Cause-and-effect arguments - Strategies for argument

Practical argument: A text and anthology - Laurie G. Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell 2019

Cause-and-effect arguments
Strategies for argument

Image

AT ISSUE

Does Our Reliance on Social Media Bring Us Together or Drive Us Apart?

In 2018, Facebook launched an advertising campaign with the slogan, “The Best Part of Facebook Isn’t on Facebook.” It seems odd for the world’s biggest social-networking site to imply that offline connections are more important than the ones that we have online. However, it also shows a self-consciousness about what all that friending, liking, posting, and sharing is doing to us. The early years of the internet came with utopian visions of connectivity, bringing people around the world together to share their stories and help democratize the spreading of information. In some ways, this came true. For plenty of users, social networks are a genuine source of community, empowerment, and fun that could not have existed a generation earlier.

But social media also has a dark, dystopian side. Online trolls regularly engage in large-scale threats and harassment. Twitter, once a platform that brought different people around the world together to share information and conversation, now finds itself embroiled in controversies about the toxic content of its users. Cyberbullying has been labeled an “epidemic.” Excessive screen time is linked to anxiety, depression, and suicide in teenagers—and these problems are not limited to young people. Social media allows users of all ages to isolate in the networks and opinions of like-minded people, reinforcing tribalism and polarization. So is all this connectivity making us more disconnected? Or is there still enough sense of community online to counteract the darker side? After reading a variety of perspectives on this complex issue, you will be writing a cause-and-effect argument that takes a position on social media.

What Is a Cause-and-Effect Argument?

Cause-and-effect arguments attempt to find causes (Why don’t more Americans vote?) or identify possible effects (Does movie violence cause societal violence?). A cause-and-effect argument identifies the causes of an event or situation and takes a stand on what actually caused it. Alternatively, a cause-and-effect argument can focus on effects, taking a position on what a likely outcome is, has been, or will be.

Many of the arguments that you read and discuss examine causes and effects. In an essay on one of the following topics, for example, you would search for the causes of an event or a situation, examining a number of different possible causes before concluding that a particular cause was the most likely one. You could also consider the possible outcomes or results of a given event or situation and conclude that one possible effect would most likely occur:

§ Are designated bicycle lanes really safer for cyclists?

§ Is fast food making Americans fat?

§ Is human activity responsible for climate change?

§ Do mandatory minimum sentences discourage crime?

§ Do charter schools improve students’ academic performance?

§ Does profiling decrease the likelihood of a terrorist attack?

§ Does our reliance on social media bring us together or drive us apart?

Image

EXERCISE 13.1 EXPLAINING CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENTS

Bumper-sticker slogans frequently make cause-and-effect arguments that suggest the consequences of ignoring the message or the positive results of following the slogan’s advice. Choose three of the bumper stickers from the following picture and explain the cause-and-effect argument each slogan makes.

Image

The various stickers read as follows: Celebrate Diversity (on a rainbow flag); Barbara Lee speaks for me; The Real Axis of Evil: Cheney, Bush, Ashcroft; Peace; Those who Ignore nature are condemned to deplete it; Support Global Peace (with an illustration of a globe beside it); Animals are little people in fur coats; Not another son of a Bush in the White House; Love your enemies, it really gets them confused; No Blood for Oil; Hang Up and Drive; My Karma Ran over my Dogma; Eracism; Peace; LinuxGruven; Israel out of Palestine; Free Palestine (with a Palestinian flag under the text); Stop U.S. Aid to Israel; Attack Iraq? No!; Peace is Patriotic (with an American flag below it, with the stars replaced with flying doves); Terrorism is a symptom not the disease; An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind (with an illustration of Gandhi beside it); Smile (an illustration of a smiling emoticon) Your government is watching; No war on Iraq; Green, Party of California (with a peace symbol beside it); Ban S U Vs from carpool lanes; Peace begins when the hungry are fed (with the logo of a plate, and a fork, knife and spoon placed over it in the shape of the peace symbol); Friends Don’t let Friends Vote Republican (with the Republican party symbol crossed out, beside it); Back by popular demand (with a peace symbol beside it).

Understanding Cause-and-Effect Relationships

Before you can write a cause-and-effect argument, you need to understand the nature of cause-and-effect relationships, some of which can be very complex. For one thing, a single event or situation can have many possible results, and not all of these will be equally significant. Identifying causes can be equally challenging because an event or situation can have more than one cause. For example, many factors might explain why more Americans do not vote. (The following diagram illustrates some possible causes.)

Image

The thirteen text in clockwise direction are as follows: People lead busy lives and don’t have time to vote; People don’t know where their polling places are; High-profile corruption cases disillusion potential voters; People don’t think their votes will make a difference; Twenty-four-hour news reports make people sick of politics; Lines are too long at polling places; American schools don’t teach students why voting is important; Negative ads discourage potential voters; Election day falls on a Tuesday, when many people are at work; Not all states offer early voting; People feel they are not informed enough to make a decision; Polling places aren’t open late enough; and People are afraid they’ll be called for jury duty if they register to vote.

Main and Contributory Causes

In a cause-and-effect argument, your focus is on identifying the cause you believe is the most important and presenting arguments to convince readers why it is the most important (and why other causes are not as important).

The most important cause is the main cause; the less important causes are contributory causes. Typically, you will present the main cause as your key argument in support of your thesis, and you will identify the contributory causes elsewhere in your argument. (You may also identify factors that are not causes and explain why they are not.)

Identifying the main cause is not always easy; the most important cause may not always be the most obvious one. However, you need to figure out which cause is most important so you can structure and support your essay with this emphasis in mind.

Image

EXERCISE 13.2 UNDERSTANDING CAUSES

Look at the diagram on the previous page. Which causes do you see as the most and least important? Why? Do you think that any of the factors presented in the diagram are not really causes? Can you suggest any additional causes? If you were writing a cause-and-effect argument taking a position on the topic of why many Americans do not vote, which cause would you focus on? Why?

Immediate and Remote Causes

As mentioned earlier, identifying the main cause of a particular effect can be difficult because the most important cause is not necessarily the most obvious one. Usually, the most obvious cause is the immediate cause—the one that occurs right before an event. For example, a political scandal that erupts the day before an election might cause many disillusioned voters to stay home from the polls. However, this immediate cause, although it is the most obvious, may be less important than one or more remote causes—factors that occurred further in the past but may have had a greater impact.

Image

EXERCISE 13.3 IDENTIFYING IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE CAUSES

Look once more at the diagram on page 439. Which causes do you consider remote causes? Which one might be the immediate cause?

Causal Chains

A causal chain is a sequence of events in which one event causes the next, which in turn causes the next, and so on. For example, the problem of why many Americans do not vote can be presented as a causal chain.

Image

The first box from the left has text within it reading, High schools do not stress the importance of elections. An illustration of a school bus is beside this box. An arrow from this box points to the box with text within it reading, Students are not encouraged to follow election coverage in the media. This box has an illustration of a monitor with a News website on its screen, beside it. An arrow from this box points to the next box with text within it reading, Students have little knowledge of the issues. An illustration of a human figure reading a book is beside this box. An arrow from this box points to the next box with text within it reading, Students do not understand why their votes are important. An illustration of a bunch of raised hands is beside this box. An arrow from this box points to the next box with text within it reading, Young adults do not develop a habit of voting. An illustration of the silhouette of three young adults walking is beside this box. An arrow from this box points to the next box with text within it reading, Americans are less likely to vote. An illustration of a ’Vote’ badge is beside this box.

