace technology mindfully and very critically, we can be able to harness and grab its potential to create a more equitable, sustainable, and inclusive future for everyone. Now I do believe in Kelley’s concept, but I also believe some of the topics he brings up are not true. I believe that our society could use technology in a better way while still being able to use these devices in a healthier manner. One of the ways that we can focus on bettering our minds so we are not always drilled on our phones is beginning to have more in person conversations with our peers.
One example that Kelley brings up is how one of his friends’ daughters reacted when she had her phone taken. In the text he brings up her outlandish reaction, “An acquaintance of mine has a teenage daughter. Like most teens in this century she spends her day texting her friends, abbreviating her life into character hints, flinging these haikus out to an invisible clan of mutual texters. It’s an always on job, this endless encapsulation of the moment. During dinner, while walking, on the toilet, lounging in bed, or in any state of wakefulness, to chat is to live. Like all teens, my friend’s daughter tested the limits of her parents’ restrictions. For some infraction or another, they grounded her. And to reinforce the seriousness of her misconduct, they took away her mobile phone. Immediately the girl became physically sick. Faint, nauseous, and so ill she couldn’t get out of bed. It was as if her parents had amputated a limb.” I completely agree with Kelley and have seen this myself. I have a four year old sister who is slowly falling in love with what technology is today and honestly for her age impresses me how well she can use a tablet. If she asks my mother though for her tablet and does not get it she begins to act up. Throwing h
herself on the couch, having an attitude, and being rude to others just for a device she just started to use. Jack talks about how sometimes his phone can make him feel as well. In his passage he talks about some of the little things that might affect his day, “I have mini panic attacks before remembering it’s on my desk charging. As funny as this sounds, this is a real problem. Overattchment to our technology leaves us addicted to it. Without it, we would have trouble functioning. To me, this is when I realized how much of a chokehold technology has.” We begin to worry entirely on these devices and cause our brains to give us an attachment and can only cause some mental health issues. If we can prioritize other things rather than our phones or computers all the day they won’t play as big of a role in our lives as they do now.
Since the dawn of time, human beings have used communication to aid in survival and build relationships. From the drawings scribbled on cave walls by ancient homosapiens to the complex languages we speak today, the ability to converse has always been a trait of humanity. As time has trudged forth, a new medium has emerged, opening the gates of connection for everyone to partake in. I am, of course, referring to the technology with a six-inch screen sitting in your pocket (or perhaps, if you’re reading this online, in your hand): the phone. With the birth of modern technology followed swiftly by the surfacing of the internet, communication has become exponentially quicker, easier, and more wife-spread than ever before. However, whether or not this communication is efficient and translates to authentic connections is another story. Cote Briggs and Liv Arvidson, both writers from the University of New England as well as Nicholas Carr, a well known author who has been published by the Atlantic, offer their own insight in their respective papers: “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why,” “Technology & I,” and “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” While it may not seem readily apparent, our hyperconnectivity has put a heavy dent on our ability to communicate and listen.
It starts by grabbing your attention, sinking its fang-like talons into your frontal lobes. Both Liv Arvidson and Nicholas Carr have noticed the changes in not just their own but society’s cognition. Carr opens his article Is Google Making Us Stupid with the statement: “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going–so far as I can tell–but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think” (1). Carr has noticed that his brain chemistry feels as though it’s changing. The way he processes information has changed, and the cause is the implementation of technology. Liv Arvidson observes these changes in her day-to-day life: “I see kids at restaurants and other public settings who will only “behave” when on a screen. I have a cousin who is 8 years old, and he cannot go very long without his tablet, because his parents have always allowed him to have it whenever he wanted. Now, when they say no, he throws tantrums and acts out because he does not know life without it” (1). From stranger’s children in restaurants to her own flesh and blood, Arvidson claims that technology has rewired the minds of our youth, its venom hypnotizing. I empathize with both claims, as I myself have fallen and have witnessed countless victims of said hypnosis. By changing the way we think and behave, a feat that the internet is slowly accomplishing, the way we react and communicate with each other will change as well. Cognition and language are directly intertwined, one cannot exist without the other. As such, altering one is bound to affect the other. Simplifying our thought process and holding an unrelenting grasp on our attention doesn’t allow us to have conversations below a surface level.
Its wings spread further, morphing how we learn into something unique. While Carr stresses that his learning has been negatively affected, Cote Briggs says that technology has strengthened his capabilities. Briggs mentions how his studies have soared: “With much transparency, my writing and comprehension would embody that of much austerity: assuming I hadn’t held any access to the online realm. Technology has enabled me to launch myself head-on into my studies, expanding as well as elevating the scope of my small-town education… Without the plethora of knowledge the internet provides, I wouldn’t have been able to sufficiently fuel my brain with the resources necessary to carry out these educational goals of mine” (1). Briggs states that access to the internet has further propelled his education, and that without it, the opportunities that he has had and the achievements he has accomplished wouldn’t have been possible. Carr, while he acknowledges that the internet has allowed him more access and a better outreach for his writing, feels the harshness of the negative impacts: “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away at my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy in a Jet Ski” (2). While I sympathize with both sentiments, I actually find myself siding more with Briggs in this regard. I think that the web has allowed for people to indulge themselves with knowledge now more than ever. It has allowed many, including myself, opportunities to further our academic education and our general knowledge. With that being said, this consumption doesn’t only go one way. While you consume the information you’re fed, the Net stares back at you, feasting on any naïvety that may be exposed. This can push people to polar ends, cutting off not only conversation but empathy for one another.
Altirique McElveen
Professor Miller
1/23/24
English
“Is This The End?”
Are we starting to come to an end using our human values or this is just a myth? In Today’s discourse, there’s a growing concern about the erosion of our fundamental human values. Despite the ongoing discussions , we remain uncertain about the future with this problem. The impact of technology of communication and its role diminishing traditional values are main points to these discussions. The prevailing question is whether or not we’re seeing a huge fall and being stuck on if there’s hope for a turnaround. These concerts have raised the unexpected effects of technology’s widespread incorporation in our day-to-day life on interpersonal relationships and the components of human interaction. As we ponder, the need to handle this issue is becoming more urgent. However, the path remains covered by the problems of the modern day. There’s worries that go beyond here and now which clouds the future for coming generations. The dilemma intensifies while we contemplate the repercussions of a society where participation and connection have disappeared. That becomes a critical path of healing as this crisis approaches. The essence of humanity reposes on our ability to navigate this critical juncture with determination. Our job is to bewail the demise of human values but also look for the answers that will protect the integrity of our social fabric for generations to come. Many people find great resonance, from Sherry Turkle’s perspective of negative impacts on technology, as she describes how it impedes the children’s growth and undermines their empathy. She focuses on the value of empathy in meaningful conversations and emphasizing how crucial it is to creating sincere connections. The 3 foundations of the true discourse was sincerity, active listening, and enthusiasm. To dig deeper into the problem , I looked for opinions, stories and personal connections. The discussions shed light on how technology is in the social interactions and emphasize how urgent it is to talk about its negative impacts. Regarding viewpoints, the topic at hand caught the attention of 2 intelligent students from The University of New England: Cote Briggs and Finley Morrison. Delving into the details of the situation, both individuals shared heartfelt details of how this problem deeply resonated with someone close to them. Reflection on their individual experiences, they gave potential solutions that could possibly fix the underlying problems. Their perspectives not only highlighted the complexity of the issue but also underscored the importance of encouraging constructive dialogue and teamwork searching for answers. Talking about how AI had an impact on his dearest friend , Finley Morrison expresses the negative of comparison culture. Morrison talks about how their friend struggled to stay motivated to attack their degree. But as a result of the constant criticism which unfortunately hurts their sincere creations and the soulless output of AI-generated work. This story just shows how students are compared to these machines purely for output instead of artistic expression, which creates feelings of inefficiency and damages self worth. Such social pressure can fuel a cycle of doubt, insecurity, and fear trapping people in a whirlpool of their own self doubt and anxiety.