When you write a cause-and-effect argument, you can organize your essay as a causal chain, as the following outline illustrates.

Thesis statement: Because they do not encourage students to see voting as a civic duty, U.S. high schools are at least partly to blame for the low turnout in many elections.

§ High schools do not stress the importance of elections.

§ As a result, students do not follow election coverage in the media.

§ Because they do not follow election coverage, students have little knowledge of the issues.

§ With little knowledge of the issues, students do not understand that it is important to vote.

§ Because they do not see voting as important, young adults do not develop a habit of regular voting.

§ As a result, American adults are less likely to vote.

KEY WORDS FOR CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENTS

When you write cause-and-effect arguments, choose verbs that indicate causal connections:

bring about

create

lead to

encourage

influence

contribute to

originate in

cause

Be sure to use transitional words and phrases such as consequently and as a result to help readers follow your argument. You should also try to repeat words like cause, effect, outcome, and result to help readers identify individual causes and effects.

Image

EXERCISE 13.4 CREATING CAUSAL CHAINS

Fill in the templates to create a causal chain for each of these sequences:

1. All restaurants should be required to list fat and calorie content on their menus. If they do so, . As a result, . Eventually, .

2. Abstinence programs should be instituted in high schools. One immediate result would be . This could bring about . This in turn might lead to . Ideally, the result would be .

3. Taxes on cigarettes should be raised. If this step is taken, the first likely result would be . This might encourage . In a few years’ time, the outcome might be .

Post Hoc Reasoning

Post hoc reasoning is the incorrect assumption that because an event precedes another event, it has caused that event. For example, you may notice that few of your friends voted in a recent election, and you may realize that many of your friends had previously decided to become science majors. This does not mean, of course, that their decision to choose careers in science has made them nonvoters. In fact, a scientist can be very interested in electoral politics. As you develop your cause-and-effect argument, be careful not to assume that every event that precedes another event has somehow caused it. (For information on avoiding post hoc fallacies, see Chapter 5.)

Structuring a Cause-and-Effect Argument

Generally speaking, a cause-and-effect argument can be structured in the following way:

§ Introduction: Establishes a context for the argument by explaining the need to examine causes or to consider effects; states the essay’s thesis

§ Evidence (first point in support of thesis): Discusses less important causes or effects

§ Evidence (second point in support of thesis): Discusses major causes or effects

§ Refutation of opposing arguments: Considers and rejects other possible causes or effects

§ Conclusion: Reinforces the argument’s main point; includes a strong concluding statement

Other organizational patterns are also possible. For example, you might decide to refute opposing arguments before you have discussed arguments in support of your thesis. You might also include a background paragraph (as the student writer whose essay begins below does). Finally, you might decide to organize your essay as a causal chain (see pp. 440—442).

The following student essay illustrates one possible structure for a cause-and-effect argument. The student writer argues that, contrary to popular opinion, texting is not causing damage to the English language but is a creative force with the power to enrich and expand the language.

TEXTING: A BOON, NOT A THREAT, TO LANGUAGE

KRISTINA MIALKI

Image

Text reads as follows:

First paragraph: Certain technological developments of the last three decades have a lot of people worrying about the state of the English language. Emailing, blogging, instant-messaging, tweeting, and texting have introduced new ways of writing and communicating, and the fear is that these technologies will encourage a sloppy, casual form of written English that will eventually replace “proper” English altogether. Texting, in particular, has people concerned because it encourages the use of a specialized, nonstandard form of English. However, the effects of this new “textese” are misunderstood. Texting is not destroying the English language; in fact, it is keeping the language alive (a corresponding margin note reads, Thesis statement).

Second paragraph: Texting has become extremely popular because sending text messages is instant, mobile, and silent (a corresponding margin note reads, Background). To make texting more efficient, texters have developed a shorthand—an abbreviated form of English that uses numbers and symbols in addition to letters. In textese, common phrases such as “see you LATer” or “talk to you later” become “cul8r” and “ttyl.” Feelings and phrases are also expressed with emoji.

Image

Second paragraph continues as follows:

Today, texting is the preferred method of communication for millions of people—especially young people, who are the most enthusiastic users of this technology. Not surprisingly, unwarranted fears that texting will destroy the language often focus on this group.

Third paragraph: Some people say texting will destroy the English language because it encourages the use of an overly simplified form of written English that does not follow standard rules of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. The implication is that people who text, particularly children and teens, will not learn standard written English. However, there is no evidence that texting is having or will have this effect. In fact, as Margaret Rock observes, Australian researchers Nenagh Kemp and Catherine Bushnell at the University of Tasmania recently found just the opposite to be true. They demonstrated that students who were good at texting were also strong in reading, writing, and spelling (Rock). If, in fact, young people’s language skills are weakening, researchers should look for the real causes for this decline rather than incorrectly blaming texting. (A margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, Refutation of opposing 3 argument.)

Fourth paragraph: Despite what its critics charge, texting is a valuable way of communicating that actually encourages more writing and reading. Texters often spend hours each day engaged with language. This is time that would otherwise probably be spent talking on the phone, watching television, or playing video games, not reading or writing. Textese may not be standard written English, but it is a rich and inventive alternative form of communication, a creative modification of English for a particular purpose. For this reason, standard English is not in danger of being destroyed or replaced by textese. Just as most young people know not to talk to their teachers the way they talk to their friends, they know not to write essays the way they write text messages. Texting simply broadens young people’s exposure to the written word. It also gets them reflecting on writing as a real-world process for a real-world audience. “As an act, texting provides opportunities to process experiences, as well as communicate and maintain reLATionships,” write researchers Madhuri Kara and Missy Watson. “In addition, texting offers communicators regular practice with brainstorming, drafting, revising and editing” (Kara and Watson). Writing teachers and instructors, in particular, should take advantage of this. (A margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, Evidence: First point in 4 support of thesis.)

Image

Text continues as follows:

Fifth paragraph: Another reason texting is valuable is that it encourages creative use of language. Text messages are typically quick and brief, so the need for new and clever abbreviations is constant. Texters are continually playing with words and coming up with new ways of expressing themselves. Texting does not, as some fear, encourage sloppy, thoughtless, or careless writing. On the contrary, it rewards ingenuity and precision. One ongoing study by Canadian researchers aims to prove this point. They have already been able to demonstrate that texters are “creative and efficient at communicating” and use “novel forms of communications” (Shaw). Nenagh Kemp has also observed how texting encourages word play. Kemp maintains that texting shows “language is fluid and flourishing, rather than in a sad state of decline” (Rock). In other words, researchers recognize that texting is not damaging the English language but is actually enriching it and keeping it alive. (A margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, Evidence: Second point in support of thesis.)

Sixth paragraph: According to Business Insider, eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds now send 2,022 texts per month and receive 1,831 texts (Cocotas). That averages out to around 67 texts per day. The exceptional popularity of texting and its fast growth over the last fifteen years explain why it is attracting attention. It is not, however, the threat that some believe it to be. It is neither destroying the language nor deadening people’s thoughts and feelings. It is a lively, original, and creative way for people to play with words as they stay connected (a corresponding margin note reads, Concluding statement).

Works Cited

Cocotas, Alex. “Chart of the Day: Kids Send a Mind Boggling Number of Texts Every Month.” Business Insider, 22 Mar. 2013, www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-number-of-texts-sent-2013-3.

Karak, Madhuri, and Missy Watson. “Texting to New Perspectives.” Inside Higher Ed, 21 July 2017, www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/07/31/intellectual-value-texting-essay.

Rock, Margaret. “Texting May Improve Literacy.” Mobiledia, Mashable, 12 Sept. 2011, mashable.com/2011/09/12/texting-improves-literacy/#sCYnNT6VB8qL.

Shaw, Gillian. “Researchers Study Text Messages as Language Form.” Vancouver Sun, 18 Jan. 2012, www.vancouversun.com/life/researchers+study+text+messages+language+form/6010501/story.html.

GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT

Avoiding “The Reason Is Because”

When you write a cause-and-effect argument, you connect causes to effects. In the process, you might be tempted to use the ungrammatical phrase the reason is because. However, the word because means “for the reason that”; therefore, it is redundant to say “the reason is because” (which actually means “the reason is for the reason that”). Instead, use the grammatical phrase “the reason is that.”

INCORRECT

Another reason texting is so valuable is because it encourages creative use of language.

CORRECT

Another reason texting is so valuable is that it encourages creative use of language.

Image

EXERCISE 13.5 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ESSAY

The following essay, “Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?” by Peggy Orenstein, is a cause-and-effect argument. Read the essay carefully, and then answer the questions that follow it, consulting the outline on pages 442—443 if necessary.

SHOULD THE WORLD OF TOYS BE GENDER-FREE?

PEGGY ORENSTEIN

This opinion column is from the December 29, 2011, New York Times.

Now that the wrapping paper and the infernal clamshell packaging have been relegated to the curb and the paying off of holiday bills has begun, the toy industry is gearing up—for Christmas 2012. And its early offerings have ignited a new debate over nature, nurture, toys, and sex.

Hamleys, which is London’s 251-year-old version of F.A.O. Schwarz, recently dismantled its pink “girls” and blue “boys” sections in favor of a gender-neutral store with red-and-white signage. Rather than floors dedicated to Barbie dolls and action figures, merchandise is now organized by types (Soft Toys) and interests (Outdoor).

That free-to-be gesture was offset by Lego, whose Friends collection, aimed at girls, will hit stores this month with the goal of becoming a holiday must-have by the fall. Set in fictive Heartlake City (and supported by a $40 million marketing campaign), the line features new, pastel-colored blocks that allow a budding Kardashian, among other things, to build herself a cafe or a beauty salon. Its tasty-sounding “ladyfig” characters are also taller and curvier than the typical Legoland denizen.

“Should gender be systematically expunged from playthings?”

So who has it right? Should gender be systematically expunged from playthings? Or is Lego merely being realistic, earnestly meeting girls halfway in an attempt to stoke their interest in engineering?

Among the “10 characteristics for Lego” described in 1963 by a son of the founder was that it was “for girls and for boys,” as Bloomberg Businessweek reported. But the new Friends collection, Lego says, was based on months of anthropological research revealing that—gasp!—the sexes play differently.

While as toddlers they interact similarly with the company’s Duplo blocks, by preschool girls prefer playthings that are pretty, exude “harmony,” and allow them to tell a story. They may enjoy building, but they favor role play. So it’s bye-bye Bionicles, hello princesses. In order to be gender-fair, today’s executives insist, they have to be gender-specific.

As any developmental psychologist will tell you, those observations are, to a degree, correct. Toy choice among young children is the Big Kahuna of sex differences, one of the largest across the life span. It transcends not only culture but species: in two separate studies of primates, in 2002 and 2008, researchers found that males gravitated toward stereotypically masculine toys (like cars and balls) while females went ape for dolls. Both sexes, incidentally, appreciated stuffed animals and books.

Human boys and girls not only tend to play differently from one another—with girls typically clustering in pairs or trios, chatting together more than boys, and playing more cooperatively—but, when given a choice, usually prefer hanging with their own kind.

Score one for Lego, right? Not so fast. Preschoolers may be the self-appointed chiefs of the gender police, eager to enforce and embrace the most rigid views. Yet, according to Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist and the author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain, that’s also the age when their brains are most malleable, most open to influence on the abilities and roles that traditionally go with their sex.

Every experience, every interaction, every activity—when they laugh, cry, learn, play—strengthens some neural circuits at the expense of others, and the younger the child the greater the effect. Consider: boys from more egalitarian homes are more nurturing toward babies. Meanwhile, in a study of more than 5,000 3-year-olds, girls with older brothers had stronger spatial skills than both girls and boys with older sisters.

At issue, then, is not nature or nurture but how nurture becomes nature: the environment in which children play and grow can encourage a range of aptitudes or foreclose them. So blithely indulging—let alone exploiting—stereotypically gendered play patterns may have a more negative long-term impact on kids’ potential than parents imagine. And promoting, without forcing, cross-sex friendships as well as a breadth of play styles may be more beneficial. There is even evidence that children who have opposite-sex friendships during their early years have healthier romantic relationships as teenagers.

Traditionally, toys were intended to communicate parental values and expectations, to train children for their future adult roles. Today’s boys and girls will eventually be one another’s professional peers, employers, employees, romantic partners, co-parents. How can they develop skills for such collaborations from toys that increasingly emphasize, reinforce, or even create, gender differences? What do girls learn about who they should be from Lego kits with beauty parlors or the flood of “girl friendly” science kits that run the gamut from “beauty spa lab” to “perfume factory”?

The rebellion against such gender apartheid may have begun. Consider the latest cute-kid video to go viral on YouTube: “Riley on Marketing” shows a little girl in front of a wall of pink packaging, asking, “Why do all the girls have to buy pink stuff and all the boys have to buy different-color stuff?” It has been viewed more than 2.4 million times.

Perhaps, then, Hamleys is on to something, though it will doubtless meet with resistance—even rejection—from both its pint-size customers and multinational vendors. As for me, I’m trying to track down a poster of a 1981 ad for a Lego “universal” building set to give to my daughter. In it, a freckle-faced girl with copper-colored braids, baggy jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers proudly holds out a jumbly, multi-hued Lego creation. Beneath it, a tag line reads, “What it is is beautiful.”

Identifying the Elements of a Cause-and-Effect Argument

1. Where does Orenstein answer the question her title asks? How would you answer this question?

2. Orenstein’s discussion of toys is based on the assumption that the world would be a better place if children were raised in a gender-neutral environment, but she does not offer any evidence to support this implied idea. Should she have? Is she begging the question?

3. In paragraph 7, Orenstein reports on two studies of primates. What conclusion does this evidence support? What conclusion does Lise Eliot’s research (para. 9) support?

4. How do you react to Orenstein’s use of the term gender apartheid (13)? What does this term mean? What connotations does it have? Given these connotations, do you think her use of this term is appropriate? Why or why not?