Jack Thurmond
ENG 110
Jessie Miller
Apr 9, 2024
Back To The Future Essay
Throughout the semester we have worked with many pieces of writing that have all had the same similar theme of technology. We have also done plenty of writing on technology throughout the class. All of the writing I have interacted with and opinions from my classmates have given lots of outlook on how technology really affects us. MIT professor and author Sherry Turkle who wrote “The Empathy Diaries’ ‘, a text we read in class, and two of my classmates from the University Of New England, Matthew Dewhurst and Beckett Shanahan all have written pieces on technology. All of the authors share the belief that technology has affected our ability to have conversations as well as decreased other social skills. Both of my classmates wrote essays on how this has affected them personally and how they have seen it happen throughout their lives as technology has become more prominent. This is also something that I have realized over the course of this semester. We have spent the majority of the semester focusing on how technology affects us. We have done this with the use of many articles talking about technology and numerous in-class discussions where I have heard different points of view and formed my own opinions. All of this has led me to reflect on my personal use of technology and what it has done to me. There are obvious positives that come from technology and even after reflecting I still continue to use it in my daily life. I learned that Technology has the ability to both help me but also hurt me in certain elements. I was also able to realize that the advancement in technology as I grew up correlated to these conversations and social issues. There were also important life events such as Covid-19 that forced us to turn to and get accustomed to. The whole semester’s focus has led me to these conclusions and without the continued focus on this topic I don’t think I would have gotten to this point. This has been very helpful and insightful to me in terms of understanding my relationship with technology and its effects more. The articles also gave me the idea of reflecting on my relationship with technology which was also beneficial. In reflecting I also realized that technology affected my conversation and I agree with both my classmates and Turkle.
All three authors are in agreement about technology’s effect on conversation as they share the opinion that technology has done damage to it. They feel that communication via technology has been normalized to the point where it’s more prominent and even preferred more by some people. Beckett points out a possible solution when he talks about how “ It is much easier to sit back and send a voice message or text out what you want to say”(Shanahan1). Beckett talks about this idea of how since technology makes things easier, people will default to it as it is quicker and less stressful for them. They can skip the possible awkwardness that you get with in-person conversations and redo the message if they stutter or say the wrong word. This does make conversations easier but it takes away the realness and over time you are less and less comfortable conversing face to face. Matthew agreed with Beckett and he talked about how during the Covid-19 pandemic he had no choice but to have virtual conversations. He then mentions how he felt this had a lasting effect on him. “ During Covid, when we went on Zoom for over a year, and there were limited in-person interactions, I noticed my social skills, as well as the people around me, deteriorated”(Dewhurst). Matthew felt that being forced to communicate online led to him having very limited interactions and his social skills decreased because of this. Since he only had limited online interactions for a long period of time, conversing in person was a struggle when he returned to normal life. This is a very normal experience and something I remember going through on my return to school. It felt very unnatural to talk to my classmates and I found myself feeling very uncomfortable with the quickest conversations that I once enjoyed. This is a very real reality that many kids my age are now facing. Sherry Turkle advanced this idea by talking about how kids now prefer to communicate. “ Even children text each other rather than talk face to face with friends” (344). Turkle presents the new reality of the younger generations. They are accustomed to this way of communication and prefer it to having a real meaningful conversation. This issue certainly takes away from the social skills of these kids when they do need to talk face-to-face. They would rather the easy comfortable way even though they miss out on important social skills.
13 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 22: 800-word draft”
Cote Briggs
ENG-110 (English Composition)
Professor Miller
April 6th, 2024
All Show and No Action— Technology’s Socially Impoverished Adolescents
In life, we all require necessities to survive. Whether it is food, water, or shelter, these are the things that we have enacted on our primal instincts to acquire. However, what if I were to pose the thought that technology has made its way into our words as such? Exactly in the way that we require food, water, or shelter to survive, many of our world’s adolescents require the blanket of technology to sleep at night: enacting in rebellion when forbidden. I’ve literally seen this—as children refuse to sleep or even function, for that matter—without the presence of their favorite show at hand. My colleagues Liv Arvidson and Finley Morrison at the University of New England write about their concerns in [Insert Title 1] and [Insert Title 2], respectively. They highlight such behaviors of the newer generation of technological natives which have become increasingly concerning. On the contrary, Sam Anderson, a Writer for the New York Times, argues against such claims in his article “In Defense of Distraction,” affirmatively agreeing that such cognitive plasticity is crucial for the survival of the generations to come. Simply put, he claims it is a benefit to our society to prioritize our technologies as a necessity. While I understand the point of Anderson, I disagree with his demonstrations. While our generation may be shifting towards a technological outlook on life, along with its many benefits for productivity, we are struggling to balance our primal necessities.
To put this show of words into action, we are struggling to the point in which some form of LED screen—whether it be that of an iPad or a Television—is required for our newest group of adolescents to fall asleep, or for that matter, to simply function. Morrison deftly touches on this idea, where they put into play “My niece, who just turned four back in January of 2024, is what’s known as an “iPad kid.” She gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play non-educational games no matter what the time of day is. It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad” (Morrison). Here, they discuss the effects that their niece’s brain-rotting media introduced through technology has had on their relationship—which presents as a detriment. However, Anderson contemplates whether this is truly a detriment. “Theres been lots of handwringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t… maybe, in flights of irresponsible responsibility, they’ll even manage to attain the paradoxical, Zenlike stat of focused distraction” (Anderson 11-12). With the techno-cognitive shift towards a world in which technology had become our convention, he advocates a positive attitude toward such changes in hopes of a positive impact. When we reflect on Anderson’s statement, the key word for this previous statement is *maybe*. Yes, *maybe* along the line generations will be able to harness this techno-human essence— but do we really want to gamble our human element on a maybe? With such a large unknown with the techno-human condition of our generation, I find this assumption to be very risky, especially when there is a physically observable negative effect with our modern-day adolescents— a point Morrison clearly recalls. In a world where technology is becoming the glue to our cognitive function, we are crowding our necessities with nonsense.