5. What effects does Orenstein claim stereotyped toys have on children? Does she support this claim?

6. Orenstein’s thesis seems to leave no room for compromise. Given the possibility that some of her readers might disagree with her, should she have softened her position? What compromise position might she have proposed?

7. This essay traces a causal chain. The first link in this chain is the “anthropological research revealing that . . . the sexes play differently” (5). Complete the causal chain by filling in the template below.

Anthropological research

Image

READING AND WRITING ABOUT THE ISSUE

Does Our Reliance on Social Media Bring Us Together or Drive Us Apart?

Image

Reread the At Issue box on page 437. Then, read the sources on the pages that follow.

As you read each of these sources, you will be asked to respond to a series of questions and complete some simple activities. This work will help you to understand the content and structure of the material you read. When you are finished, you will be prepared to write a cause-and-effect argument in which you take a position on the topic, “Does Our Reliance on Social Media Bring Us Together or Drive Us Apart?”

SOURCES

Laura Bogart, “I Don’t Own a Smartphone—and I Don’t Want One,” page 451

Dmitriy Kozlov, “Social Media: Bringing People Together, Virtually and Physically,” page 454

David Ludden, “Does Using Social Media Make You Lonely?,” page 457

Wency Leung, “I Quit Facebook, and I Miss It,” page 460

Sherry Turkle, “The Flight from Conversation,” page 463

Robert Weiss, “Closer Together or Further Apart? Digital Devices and the New Generation Gap,” page 467

Visual Argument: University of Pittsburgh Video, page 471

I DON’T OWN A SMARTPHONE—AND I DON’T WANT ONE

LAURA BOGART

This essay was published in The Week on February 22, 2017.

Whenever I’m making plans with a new acquaintance, there’s often a moment when our mutual enthusiasm turns to chagrin—and that moment is, inevitably, when we pull out our phones to swap contact information. My friend-to-be usually owns a smartphone, slim and sleek in a case that—whether leopard-patterned or festooned with images of some Saturday morning cartoon hero—manages to protect it while also subtly proclaiming the artful quirkiness of its owner’s personality. I, however, own a “dumb phone” that can’t connect me to Lyft or let me read restaurant reviews via a Yelp app, won’t allow me to scroll through email or get into arguments on Facebook, let alone zone out to music on the metro, or even check the weather. My acquaintance’s eyes widen as if I’ve just admitted to living in an underground bunker with a can of beans and a dented spoon. Unable to help herself, she’ll outright ask if that is really my phone. And I’ll mumble that yeah, really, it is.

Yes, I am among the narrow two-to-four percent of millennials who don’t own a smartphone. Never have, and likely never will. Most days, this causes me no pain at all. Thanks to the marvels of home computing, I can make reservations online and get directions to wherever I’m going, which I print out from MapQuest. I can charge an iPod and check the weather, and, of course, hold vicious political arguments on Facebook. I just can’t do all of that at once, or on-the-go. And somehow, this has translated into a conception that beneath my favorite Oxford blouse beats the heart of a doomsday prepper. In her own essay about being a “dumb phone” user, Janet Burns wryly laments that dumb phones, particularly flip-phones, now only appear in media as “the personal tech go-to of onscreen drug dealers and serial killers.” The last time I saw a young person using a phone just like mine was on a re-watch of The Wire. To be fair, I’m not entirely alone in eschewing the siren song of high-speed data and super-cool apps. Many of my fellow luddites cite familiar reasons for their wariness: the loss of everyday civility that knows how to ask a kind-faced stranger for directions; the freedom to not read the latest presidential tweet at the dinner table; the hyper-reliance on an eminently breakable, frequently replaceable, form of technology; and, of course, the cost. There are certain perks of a low-fi life, and a significant one is a kind of insularity—sometimes protective, sometimes productive—that comes from knowing that I can’t be summoned back to work by an email, that I can navigate city blocks and curate new music playlists all on my lonesome, and that I have spared myself the temptation of constantly comparing my own grubby little life with the beach vacations and the new condos carefully staged to inflict maximum envy.

When the train cars and waiting rooms are filled with people squinting into screens, I drift into daydream and conjure new essay ideas, or rearrange a chapter of my book-in-progress. Sometimes, I take out a small sketchpad and let rip with gesture drawings. Or I savor the tactile glide of book pages between my fingers. Imagination is a muscle, strengthened through repetition; sans smartphone, I’ve built those muscles up enough to sustain a career. I can understand why so many of my well-intentioned friends beg me to get myself to an Apple store, or “join the year 2017,” or say “it will make your life so much better/easier/more complete”—and it may make their lives far better/easier/more complete, but I’ve done quite well as a scrappy contrarian. I’ve always had to.

Both of my parents grew up in a grit-under-the nails, dishpan hands kind of working class. Their parents, dockworkers and waitresses, didn’t benefit from the capitalist ebullience of the post-World War II years; they were abandoned by the same boon that gave well-heeled suburbanites their super-deluxe vacuums and color TVs, their video recorders and non-stick pans. So, in turn, my parents each developed a decidedly ambivalent approach to technology—the material possessions they valued had a very blunt, tangible usefulness: a house, food, good clothing, and a car to get you to and from work. By the time I was born, they were older, more entrenched in their fiscal conservativism. Whatever remained once the mortgage was paid went into savings, and that was that—even as PCs sprung up everywhere, even as teenaged me begged and begged for one, because I wanted to be like my friends, who were already lording my lack of an AOL username over me. The taunting made me feel terminally uncool; but this wasn’t just a fleeting, teenage kind of feeling, it was a core-deep shame that my family hadn’t kept up with the Joneses—we didn’t have the same kind of house, the same kind of car, and, now, the same kind of computer. And we were dumber, duller, less “with it” for it.

My father finally caved and bought a white clunker of an IBM with dial-up internet back when I was sophomore in high school, but only because, “I guess you need it for homework.” Even then, many a Saturday night became a battle royale: I wanted to plunge down every long thread on the World Wide Web and my father wanted a manageable phone bill. Of course, the hours I spent staring at that boxy gray screen were some of the most transformative moments of my life—just as the hours I now spend in front of my laptop remain some of my most meaningful. Still, as I get older, I better understand my parents’ prioritizing thriftiness over modernity; though my only work-related aches and pains are eyestrain and stiff fingers, as a freelancer, I still live paycheck-to-paycheck, so I must make sharp, tactical decisions about priorities. And health insurance will come before an iPhone every day.

“The hours I spent staring at that boxy gray screen were some of the most transformative moments of my life.”

Sure, one could frame my entire reluctance toward getting on the treadmill of constant fees from data plans and upgrades and ill-advised binges through the app store as a kind of hipster resistance against, like, documenting my life instead of living it, or being subsumed into the Borg of Instagram brunches. But much of my refusal to get a smartphone has more to do with cost and class. This pervasive clamor for adopting personal technology—and not just adopting it, but allowing it to become some ubiquitous, indispensable extension of the self—grates on me because it promotes consumerism-as-a lifestyle. And just as the suburban opulence of the 1950s left my grandparents behind, and the tech bubble of the ’90s left my parents behind, I have been left behind by the 2010s’ obsession with the smartphone and constant connectivity. There is a classist arrogance behind the assumption that everyone can, or should, or already does own a smartphone; and all of this “concern” would be far better spent working to alleviate the very real lack of access to computers and high-speed internet in underserved communities around the country.