Moreso, depending on the amount of exposure one experiences, there seems to be a fluctuation in adolescents’ competencies when introduced to technological devices. Arvidson shares in her personal statement on how she feels about technology: “I feel that enough is enough. I grew up in the perfect time when it came to electronics. Kids my age did not grow up with screens shoved in our faces, because they had not come out yet. We did not get phones as 7-year-olds, but often in middle- or high school. However, we also had enough exposure growing up that we know how to work the technology that we need to live in this world today. We are in the neutral zone; we have not had too much exposure like the younger kids, but we had enough that we are not clueless now” (Arvidson). Like Morrison, Arvidson doesn’t fail to include the observation of the younger generation. However, she also makes a distinct remark on the variations of technological exposure, noting that there may be different effects depending on the age and frequency of such introductions. Expectedly, Anderson attempts to counteract this argument with another notion from his article. “As we become more skilled at the 21st-century task Meyer calls flitting, the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information. The neuroscientist Gary Small speculates that the human brain might be changing faster today than it has since the prehistoric discovery of tools” (Anderson 12)…
As technology has become so frequently used in our everyday lives, some may believe we are better off without it, while others see we can benefit from it. From its vast collection of information and resources that technology provides, making our lives easier as it saves us from the hassle, we should recognize its impacts to people’s social awareness, especially those of the new generation. With all sorts of technology like phones and computers that we have become so immersed in it ultimately is playing a factor in our ability to socialize appropriately with others. Sherry Turkle, an author who holds a doctorate in sociology and psychology addresses in her work, “The Empathy Diaries” technology’s effects on human conversation in regard to the distraction it imposes leading to a loss of empathy. While two University of New England students also stress the idea of the relationship between technology and socialization. One student, Cote Briggs, shares in his essay, “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why” how social media use has been beneficial to him in forming friendships based on the various platforms for forming connections with others online. Then the other student, Elizabeth Gagnon, writes in her essay highlighting how technology is hindering our ability to communicate with others as we are losing certain skills by focusing our attention on our devices. All three writers focus on the importance of technology’s effects on human communication in a variety of ways. By consuming technology, it can provide a source to connect with others but is responsible for eating away human’s abilities to converse with others and build social skills.
Technology can be perceived as a place to meet new people but creates a missed opportunity to engage in face-to-face conversation with others. Through the many social media platforms or collaborative sites like online games allows people to find someone with common interests which can spark a friendship. In Brigg’s piece he shares his experience related to this idea, “The web and social media also allowed me to communicate with like-minded individuals… I was able to connect with those with like-minded goals and aspirations. Those who had shared my sense of humor. I’ve also been able to gain my own friends throughout the web over the years, typically through online games or forum discussions.”. Briggs recognizes that using technology has been helpful in terms of being able to interact with others and make new friends through the available websites that allow you to do so. While technology may be a place to discover and socialize with new people online, it also takes away our ability to appropriately communicate in person. Gagnon shares her concerns about technology’s effects on conversation as she composes, “Technology creates a bubble around you, isolating you from the outside world. Kids that grow up with an iPad in their hand are losing their people skills. I have seen that they cannot effectively convey their feelings, remediate conflicts with words, or hold a conversation with others.” Gagnon emphasizes that turning to technology all the time is altering our success to have face to face conversations as our skills involved are becoming weakened. Both of these students bring up points that I resonate with. I understand where Briggs is coming from in regards to technology providing the opportunity to communicate and bond with others over the shared interests, which leads to new friendships being built. As I too have been able to discover people through primarily the use of social media, therefore Briggs’ idea appears to be relevant in this day and age. Platforms either social media apps enable you to come across a new face that may spark an interest in wanting to get to know them better or when gaming online you may have to work with others to achieve the goal of that particular. Since those involved share the love of playing video games it can be a start to furthering the potential friendship that exists. I also agree with Gagnon as I can see where she is coming from when referencing how technology’s presence is hindering individuals’ ability to effectively engage in-person conversation. This is true to me as when we are so consumed and focused on the devices, we dissociate ourselves from fully being devoted to taking part in the interaction happening before us. As a result, we lose our ability to perform certain social skills as Gagnon previously mentioned. Consuming technology can be both beneficial and detrimental to social interaction as it can have platforms to generate new friendships, but damage one’s social skills when faced with participating in a conversation.
Technology can be a barrier to social interactions in a physical setting that leads to crucial skills being lost based on the huge distraction it causes. As our devices are readily available, we have them right at our fingertips. We’d rather focus on being involved in the digital realm rather than showing our undivided attention to those we are seeking a conversation with. Turkle highlights technology as a form of distraction when she writes, “we have become accustomed to a constant feed of connection, information, and entertainment. We are forever elsewhere” (344).
Digital technology is a highly-scrutinized innovation with many pros and cons. Its brilliance, and wide access to unlimited information is eye-opening. At an educational level, the vastness of the internet, especially, is very helpful for learning and keeping up with my classes. However, outside of the classroom, digital technology can be a very distracting thing that takes time away from what is most important to us. Conversations that we have with family and friends are being replaced by time on our phones or computers. Time for doing homework or assignments is drawn out, and takes longer due to the distractions of digital technology. Nicholas Carr, writer and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011, highlights these pros and cons of digital technology in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He details how digital technology can be a distraction, and causes us to have less attention for things we used to be able to focus on. There are a lot of comparisons between Carr’s writing, and some of my classmates’ in English 110. Liv Arvidson argues that technology today is becoming an addiction, and a huge distraction. She argues that screen time for kids needs to be limited so that they don’t grow up with bad habits. Her opinions on the matter of digital technology aligns with Carr’s; it is a distraction, and we need to decrease our usage of it. Jack Thurmond, another classmate of mine, underlines the importance of technology in a working sense, while also calling attention to the dangerous, addicting side of it. Thurmond emphasizes his addiction to his phone, specifically, while talking about how it can make him less productive and efficient due to its distractions. In this essay I will attempt to demonstrate how Carr, Arvidson, and Thurmond, along with many other readers like them, believe that digital technology is distracting, and we need to decrease our usage of it. We see a theme in these three writers’ experiences and opinions that digital technology can be detrimental, due to its addicting, distracting features.
Digital technology has a negative effect on our ability to focus, and take in information. Carr worries that we have become accustomed to relying on the internet for our source of knowledge. Everything is so quick and easy on the internet, so now anything more time-consuming will feel boring and unimportant. Carr furthers this idea, by writing, “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski” (2). The internet at times proves to be a nuisance when it comes to focusing and completing mental tasks. Its efficiency and ease causes us to lose our attention-span and patience. We’ve become so accustomed to the bulk of the hard work being done by digital technology that we are now ill-prepared for doing it ourselves. Thurmond, on the other hand, claims that the freedom and recreational use of digital technology causes him to be distracted and spend longer amounts of time when doing his work. He writes, “I can think of countless times when I have sat down to do a homework assignment and ended up watching tik toks, film and spent more time than needed to complete an assignment.” Thurmond’s work, and ability to focus are compromised by his attachment to his phone. This demonstrates how despite all of digital technology’s good aspects, it proves to be a burden when it comes to putting in hard, attention-required work. Arvidson sends a similar message regarding the idea of technology being a distraction while doing her work. She claims that, “We rely on technology in just about everything. Should something happen to our electricity for an extended period, many people would not know what to do or be able to go about their daily lives without it. I am not saying that we should start to learn to live without it, I am saying that we should not always rely only on technology. There are things that we can do without electricity or current technology, especially small things.” Arvidson’s ideas demonstrate a theme of people relying on digital technology to complete the work for them. She claims that we no longer are the same people we were before technology; it has changed us for the worse. This reliance on technology is one of the reasons for declining ability to focus and concentrate. Our dependence on technology is negatively affecting the way we complete our work without it. Humans in today’s world have become so accustomed to digital technology’s ease, and reliability that we are no longer able to do the same things at the level we once could.
Our dependence on digital technology has grown to be pervasive in an age of rapid technological advancement, influencing every aspect of our everyday lives. The popular presence of cell phones, as a symbol of technology, gives us unparalleled access to data and communication. However, despite the attraction of efficiency and ease, it is crucial to examine the complex effects of technology on people and society as a whole. In his fascinating piece “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why,” Cote Briggs explores the complex relationship between the advantages and disadvantages of technology, illuminating its revolutionary power. Furthermore, among a plethora of other variables, technology plays a ubiquitous function as a distraction, as noted by seasoned analyst Nicholas Carr on technology and its societal repercussions. As Carr’s claims concerning the disruptive impact of technology on cognition are valid, it is crucial to acknowledge that distractions can originate from diverse sources, such as environmental cues and human interactions. Therefore, despite technology’s undeniable prominence in the hierarchy of distractions, the complex network of factors influencing our attentional environment cannot be eclipsed by its omnipotence. By examining Briggs and Liv Arvidson’s observations about the effects of technology, especially on kids, we are forced to face the necessity of finding a careful balance between maximizing the positive aspects of technology and minimizing its negative ones. As Arvidson rightly points out, screen time restriction becomes an important factor in ensuring the developmental trajectory of future generations, highlighting the need for a nuanced strategy necessary to navigate the digital world. As such, this discussion aims to decipher the intricate relationship between technology, distraction, and social dynamics, clarifying the necessity of developing conscious interaction with digital interfaces in a society growing more interconnected by the day.
In the digitally connected world of today, technology has ingrained itself into every facet of our lives, including social relationships, work, and education. Cote Briggs makes a compelling case that there are many advantages to technology that improve our capacity to learn, plan, and interact with like-minded others. “Without the plethora of knowledge the internet provides, I wouldn’t have been able to sufficiently fuel my brain with the resources necessary to carry out these educational goals of mine.” (Briggs 1). I agree with this statement because technology is only part of everyday life and has been incorporated into work life daily now and only helps to improve knowledge for the fields that are more evolved each day. I agree with Briggs that technology has been essential to broadening one’s views intellectually. Particularly the internet acts as a huge information warehouse, giving users access to a multitude of resources that were unthinkable only a few decades ago. People can now pursue their educational aspirations with never-before-seen simplicity and efficiency because of this abundance of knowledge. Through websites for education, scholarly journals, or online courses, technology has made accessible education by enabling individuals to interact with a wide variety of topics and viewpoints. Technology also makes it easier to organize and be productive, simplifying work and helping people handle their jobs more skillfully. Carr mentions, “If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. ” (Carr, 7). Carr discussed how integrating AI into human brains would be a better way to advance evolution. Digital calendars and project management tools are just two examples of how technology gives us the tools we need to keep on top of our tasks and meet our goals. Technology also facilitates meaningful connections by creating communities of like-minded people who can work together, exchange ideas, and encourage one another’s attempts. Through social media, virtual networking events, and online forums, users may interact with people who share their interests and hobbies without having to physically be in the same place. But it’s important to recognize that technology can also have negative effects, such as possibly reducing in-person connections and encouraging a culture of disengagement. Nevertheless, technology can be a potent instrument for both professional and personal development when utilized wisely and intentionally. In conclusion, I completely concur with Briggs’ claim that people may now accomplish their goals and form deep ties thanks to technology. Technology will surely become more and more important in determining how we work, study, and communicate with one another as it develops.
Liv Arvidson shares her experience of growing up without being surrounded by technology and believes that children constantly exposed to screens are negatively affected. They argue that people must regulate their screen time and not rely entirely on technology. Arvidson also expresses concerns about the long-term impact of growing up with screens on children’s social skills and their ability to interact with others in the future. “However, we also had enough exposure growing up that we know how to work the technology that we need to live in this world today. We are in the neutral zone; we have not had too much exposure like the younger kids, but we had enough that we are not clueless now.” (Arvidson 2). I agree with this statement because as a generation, we tend to use technology to our convenience yet we also know how to use it in some ways that others don’t. This is almost like a parent or grandparent asking for help on their phone. From Carr’s work, he agrees that kids are affected by technology. “The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.” (Carr 7). However, there is a weak point where the two viewpoints meet. Arvidson and Carr agree that it’s critical to comprehend and navigate the complexity of the digital environment. Arvidson’s claim to be in a “neutral zone” points to a more complex view of the effects of technology, and Carr’s criticism of technological distractions emphasizes the importance of using digital devices with awareness.
Many people feel differently about technology. Lots of the different feelings appear between the different generations. The older generations that have only had digital technology at the end of their lives may be more apprehensive about it, while the younger generations who have used it for the majority of their lives cannot imagine what they would do without it. There are the rare few across different generations who share the same opinion. One of my classmates, Finley Morrison, shares the specific opinion that the amount of technology introduced to young minds today is very detrimental with Sherry Turkle, renowned author of “The Empathy Diaries,” in his work “Digital Worlds: Teleportation at your Fingertips.” Sherry is also a clinical psychologist with a joint doctorate degree in sociology and personality psychology from Harvard, and she teaches at MIT. Another one of my classmates, Hailey Cloutier, highlights all the different personas that technology can take on: how it can be good, but also bad, in her work “The Balancing Act: The Good, Bad, and Problem Solving.” All these authors accentuate the need to regulate our intake of technology while it is still manageable. I agree with these writers in that technology has many different sides. Technology can be so incredible, but it also can be used badly if directed to. Technology’s dependence on whether it is a tool, or a danger relies on the person using it.