I’m pretty much assured of being the only “grandma millennial” in any room, and I’m pretty okay with that. My struggle is still with the people who make me feel dumber, duller, less “with it.” However, at a recent conference, I ran into an old acquaintance from school; a fellow writer I’ve always regarded as unimpeachably cool. As we went to swap digits, I braced myself for the familiar awkwardness of pulling out my “dumb phone” in the wild. And then, I saw it: the flip-phone in her hand. She looked down appreciatively at my app-less clunker. The same old lines—“Is that really your phone?” “Yeah, it is.”—took on a rare, and powerful, pleasantness. Instead of mutual chagrin, we regarded each other with utter relief. For that moment, we were two old soldiers who had, quite miraculously, found themselves back on the friendly side of the battle lines between those who are “with it” and the proud curmudgeons.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. Despite acknowledging the many disadvantages of having a “dumb phone” (para. 1), Bogart insists she doesn’t want a smartphone. Why not? Does her position make sense to you?

2. Fill in the following template to paraphrase Bogart’s thesis:

Even though , I do not own a smartphone because .

3. In paragraphs 3 and 4, Bogart cites the advantages of not owning a smartphone. Do you think these advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Why or why not?

4. In paragraph 3, Bogart identifies with her “fellow luddites.” Who were the luddites? Do you think Bogart qualifies as a modern-day luddite?

5. Why does Bogart devote two paragraphs (5—6) to discussing her family and their experiences with technology? How do these paragraphs support her position? How did her parents’ attitudes shape her own?

6. How would you characterize Bogart’s tone in this essay? Would you say she is defensive? Defiant? Something else? Explain.

7. Throughout her essay, Bogart is critical of those who own smartphones. What are some of her criticisms? Do you think they are valid?

8. Do you think a middle ground exists between Bogart’s position and the position that those who own smartphones would take? Is Bogart committing the either-or fallacy in this essay? Explain.

SOCIAL MEDIA: BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER, VIRTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY

DMITRIY KOZLOV

This essay appeared on the author’s blog on September 16, 2010.

I believe that the web and social media will, and have, brought us closer together as a society by increasing our communication with each other and understanding of each other with respect to greater society and culture. However, I don’t believe that social is, or should be, a substitute for human contact and personal interactions; rather, it enhances such connections.

Social media, by its very nature, relies on the growing connections between its individual members. It has been a powerful tool in reconnecting old friends and classmates to reunite, but it goes well beyond just reconnecting. Social media breeds new connections between individuals that otherwise could never have interacted because of social, geographical, and other very real and practical barriers. These new connections breed social interactions between like-minded individuals which often lead to very constructive collaborations.

In my own field (entrepreneurship), I see this very frequently. Many of the business partners with whom I work, I met through social media . . . many of them I have never actually met in person, yet trust them to be great friends and business partners. In some cases, I have seen people that met online build entire successful companies from the ideas that originated in Facebook groups and online chat. Social Spin and Buildingabrandonline are great examples. I know the co-founders personally (through social media, of course) and know that they all met each other through social media and are now building and running thriving companies together.

“Social media is more than a technology.”

Beyond the power of networking, social media, and the web (hi-tech) also makes human connection (hi-touch) more possible and more easily attainable, hence the concept that social media is “hi-tech hi-touch.” It does this by building a bridge between people that otherwise may not connect, even if they met directly in person and had no geographical boundaries. A great example of this is the phenomenon experienced by many rising college freshmen, who often find and connect with other students entering their freshman year at the same college over the summer via Facebook. During orientation and the first few weeks of classes, students recognize their peers from Facebook groups and interactions, and find it much easier to approach each other and engage in conversation; this is because despite their new environments and extremely varied backgrounds, they already have an acquaintance-like connection from Facebook. I have experienced this myself and know many others who have as well, and I can imagine that it has only increased since I was a first-year over 3 years ago. Bringing this same example back to the business world, one blogger discusses the impact that social media has had on face-to-face networking and communication: http://www.lucorpmarketing.com/high-tech-requires-high-touch-article-about-victoria-trafton-and-referral-institute/.

Yet another blogger and entrepreneur discusses the many tools within social media that are available to further stimulate and increase authentic communication between its members:

On the platform side the tool allows you to effectively build a profile (here’s mine), post articles, invite members to become a part of your network, join and create groups around community or themes, and create and promote local events.

On the harder to quantify side, the quality of engagement in this network far outstrips anything I’ve seen and been a part of in other networks. This comes through loud and clear in things like article comments and messages to new members.

The examples are endless from all corners of society, be it business, religion, music, sports, academics, whatever . . . the point is clear: social media is more than a technology, it is a cultural phenomenon that has allowed for greater connection (in quantity) and deeper communication (quality), not only within itself on the internet, but also in the offline societal community.

Just to perform a social (media) experiment, I decided to ask this question on my Facebook status a few days ago, and got surprisingly similar responses to the thesis above . . . the two of the responses are reproduced for you below:

David H. Manning: “Social media gives us contact we would not normally have. However, taken to the extreme you have people in the same room tweeting and texting one another. Sending a hug online is no where near the real thing. I’ve connected with many people across the country in my business. This week at a convention in Dallas I was able to see them face to face, to shake their hands and to really hug them. Awesome. My philosophy: All things in moderation.”

Donna Boccio Digilio: “I think it will do both depending upon what the person’s situation is. I will use myself as an example. It brought me together with friends from high school that I had lost track off and we have gotten together many times and it is been great socially for me. But, if you do not physically connect like I just described you are depriving yourself from physical contact and the real time of reading someone’s emotions on their face. Not actually seeing someone, reading their body language, facial expressions, etc., will retard if not debilitate your social instincts and social etiquette if you only do this by web and social media. If you have a social disability already it will only make matters worse. In order to feel confident socially and come together as people, it has to be face to face for me.”

These responses indicate the power social media has to connect and reconnect people, but still emphasize the importance of those connections leading to human contact.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. What exactly is Kozlov’s position on the issue of whether social media use unites or divides us? In one sentence, paraphrase his thesis.

2. In paragraph 4, Kozlov supports a point by saying, “I have experienced this myself.” Where else does he use his own experience as support? Is this support convincing? What other kinds of support does he use?

3. Paragraph 2 traces a causal chain. List the elements of this sequence, using arrows to connect causes and effects.

4. What does Kozlov mean when he calls social media “hi-tech hi-touch” (para. 4)? Is this characterization consistent with his thesis? Explain.

5. In paragraph 6, Kozlov says, “The examples are endless from all corners of society.” Do you think this statement is convincing? Do you think it would be more convincing if he toned it down or qualified it?

6. Kozlov is a student posting on his university’s blog. How do you think other students would react to his ideas? How might members of the faculty or administration react?

7. What specific comments quoted in this post suggest that social media use is not a good substitute for human interaction? Do such comments support or undercut Kozlov’s position?

8. This post was written in 2010. Are there any indications that it is not more current? Are the points it makes still valid? Explain your conclusion.

DOES USING SOCIAL MEDIA MAKE YOU LONELY?