Technology can be whatever you make it out to be. People who have had bad experiences with it may see it negatively, whereas others may have had only great encounters may believe it to be something that everyone should come to love and enjoy. Technology can be used in many different areas of life, so there are many different opinions on the use of technology in our day-to-day lives. Finley believes that “ultimately, no matter how you view it, technology has the ability to be whatever you want it to be and take you wherever you desire to go. How you use the internet is how it will reflect your views on it…it’s man’s own obligation to make sure that he’s properly equipped to navigate safely around the flames.” Grown adults have the information available to them: they are well educated on the negative effects of technology. If they allow themselves to be consumed with it, it is on them. They could have changed the way they exploit the usefulness of the internet. Hailey agrees that technology can be used in many different ways, and she “think[s] that there needs to be some form of regulation or restriction for it so we don’t ruin something that has helped so many lives. People shouldn’t be in fear of what the internet and technology have to offer.” With the vast amount of sheer information the internet holds, it can be used in many different manners. The person who uses their tech writes their own narrative on if it is good or bad. In the end, the user determines whether internet will be their savior, or their villain.
Mature adults are able to control their usage of technology, but children are not expected to. The adults in their lives and the society they grow up in influence how they use technology. Their use of it in school and personally can be controlled by educators and parents or guardians, respectively. Young kids are given technology, but often not given sufficient instruction and rules on how to properly use it, and this leads to the increased usage of technology that does not educate them. Finn sees the effects of technology on young children personally: his four-year-old niece “gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play noneducational games no matter what time of day it is. It takes her minutes to return to reality after she is done with her technology…[she] genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad.” The unregulated use of technology for such young children is a shock to their system: it is not what the human body is meant to do at that age. They are meant to learn about other people and themselves. They need to learn emotions and feelings and how to exist with others. Sherry Turkle also sees the decline in social awareness in young children who have grown up attached to technology. To Turkle and some teachers she has met with, “it is a struggle to get children to talk to each other in class, to directly address each other. It is a struggle to get them to meet with faculty…they sit in the dining hall and look at their phones…[and] seem to understand each other less and less” (345). Children are using technology to degree where it is becoming detrimental to their social abilities. They have become engulfed in technology, but it is not their fault. Children are being handed the technology and not given enough instruction early on to help them navigate this incredibly important tool. Without help navigating the internet, as the users, children are not able to find the educational, useful side of technology. They, instead, only use it for games and hiding away instead of learning necessary life skills, because that is all they know.
Technology has a place in all of our lives. We have embraced technological innovation and carry it around with us everywhere we go, in the form of our smartphones. While it is convenient to have all of this access at our fingertips, it may be more detrimental than we realize. Cote Briggs, a student at the University of New England, wrote about his concerns regarding how technology is affecting us in his work, “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why.” Another author and student at the University of New England, Hailey Cloutier, shared how technology has changed our behavior in her work, “The Balancing Act: The Good, Bad, and Problem Solving.” Sherry Turkle, a professor at MIT and author of ten books, writes about her fears of how technology has affected us in her work, “The Empathy Diaries.” All three authors make their point about the effects of technology. Technology is changing our behavior, making in person conversations less frequent and our attention span shorter than it already is.
Our ability to converse with one another has been diminished by the introduction of online chat options. Children now, are growing up with screens in front of their faces, making it so they never learn the social skill of an in-person conversation. A college freshman describes “As I began my collegiate pursuit, I found myself at first to be quite timid in real-world encounters. I initially wasn’t much of a conversation starter, and hoped others would approach me instead” (Briggs). Briggs shares about how technology has changed how he interacts with others. He used to be more outgoing and willing to start conversations, but his introduction into the online world has changed that. This quote relates to Turkle beliefs that technology is changing conversation between individuals. She thinks that in person conversations are so important for society and that technology has hindered our ability to participate in these types of interactions. Briggs agrees with this point in his work, he notices a change within himself due to his access to technology. “From the early days, I saw that computers offered the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship and then, as the programs got really good, the illusion of friendship without the demands of intimacy. Because face-to-face, people ask for things that computers never do. With people, things go best if you pay close attention and know how to put yourself in someone else’s shoes” (Turkle 346).
“There is no need to truly learn anything when you can get an answer in a shorter time googling it than going to a library and researching it. It has almost become unheard of to go past the first answer page in Google; people just click the first link skim and then find their answer. People don’t have to depend on their knowledge or schooling anymore when they can get the answer in under five minutes of googling” (Cloutier). Turkle talks about our level of distraction in her essay. She believes that technology has made it so we are distracted, and our attention span is shorter. Cloutier agrees with this idea and furthers it to how we are using the internet. She notices that we are simply skimming texts and trying to do things as quickly as possible. We are not taking the time to genuinely do things anymore because we no longer have the attention span. “We are forever elsewhere. At class or church or business meetings, we pay attention to what interests us and then when it doesn’t, we look to our devices to find something that does” (Turkle 344).
Hailey cloutier “I believe that while technology does so much good, there are still struggles with technology and the internet being a breeding ground of hate; and that to stop the issues from growing there should be rules and regulations in place to counteract the problems.”
Cote Briggs “Ultimately, the web serves as an integral part of our world; while it is important not to abuse this tool, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t embrace what it has to offer. With respect to oneself, the digital world serves as a favorable tool for both scholastic achievement and impactful discussion.” These two quotes relate to each other because they both talk about how there are positives and negatives to technology being so immersed in our culture. They both acknowledge that technology is vital in our society. Both believe that we need some sort of regulation on it and that we have to hold ourselves accountable for how we let it affect us. I agree with both of their points, technology is neither all good nor all bad, it depends on how we let it change our behavior. Our problems from society so far have resulted from us letting technology consume us and change how we interact with one another.
Beckett Shanahan
Over the course of this semester my classmates and I have been drilled in and focused on writing about the future of technology and the effects it has on younger generations and what it’s doing to students and adults today regarding attention spans, forming relationships, and holding conversations that have meaning and emotion tied into it. My classmates have discussed in almost every class our viewpoints on technology and what we think solutions could be and what is the problem with an overuse of technology. Each day we talk about different authors with different views on technology but from the start of the semester and the first author that stuck with me was MIT professor and author of “The empathy Diaries” who expresses her negative feelings towards technology explaining that that over usage causes kids to lack social skills and limits their chances of creating relationships founded on being able to interact with meaningful interactions. A classmate of mine, Hailey Cloutier, who I have read her essays twice now agrees with Turkle and I, expressing concern for these younger generations with the amount of unlimited time and opportunities they have with technology. But there can be an argument that technology allows us to escape a harsh reality and oftentimes people use it as a safe haven. This idea was brought to me by a student named Cote Briggs, an Idea that I totally agree with but running away and resorting to a life with technology has brought us a few new problems.