DAVID LUDDEN

This piece was originally posted on the Psychology Today website on January 24, 2018.

Since the beginning of the internet, pundits have worried that computer-mediated communication would have a pernicious effect on our social networks. Instead of going out and interacting with others in traditional settings, the fearmongers fretted, people will stare at their computers all day typing messages to people they’ve never even met. And if you’ll look up from your smartphone a moment, you’ll see that everyone around you is engrossed in theirs. So maybe the fearmongers were right.

There’s even scientific evidence that suggests social media use is bad for your psychological health. Some results show that people feel lonelier—and experience drops in self-esteem—after using Facebook. These reports about the dangers of social media use have even made it into the mainstream media. You might have read some of these stories on Facebook.

A careful review of the literature, however, paints a more complicated picture. It’s certainly true that a number of studies have found a connection between social media use and declines in well-being. But other studies have found opposite results, with people feeling more socially connected as they spend more time on social media.

And then there are the studies that find conflicting results. For example, one study considered the relationship between the number of Facebook friends and social adjustment in college freshmen and seniors. The more Facebook friends the freshmen had, the less socially adjusted they were to the college environment. But the result was the opposite for the seniors. The more Facebook friends they had, the more socially adjusted they were.

Conflicting results such as these suggest the need to step back and look at the larger context. The fundamental question that researchers have been asking is this: “Does using social media make you lonely?” But it now seems we’ve been asking the wrong question. At least that’s the conclusion Duke University psychologist Jenna Clark and her colleagues came to in an article they recently published in the journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science.

According to these researchers, whether using social media makes you lonely or not depends on what you do with the social media. This point is illustrated in the study of college freshmen and seniors just mentioned. As it turns out, the college freshmen were using Facebook to keep in touch with their friends from high school. So the more time they spent online, the less they had for building new friendships on campus, leading to increased feelings of loneliness. In contrast, the college seniors were using Facebook mainly to communicate with friends on campus. So the more time they spent online, the more connected they felt.

“Whether using social media makes you lonely or not depends on what you do with the social media.”

Many people use social media as a substitute for in-person social exchanges. Particularly for those who suffer from social anxiety—that is, the fear of interacting with other people, especially strangers—social media seems like a safe alternative. These people lack the necessary social skills to successfully navigate interpersonal exchanges. As a result, their social networks are fragile and fail to support their need for connectedness. But when they go online, they carry with them this same set of inappropriate social behaviors.

Clark and colleagues warn of two pitfalls in social media use. The first pitfall is what they call “social snacking.” This involves activities such as browsing through other people’s profiles or reading other people’s comments without making any of your own. Social snacking may feel like social engagement, and while you’re doing it you might temporarily forget your own feelings of loneliness. But just as junk food makes you feel both bloated and empty afterward, social snacking only leaves you with much time wasted and more loneliness than before.

The second pitfall is self-comparison. On Facebook, other people’s lives seem so much more exciting and glamorous than your own. Of course, the socially savvy know when someone is just boasting, and they discount what that person says. But when you’re all alone in the wee hours of the morning, the tall tales people tell on social media can make your own life seem insignificant by comparison.

As Clark and colleagues point out, these pitfalls aren’t unique to social media. Rather, they’re the same traps that snare socially-isolated people in their attempts at interpersonal exchanges as well. Oftentimes, people with poor social skills will try to compensate by thrusting themselves into social situations, perhaps with the hope that if they just go where there are other people, someone will make friends with them. They join a church, hang out at the gym, or attend office parties. But they’re too inhibited to initiate an exchange with anyone they don’t already know, and when others do approach them, their awkwardness soon sends them away.

Some people engage in social snacking in real life too. Instead of interacting with those around them, they stand back and watch as others chit-chat, laugh, and seem to have a grand old time. In the end, the spectacle only makes the socially awkward feel even lonelier. And they engage in maladaptive social comparisons as well. Because other people seem to have much happier and more fulfilling lives than they do, their self-esteem takes a heavy hit as well.

In the end, whether using social media makes you feel lonelier or not depends on what you do when you’re online. If you already have good social skills, you’ll find Facebook a useful tool for keeping in touch with friends and family. In this way, social networking sites enrich our lives.

But if you find yourself passively browsing through social media to take your mind off your loneliness, you’d be better off spending some time in self-help instead. There are plenty of sites on the internet—including here on Psychology Today—that give sound advice on how to improve your social skills. Take the advice to heart and practice it in public. As your social skills improve, so will the quality of the time you spend on Facebook.

Reference

· Clark, J. L., Algoe, S. B., & Green, M. C. (2017). Social network sites and well-being: The role of social connection. Current Directions in Psychological Science. Advance online publication.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. In his introductory paragraph, Ludden claims that “pundits” and “fearmongers” have been critical of the effects of social media. Does his essay refute their criticisms? Is he setting up a straw man here? Explain.

2. What negative effects of social media use does Ludden discuss? What positive results does he say studies have identified? On balance, do the effects of social media he identifies seem to be primarily positive or negative?

3. How does Ludden explain the “conflicting results” (para. 4) seen in a study correlating the number of Facebook friends students have with their level of social adjustment? Does his explanation seem logical to you in terms of your own observations and experiences? Why or why not?

4. Where does Ludden answer the question his title asks? Is this answer satisfactory to you, or do you think he is sidestepping the issue? Explain.

5. Explain the “two pitfalls” (8—9) of social media use that Ludden identifies. Do these pitfalls also occur in face-to-face interpersonal interaction?

6. In his conclusion, Ludden gives his readers some advice. What does this conclusion suggest about his motivation for writing this essay?

I QUIT FACEBOOK, AND I MISS IT

WENCY LEUNG

This essay was published in Toronto’s Globe and Mail on April 5, 2018.

Last Sunday night, between putting away my laundry and brushing my teeth, I deactivated my Facebook account. I’d like to say I did it with gusto, logging off for the last time with a triumphant “Ha!” But in reality, I felt torn.

I was now on the outside, with no way of even seeing what I was missing. No more updates from my neighborhood groups about coming events and warnings of petty crimes. No more sweet—and okay, sometimes overabundant—photos of other people’s children. No more ridiculous, but occasionally side-splitting, viral videos. (Did you see that one of the adorable dog who can’t catch anything? Hilarious!) No more “Likes” to make me feel validated for my self-consciously crafted status updates.

I feared I would regret this decision.

Let me be straight with you. Quitting Facebook wasn’t my idea. Of course, I’d thought about doing it, long before the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In fact, for the past couple years, I thought about quitting almost daily. Facebook, for me, had become a bad habit, like biting my nails or slouching. I’d catch myself mindlessly checking it every few hours, between emails, before logging off at work, before going to bed. I didn’t even enjoy being on Facebook most of the time. Scrolling through my feed was simply something I’d become accustomed to doing and I resented that I was hooked.

Still, I didn’t seriously commit to deactivating my account until my editor asked me to give it a try, to see what it’s like to heed the recent calls to #DeleteFacebook. In light of reports the British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica may have improperly gathered data of up to 87 million Facebook users, including 622,000 Canadians, an Angus Reid poll reportedly found 64 percent of Canadian respondents said they would change their privacy settings or use Facebook less in the future, while 10 percent said they would suspend or delete their accounts. At least I’d be in good company.