At this point between Hailey, Turkle and I it is three against 1 but that does not mean I do not disagree with Briggs. Technology is a confusing subject, we use it everyday to do some of the easiest things just so we can get it done faster. Technology plays a huge role in our everyday life but in Cloutiers first essays she brings up a good point that I can relate with as well. She talks about growing up and going to the doctors and writes “Even doctors as a kid would tell you that it is okay to spend time on devices as long as screen time is limited”. (Pg 2, Paragraph 2)This quote and experience that Hailey brings up and is important in thinking about future and younger generations. Now when I go to doctors and doctors today, do not bring up this issue and ask about screen time nor do they ask you about how you use your phones and how much you use them. I think this is an important fact to bring up about using technology, we should have doctors and our parents put an eye on our screen time. The fact that there is no more constant reminder, or check in with doctors and parents is a bit worrisome to me, I feel that a lot of people have already come to conclusion that we do have a technology problem and we are unable to fix and control younger generations from the overuse of technology due to the fact that it is everywhere and controls us. This ties into how kids act today, there are no boundaries as Cloutier begins to talk about. These younger generations learn and see how influencers act and they begin to feel entitled and impulsive, and parents today want to act more as friends to their kids and have a hard time saying no and setting boundaries and rules for their kids, every kid wants to have that cool parent all their friends love I have learned growing up. Cloutier expands on these thoughts by writing “parents are afraid of telling their children “no”… Without these boundaries in place, children become dependent on their technology, because it can act like a companion when they aren’t getting the needed support from family” (Pg2, Paragraph 3) This passage stands out to me especially with this generation, politics, and violence within the country. When children and teens are free to explore technology with no boundaries this can be dangerous, with no restrictions and young minds easy to be molded can be dangerous with what you can find on the internet.
Journal #22
English Comp
Mr. Miller
4/5/24
Charles Cristoforo
Everyone uses their technology differently and it has become an integral piece in a lot of people’s lives. Personally, I find myself reliant on my phone, utilizing it for a variety of tasks. Tasks range from scheduling meetings, staying connected with loved ones, and listening to music. But there’s others in this World and they probably use their technology differently. It’s unlikely a person in their seventies would use a phone with the same proficiency as someone from the “screen age” generation like mine. That’s an interesting thought to think about though. Why can’t my generation stay away from their phones, while other, older generations are able to keep their impulses under control. It could have been because we were born into it. We were born into being part of this “digital generation”. Sam Anderson, an author for New York Magazine, nurses multiple generation’s concerns in, “In Defense of Distraction”. To put it briefly, he gives his thoughts on overstimulation, and how distraction may be good for us. I aim to compare Sam’s ideas to two of my peers’ essays on their relationship with technology. Finley Morrison’s essay “Title”, and Liv Arvidson’s “Title”. Both students’ essays give us a glimpse into the feelings and thoughts people have about the digital world today.
In today’s digital landscape, the various forms and nuances of technology are an integral part of our lives. They have become part of us. I aim to critically think about the influence of generational differences with technology and I wish to explore the varying perceptions of technology within these different generations using the essays I’ve lined out. Through an exploration of individual technology habits and patterns, I will try to understand why trends may emerge and how they can answer complicated questions I have. Furthermore, I intend to think on the social constructs that either help or hurt us when we use technology. With this thought on the intersections of technology, generations, and societal constructs, I aim to build a deeper understanding of the different ways in which individuals engage with and interpret technology in their lives.
When diving into the influence of generational differences in technology usage, it’s essential to consider the many ways in which different age groups interact with and perceive our digital tools. While older generations may exhibit a more restrained approach to technology, younger generations, like mine, often find themselves deeply established in the digital realm. This contrast poses intriguing questions about the underlying factors shaping these polar behaviors. One such factor, as suggested by Sam Anderson in “In Defense of Distraction,” is the idea of overstimulation and its implications for our relationship with technology. Anderson proposes that distraction, often viewed negatively, may actually offer benefits in the modern era. “The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction. Unwavering focus, the inability to be distracted, can be just as problematic as ADHD” (Anderson 11). This quotation invites us to reconsider how we perceive our constant connectivity and the role it plays in our lives. What Anderson is saying is, our tendency to view distraction as solely detrimental overlooks its potential benefits. We look at a kid today using a phone and say, “Damn, that kid really shouldn’t have a phone”. Morrison demonstrates this in their essay, “It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad” (Morrison 1). Morrison’s portrayal of their nieces’ disconnect from reality after using technology is indeed disheartening. Their use of the term “brain-rot” emphasizes their view point and the potential negative effects of an overexposure to the digital world. I imagine their view point to be similar to that of an older generation, looking on in disbelief as their niece comes out of the digital world. To me, the word “brain-rot” is a little scary. I’ll be it, an overexposure to the digital world is unhealthy, though I believe we are tuned out of the potential benefits that Anderson hints at technology being able to do. I want to be distracted sometimes. Sometimes, I want not to think about school, life, or friends, I just want to scroll on my phone for a little while. This distraction is therapeutic for me. Is my brain rotting while I do this? I don’t think so. I will say there’s a fine line between how I use my device, and how Morrisons niece uses their device. This line between how we use technology makes this conversation complicated and raises the question, is it the technology that’s brain rotting, or is it how we use the technology which allows for a brain rot to occur?
Navigating a Digital Divide
We are currently living in a digital age, where the internet is a sea of vast information spread far and wide. It has transformed to become the gateway to our knowledge, connections, and entertainment; but is this sea becoming a Bermuda Triangle of fear, anxiety, and insecurity? Kevin Kelley, the author of “Technophilia”, Liv Arvidson and Finley Morrison, students at the University of New England participating in the English composition class, highlight their beliefs on technology and how it is shaping the minds of the younger generation. The modern age of digital technology is creating a whirlpool of dependency, a collapse of personal conversation, and a breakdown of personal morals. Our technology has become a basis for most lives, we use it for work, school, and our personal lives, and I agree that this is creating legitimate social and emotional issues with the upbringings of our younger generation. We need to start finding a solution before life as we know it becomes swept away into a tsunami of digital feeds.
Children today are growing up in a world that is built upon technology, and they have never known anything otherwise. While technology has become a boon for life on Earth, we can start to see the mental effects it is having on our younger generations. Children have become sucked into a world of information, videos, movies, and shows. There is so much mental stimulation that the internet provides, that it is creating almost addiction-like responses in our youth. Both Kevin Kelley and Liv Arvidson argue that children today are becoming ever so dependent on technology that they go through withdrawal-like symptoms when it is taken away. Addiction is characterized usually as a chronic dependency and persistent engagement with a drug or behavior. If we can see this type of reaction in our children what does that say about the technology or the parents that should be limiting the kids? In Liv Arvidson’s personal view, “I have a cousin who is 8 years old, and he cannot go very long without his tablet, because his parents have always allowed him to have it whenever he wanted. Now, when they say no, he throws tantrums and acts out because he does not know life without it.” Arvidson saw personally what happens to children when parents don’t have the needed control to limit their children with technology, so the child builds a dependency on it. Once the technology is taken away, the child acts like a drug addict going through withdrawals. In addition, Kevin Kelley recounts a story of an acquaintance’s daughter who acted the same, “Immediately the girl became physically sick. Faint, nauseous, and so ill she couldn’t get out of bed. It was if her parents had amputated a limb. And in a way they had. Our creations are now inseparable from us. Our identity with technology runs deep, to our core.” Kelley talks about how we have become so deeply intertwined with our technology that it has become another limb. I sometimes feel it too, especially when we use technology for work, school, and personal activities. I always feel pressure to use technology, whether it is to talk to somebody, avoid strangers, or even just a cure for boredom. While I share the belief with Arvidson and Kelley that as a people we are becoming so deeply intertwined with technology that it is becoming another limb, I also believe that we should then advocate for more parental involvement in monitoring and regulating children’s screen time to form a healthy boundary with the internet and technology. Especially in cases like Arvidson’s when a child is so young they need to be taught by a parent to form a healthy boundary away from technology. We should be fostering an open environment by talking about concerns related to technology use between parents, educators, and adolescents.