Back around 2006, joining Facebook wasn’t entirely my idea either. Friends and relatives overseas had coaxed me to sign on to the then-two-year-old network because it was a more convenient way of staying in touch and sharing photos than email. I was an easy convert. In those early days, it was thrilling to find long-lost friends and reconnect with old acquaintances through the site. (That thrill wore off when I received my first “friend request” from an ex. But by then, I was already a regular user.)

Gearing myself up to quit Facebook was hard. In fact, preparing to leave the social network has, so far, proved to be harder than staying off it.

First, there were the practical preparatory steps. Facebook was my only way of communicating with many friends, especially those in other parts of the world. Before leaving, I’d need to collect all their emails—or at least the emails of those whom I’d realistically write. (As far as user privacy is concerned, though, even that mode of communication is problematic; embarrassingly, I still have a Yahoo email account.) Friends’ birthdays? That was a tough one. I jotted down a few birthdays into a notebook, but there’s little chance I’ll ever remember to wish people a happy birthday without Facebook’s automatic reminders. There’s even less chance anyone would remember mine. Worse, would anyone email me notices of marriages, births, and deaths?

Then, there was the psychological prep work. I needed to come to terms with the fact that I’d likely lose contact with the vast majority of Facebook friends I’d accumulated over most of my adult life. Before Facebook, saying goodbye was a big deal whenever you left a job or school or city. There were inevitably people you’d likely never see or hear from again. But Facebook made it possible to do away with hard goodbyes in favor of a softer farewell: “Let’s keep in touch!” Now, the process of deactivating my account felt like a definitive end to many relationships that had been artificially kept alive through occasional “Likes” and smiley face emoji. By disappearing from Facebook, I’d also cease to exist in other people’s minds.

“I needed to come to terms with the fact that I’d likely lose contact with the vast majority of Facebook friends I’d accumulated over most of my adult life.”

I also needed to mentally say goodbye to all the groups I had joined. This was probably one of the most anxiety-provoking parts of leaving Facebook. I was a member of a local parenting group, a couple of neighborhood groups, a group for former colleagues. By disconnecting from these groups, I feared I’d be totally in the dark.

How would I stay on top of what other parents are griping about or what the social norms are around child-rearing these days? What if my child turns out to be a total misfit because I’m not on Facebook? How would I find out about the latest neighborhood news and gossip? Just days prior, a neighbor had alerted me via Facebook to a mugging incident that occurred nearby. Another neighbor posted that he needed to borrow a lemon to make a dish. How would I know the descriptions of potential muggers or respond to recipe emergencies if not for Facebook?

Leaving wouldn’t be so hard if everyone else did the same. That way, we’d probably be knocking on one another’s doors a whole lot more or actually using our phones to make phone calls. As it is, it kind of felt like I was packing up and going home all by myself, when the party’s still in full swing.

Finally, there was the process of quitting itself. After selecting to deactivate my account, Facebook craftily showed me a lineup of my friends, whom, it claimed, would “miss” me. It then asked me to select my reason for leaving from a list including, “I have a privacy concern,” “I don’t find Facebook useful” and “I spend too much time on Facebook.” No matter which one I clicked, it offered me tips on how I could address the problem—while, of course, remaining active on the site. As it turns out, this was the final push I needed. The more Facebook tried to convince me from leaving, the more I wanted to get out of there. “Deactivate Now.” Click.

More than a week later, I’m still on the outside. I don’t have any great revelations about how much extra time I have or how productive I am, now that I’m no longer constantly checking my feed. It’s not as though I’ve suddenly replaced Facebook with CrossFit or reading Dostoevsky. In spite of multiple studies that have linked Facebook use to depression, anxiety, and loneliness, I can’t even say quitting the network has made me any happier or more social in real life. And I don’t feel my online privacy is any more secure either. I still use Google. I still shop online. (And I still really need to get rid of that Yahoo account.)

Resisting the impulse to check Facebook is getting easier each day. I found myself absentmindedly logging on less than 14 hours after I quit and immediately deactivated my account again before I could catch a glimpse of what I’d missed. This subconscious slip was an uncomfortable reminder of how ingrained Facebook had become in my life. It does make me feel better knowing I’m no longer bound to the network. Still, I can’t promise myself I’ll stay off for good.

I’m finally free of Facebook. And I’m really going to miss it.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. What prompted Leung to give up Facebook? How did she prepare to separate from Facebook?

2. In what respects does Leung see Facebook as “a bad habit” (para. 4)?

3. In paragraph 12, Leung says, “Leaving wouldn’t be so hard if everyone else did the same.” What might be some short- and long-term results of “everyone else” leaving social media sites like Facebook and Instagram?

4. How did Facebook make it hard for Leung to deactivate her account? What effect did the obstacles it imposed have on her?

5. How has Leung’s life changed in the brief time since she quit Facebook? How would you expect it to change in the future? Why?

6. On balance, does this essay highlight the positive or negative aspects of Facebook and similar sites?

THE FLIGHT FROM CONVERSATION

SHERRY TURKLE

This essay was published in the New York Times on April 21, 2012.

We live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.

At home, families sit together, texting and reading email. At work executives text during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can be done.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and talked to hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in lives. I’ve learned that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only what we do, but also who we are.

We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party.

Our colleagues want to go to that board meeting but pay attention only to what interests them. To some this seems like a good idea, but we can end up hiding from one another, even as we are constantly connected to one another.

A businessman laments that he no longer has colleagues at work. He doesn’t stop by to talk; he doesn’t call. He says that he doesn’t want to interrupt them. He says they’re “too busy on their email.” But then he pauses and corrects himself. “I’m not telling the truth. I’m the one who doesn’t want to be interrupted. I think I should. But I’d rather just do things on my BlackBerry.”

A 16-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says almost wistfully, “Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation.”

In today’s workplace, young people who have grown up fearing conversation show up on the job wearing earphones. Walking through a college library or the campus of a high-tech start-up, one sees the same thing: we are together, but each of us is in our own bubble, furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens. A senior partner at a Boston law firm describes a scene in his office. Young associates lay out their suite of technologies: laptops, iPods, and multiple phones. And then they put their earphones on. “Big ones. Like pilots. They turn their desks into cockpits.” With the young lawyers in their cockpits, the office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be broken.

In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people—carefully kept at bay. We can’t get enough of one another if we can use technology to keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far, just right. I think of it as a Goldilocks effect.

Texting and email and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means we can edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body. Not too much, not too little—just right.

Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.

We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don’t. Email, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places—in politics, commerce, romance, and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation.

Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for saying, “I am thinking about you.” Or even for saying, “I love you.” But connecting in sips doesn’t work as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In conversation we tend to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it’s derived from words that mean to move, together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we are called upon to see things from another’s point of view.

Face-to-face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news. Shakespeare might have said, “We are consum’d with that which we were nourish’d by.”

And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection. These days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little motivation to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires trust. It’s hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect.

“We use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves.”

As we get used to being shortchanged on conversation and to getting by with less, we seem almost willing to dispense with people altogether. Serious people muse about the future of computer programs as psychiatrists. A high school sophomore confides to me that he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about dating; he says the A.I. would have so much more in its database. Indeed, many people tell me they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more advanced, “she” will be more and more like a best friend—one who will listen when others won’t.