Not only is internet addiction heavily affecting younger generations, but comparison culture is also sparking along the internet and technology and it is causing children and adolescents to have more negatively impacted personal worth and self-images. Online personas and AI are creating a hostile environment for children and teens to grow cognitively and emotionally when all they come across is judgment and self-deprecation. Kids today are being dealt unrealistic and impossible expectations about a person and once they try to fix themselves they find that there are feelings of inadequacy because they cannot do the impossible. Finley Morrison discusses a story of their close friend who was impacted by AI with comparison culture, “A close friend of mine has been struggling with motivation to continue his art degree because of the backlash he receives, comparing his soulful works to lifeless drawings thrown together based on a sentence or two.” The story Morrison gives us shows how comparison culture leads to motivation and self-worth issues all because of being compared to an electronic machine made to create and spit out work, but not put any beauty or poise into it. People are finding themselves compared and judged by others for unrealistic expectations set upon by comparison culture, and then find themselves stuck in a whirlpool of doubt, insecurity, and fear.
Wesley Chandler
ENG 110
Prof. Miller
April 5th, 2024
The Hypnotizing Effect of Technology
Technology has played a crucial role on how we live our lives and get work done on a day to day basis. Whether it be us sending a simple text to our friend or working on our laptops for work, the use of these devices always ends up finding time to end up in most of our days. Overtime technology has shown us that though it can be used in a very productive manner and a very negative way as well. These devices have caused us to lose our attention spans, struggle with in person conversations with our peers, and begin to affect us mentally as well. Kevin Kelley, a famous scientist who has studied people and the love they get for inanimate objects. Kelley’s concept of Technophilia sheds light on people’s continuous fascination with technology and its humongous influence on our society. I was also able to get an insight on technology from a younger generations perspective by reading two of my classmates’ writings, Jack Thurmond and Cote Briggs. These two young and up and coming students shared how technology played a role in their lives from a student athletes perspective and full time students look in each of their writings. While technology does offer an endless amount of opportunities for progress and innovation, it also presents challenges and complications that require careful consideration by one. Kelley believes if we begin to embrace technology mindfully and very critically, we can be able to harness and grab its potential to create a more equitable, sustainable, and inclusive future for everyone. Now I do believe in Kelley’s concept, but I also believe some of the topics he brings up are not true. I believe that our society could use technology in a better way while still being able to use these devices in a healthier manner. One of the ways that we can focus on bettering our minds so we are not always drilled on our phones is beginning to have more in person conversations with our peers.
One example that Kelley brings up is how one of his friends’ daughters reacted when she had her phone taken. In the text he brings up her outlandish reaction, “An acquaintance of mine has a teenage daughter. Like most teens in this century she spends her day texting her friends, abbreviating her life into character hints, flinging these haikus out to an invisible clan of mutual texters. It’s an always on job, this endless encapsulation of the moment. During dinner, while walking, on the toilet, lounging in bed, or in any state of wakefulness, to chat is to live. Like all teens, my friend’s daughter tested the limits of her parents’ restrictions. For some infraction or another, they grounded her. And to reinforce the seriousness of her misconduct, they took away her mobile phone. Immediately the girl became physically sick. Faint, nauseous, and so ill she couldn’t get out of bed. It was as if her parents had amputated a limb.” I completely agree with Kelley and have seen this myself. I have a four year old sister who is slowly falling in love with what technology is today and honestly for her age impresses me how well she can use a tablet. If she asks my mother though for her tablet and does not get it she begins to act up. Throwing h
herself on the couch, having an attitude, and being rude to others just for a device she just started to use. Jack talks about how sometimes his phone can make him feel as well. In his passage he talks about some of the little things that might affect his day, “I have mini panic attacks before remembering it’s on my desk charging. As funny as this sounds, this is a real problem. Overattchment to our technology leaves us addicted to it. Without it, we would have trouble functioning. To me, this is when I realized how much of a chokehold technology has.” We begin to worry entirely on these devices and cause our brains to give us an attachment and can only cause some mental health issues. If we can prioritize other things rather than our phones or computers all the day they won’t play as big of a role in our lives as they do now.
Since the dawn of time, human beings have used communication to aid in survival and build relationships. From the drawings scribbled on cave walls by ancient homosapiens to the complex languages we speak today, the ability to converse has always been a trait of humanity. As time has trudged forth, a new medium has emerged, opening the gates of connection for everyone to partake in. I am, of course, referring to the technology with a six-inch screen sitting in your pocket (or perhaps, if you’re reading this online, in your hand): the phone. With the birth of modern technology followed swiftly by the surfacing of the internet, communication has become exponentially quicker, easier, and more wife-spread than ever before. However, whether or not this communication is efficient and translates to authentic connections is another story. Cote Briggs and Liv Arvidson, both writers from the University of New England as well as Nicholas Carr, a well known author who has been published by the Atlantic, offer their own insight in their respective papers: “Technology Isn’t All Fun & Games: Here’s Why,” “Technology & I,” and “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” While it may not seem readily apparent, our hyperconnectivity has put a heavy dent on our ability to communicate and listen.
It starts by grabbing your attention, sinking its fang-like talons into your frontal lobes. Both Liv Arvidson and Nicholas Carr have noticed the changes in not just their own but society’s cognition. Carr opens his article Is Google Making Us Stupid with the statement: “Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going–so far as I can tell–but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think” (1). Carr has noticed that his brain chemistry feels as though it’s changing. The way he processes information has changed, and the cause is the implementation of technology. Liv Arvidson observes these changes in her day-to-day life: “I see kids at restaurants and other public settings who will only “behave” when on a screen. I have a cousin who is 8 years old, and he cannot go very long without his tablet, because his parents have always allowed him to have it whenever he wanted. Now, when they say no, he throws tantrums and acts out because he does not know life without it” (1). From stranger’s children in restaurants to her own flesh and blood, Arvidson claims that technology has rewired the minds of our youth, its venom hypnotizing. I empathize with both claims, as I myself have fallen and have witnessed countless victims of said hypnosis. By changing the way we think and behave, a feat that the internet is slowly accomplishing, the way we react and communicate with each other will change as well. Cognition and language are directly intertwined, one cannot exist without the other. As such, altering one is bound to affect the other. Simplifying our thought process and holding an unrelenting grasp on our attention doesn’t allow us to have conversations below a surface level.
Its wings spread further, morphing how we learn into something unique. While Carr stresses that his learning has been negatively affected, Cote Briggs says that technology has strengthened his capabilities. Briggs mentions how his studies have soared: “With much transparency, my writing and comprehension would embody that of much austerity: assuming I hadn’t held any access to the online realm. Technology has enabled me to launch myself head-on into my studies, expanding as well as elevating the scope of my small-town education… Without the plethora of knowledge the internet provides, I wouldn’t have been able to sufficiently fuel my brain with the resources necessary to carry out these educational goals of mine” (1). Briggs states that access to the internet has further propelled his education, and that without it, the opportunities that he has had and the achievements he has accomplished wouldn’t have been possible. Carr, while he acknowledges that the internet has allowed him more access and a better outreach for his writing, feels the harshness of the negative impacts: “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away at my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy in a Jet Ski” (2). While I sympathize with both sentiments, I actually find myself siding more with Briggs in this regard. I think that the web has allowed for people to indulge themselves with knowledge now more than ever. It has allowed many, including myself, opportunities to further our academic education and our general knowledge. With that being said, this consumption doesn’t only go one way. While you consume the information you’re fed, the Net stares back at you, feasting on any naïvety that may be exposed. This can push people to polar ends, cutting off not only conversation but empathy for one another.
Altirique McElveen
Professor Miller
1/23/24
English
“Is This The End?”
Are we starting to come to an end using our human values or this is just a myth? In Today’s discourse, there’s a growing concern about the erosion of our fundamental human values. Despite the ongoing discussions , we remain uncertain about the future with this problem. The impact of technology of communication and its role diminishing traditional values are main points to these discussions. The prevailing question is whether or not we’re seeing a huge fall and being stuck on if there’s hope for a turnaround. These concerts have raised the unexpected effects of technology’s widespread incorporation in our day-to-day life on interpersonal relationships and the components of human interaction. As we ponder, the need to handle this issue is becoming more urgent. However, the path remains covered by the problems of the modern day. There’s worries that go beyond here and now which clouds the future for coming generations. The dilemma intensifies while we contemplate the repercussions of a society where participation and connection have disappeared. That becomes a critical path of healing as this crisis approaches. The essence of humanity reposes on our ability to navigate this critical juncture with determination. Our job is to bewail the demise of human values but also look for the answers that will protect the integrity of our social fabric for generations to come. Many people find great resonance, from Sherry Turkle’s perspective of negative impacts on technology, as she describes how it impedes the children’s growth and undermines their empathy. She focuses on the value of empathy in meaningful conversations and emphasizing how crucial it is to creating sincere connections. The 3 foundations of the true discourse was sincerity, active listening, and enthusiasm. To dig deeper into the problem , I looked for opinions, stories and personal connections. The discussions shed light on how technology is in the social interactions and emphasize how urgent it is to talk about its negative impacts. Regarding viewpoints, the topic at hand caught the attention of 2 intelligent students from The University of New England: Cote Briggs and Finley Morrison. Delving into the details of the situation, both individuals shared heartfelt details of how this problem deeply resonated with someone close to them. Reflection on their individual experiences, they gave potential solutions that could possibly fix the underlying problems. Their perspectives not only highlighted the complexity of the issue but also underscored the importance of encouraging constructive dialogue and teamwork searching for answers. Talking about how AI had an impact on his dearest friend , Finley Morrison expresses the negative of comparison culture. Morrison talks about how their friend struggled to stay motivated to attack their degree. But as a result of the constant criticism which unfortunately hurts their sincere creations and the soulless output of AI-generated work. This story just shows how students are compared to these machines purely for output instead of artistic expression, which creates feelings of inefficiency and damages self worth. Such social pressure can fuel a cycle of doubt, insecurity, and fear trapping people in a whirlpool of their own self doubt and anxiety.
Jack Thurmond
ENG 110
Jessie Miller
Apr 9, 2024
Back To The Future Essay
Throughout the semester we have worked with many pieces of writing that have all had the same similar theme of technology. We have also done plenty of writing on technology throughout the class. All of the writing I have interacted with and opinions from my classmates have given lots of outlook on how technology really affects us. MIT professor and author Sherry Turkle who wrote “The Empathy Diaries’ ‘, a text we read in class, and two of my classmates from the University Of New England, Matthew Dewhurst and Beckett Shanahan all have written pieces on technology. All of the authors share the belief that technology has affected our ability to have conversations as well as decreased other social skills. Both of my classmates wrote essays on how this has affected them personally and how they have seen it happen throughout their lives as technology has become more prominent. This is also something that I have realized over the course of this semester. We have spent the majority of the semester focusing on how technology affects us. We have done this with the use of many articles talking about technology and numerous in-class discussions where I have heard different points of view and formed my own opinions. All of this has led me to reflect on my personal use of technology and what it has done to me. There are obvious positives that come from technology and even after reflecting I still continue to use it in my daily life. I learned that Technology has the ability to both help me but also hurt me in certain elements. I was also able to realize that the advancement in technology as I grew up correlated to these conversations and social issues. There were also important life events such as Covid-19 that forced us to turn to and get accustomed to. The whole semester’s focus has led me to these conclusions and without the continued focus on this topic I don’t think I would have gotten to this point. This has been very helpful and insightful to me in terms of understanding my relationship with technology and its effects more. The articles also gave me the idea of reflecting on my relationship with technology which was also beneficial. In reflecting I also realized that technology affected my conversation and I agree with both my classmates and Turkle.
All three authors are in agreement about technology’s effect on conversation as they share the opinion that technology has done damage to it. They feel that communication via technology has been normalized to the point where it’s more prominent and even preferred more by some people. Beckett points out a possible solution when he talks about how “ It is much easier to sit back and send a voice message or text out what you want to say”(Shanahan1). Beckett talks about this idea of how since technology makes things easier, people will default to it as it is quicker and less stressful for them. They can skip the possible awkwardness that you get with in-person conversations and redo the message if they stutter or say the wrong word. This does make conversations easier but it takes away the realness and over time you are less and less comfortable conversing face to face. Matthew agreed with Beckett and he talked about how during the Covid-19 pandemic he had no choice but to have virtual conversations. He then mentions how he felt this had a lasting effect on him. “ During Covid, when we went on Zoom for over a year, and there were limited in-person interactions, I noticed my social skills, as well as the people around me, deteriorated”(Dewhurst). Matthew felt that being forced to communicate online led to him having very limited interactions and his social skills decreased because of this. Since he only had limited online interactions for a long period of time, conversing in person was a struggle when he returned to normal life. This is a very normal experience and something I remember going through on my return to school. It felt very unnatural to talk to my classmates and I found myself feeling very uncomfortable with the quickest conversations that I once enjoyed. This is a very real reality that many kids my age are now facing. Sherry Turkle advanced this idea by talking about how kids now prefer to communicate. “ Even children text each other rather than talk face to face with friends” (344). Turkle presents the new reality of the younger generations. They are accustomed to this way of communication and prefer it to having a real meaningful conversation. This issue certainly takes away from the social skills of these kids when they do need to talk face-to-face. They would rather the easy comfortable way even though they miss out on important social skills.