During the years I have spent researching people and their relationships with technology, I have often heard the sentiment “No one is listening to me.” I believe this feeling helps explain why it is so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed—each provides so many automatic listeners. And it helps explain why—against all reason—so many of us are willing to talk to machines that seem to care about us. Researchers around the world are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be companions to the elderly, to children, to all of us.

One of the most haunting experiences during my research came when I brought one of these robots, designed in the shape of a baby seal, to an elder-care facility, and an older woman began to talk to it about the loss of her child. The robot seemed to be looking into her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman was comforted.

And so many people found this amazing. Like the sophomore who wants advice about dating from artificial intelligence and those who look forward to computer psychiatry, this enthusiasm speaks to how much we have confused conversation with connection and collectively seem to have embraced a new kind of delusion that accepts the simulation of compassion as sufficient unto the day. And why would we want to talk about love and loss with a machine that has no experience of the arc of human life? Have we so lost confidence that we will be there for one another?

We expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship. Always-on/always-on-you devices provide three powerful fantasies: that we will always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; and that we never have to be alone. Indeed our new devices have turned being alone into a problem that can be solved.

When people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device. Here connection works like a symptom, not a cure, and our constant, reflexive impulse to connect shapes a new way of being.

Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by sharing our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a feeling; I want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to send a text.”

So, in order to feel more, and to feel more like ourselves, we connect. But in our rush to connect, we flee from solitude, our ability to be separate and gather ourselves. Lacking the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people but don’t experience them as they are. It is as though we use them, need them as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile selves.

We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true. If we are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our children to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.

I am a partisan for conversation. To make room for it, I see some first, deliberate steps. At home, we can create sacred spaces: the kitchen, the dining room. We can make our cars “device-free zones.” We can demonstrate the value of conversation to our children. And we can do the same thing at work. There we are so busy communicating that we often don’t have time to talk to one another about what really matters. Employees asked for casual Fridays; perhaps managers should introduce conversational Thursdays. Most of all, we need to remember—in between texts and emails and Facebook posts—to listen to one another, even to the boring bits, because it is often in unedited moments, moments in which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another.

I spend the summers at a cottage on Cape Cod, and for decades I walked the same dunes that Thoreau once walked. Not too long ago, people walked with their heads up, looking at the water, the sky, the sand, and at one another, talking. Now they often walk with their heads down, typing. Even when they are with friends, partners, children, everyone is on their own devices.

So I say, look up, look at one another, and let’s start the conversation.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. This essay was first published in 2012. Are Turkle’s conclusions still valid—or perhaps even more valid—today? If you were updating this essay, what additional examples could you present to support (or challenge) her conclusions?

2. In paragraph 1, Turkle makes a distinction between conversation and connection. What is the difference? According to Turkle, how do we “shortchange ourselves” in the process of moving from conversation to connection (para. 11)?

3. In paragraph 3, Turkle presents information on her research methods. Why? Is she appealing here to logos, ethos, or pathos?

4. What does Turkle mean by “alone together” (4)? Do your own experiences and observations confirm or challenge the existence of this phenomenon?

5. In paragraph 20, Turkle claims, “We expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship.” Do you think this characterization of our plugged-in society is exaggerated? Overly pessimistic? Explain your views.

6. In paragraph 24, Turkle says, “We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true.” How does she explain this idea? Do you agree with her reasoning?

CLOSER TOGETHER OR FURTHER APART? DIGITAL DEVICES AND THE NEW GENERATION GAP

ROBERT WEISS

This essay first appeared in the Huffington Post on January 30, 2014.

Angry Birds: 1, Grandparents: 0

Last week Chuck and Janet Bloom gave their only daughter a night off by taking their grandchildren out for dinner at a local pizza parlor. Both were looking forward to a playful evening with the kids. But as soon as they sat at the table, even before the menus appeared, they noted with dismay that their beloved grandkids were more engaged with and attentive to their holiday-acquired digital devices than to their loving, pizza-partying grandparents. Miriam, their sweet 14-year-old granddaughter, had her eyes intently focused on the contents of her iPad Facebook page. Briana, the 11-year-old, was posting her whereabouts on Twitter, Facebook, and Foursquare. And at the far end of the table, 7-year-old Sam’s lips pursed in silent focus as he furiously engaged in a PlayStation cowboy shootout. Feeling frustrated, hurt, and angry—like they might as well have dined alone—Chuck and Janet quietly launched into an oft-held discussion about how these devices are ruining not just their three grandkids, but young people in general.

At the very same moment and just one table over, half a dozen 20-something work friends were seated, also preparing to order pizza. And just one look over at that crowd affirmed Chuck and Janet’s worries about a “lost generation.” At that table, two of the diners amicably swapped office gossip, but the others were as engaged with their digital devices as the aforementioned grandkids. What the clucking Chuck and Janet failed to notice was that no one at this second table seemed even remotely concerned or bothered by the fact that technology held as much sway as actual people.

So, why were Chuck and Janet seething about the “digital snub” from their grandchildren, while everyone at the other table managed to enjoy themselves, completely unruffled by the ever-shifting sands of live conversation, texting, tweeting, and posting? In great part this difference stems from the fact that Chuck and Janet are digital immigrants, while their grandkids and the 20-somethings one table over are all digital natives—different generations divided by different definitions of personal respect, attentiveness, interpersonal communication, and what constitutes a meaningful relationship.

Digital Natives versus Digital Immigrants

Generally speaking, people born before 1980 are digital immigrants, and those born after are digital natives. This somewhat arbitrary dividing line attempts to separate those who grew up actively using the internet and those who did not. Another, and perhaps better, way of looking at things is to say that digital natives unquestioningly value and appreciate the role that digital technology plays in their lives, whereas digital immigrants hold mixed views on the subject. Not surprisingly, thanks to continual advances in digital technology (such as the introduction of internet-enabled smartphones a few years ago), the separation between digital natives and digital immigrants is widening almost by the day, resulting not so much in a generation gap as a generation chasm.

This new generation gap is evident in practically every facet of modern life. For instance, there are extreme differences in the ways digital natives and digital immigrants conduct business, gather news and information, and spend their paychecks. They also differ significantly in the ways they define personal privacy, experience entertainment, and socially engage (as evidenced in the pizza restaurant scenario above). Simply put, in a mere 25 years our basic forms of interpersonal communication and interaction have been drastically reformatted, and those who prefer the old ways of mostly face-to-face contact often feel left out and unappreciated.

In some ways this new generation gap sounds a lot like every other generation gap in history. However, previous generation gaps have mostly centered on young people vocally, visually, and in-real-time challenging the beliefs and experiences of their elders. Today, the divide is more about the fact that young people neither see nor hear their elders because, from a communications standpoint, the two generations are not in the same room. For instance, in the pizza restaurant Chuck and Janet are “present” and interacting at the dinner table, while their grandkids are “present” and interacting in a completely different, entirely digital universe. In some ways, this means that Chuck and Janet are dinosaurs. Basically, because they’re not texting, tweeting, or posting to social media, they’re not effectively communicating with their grandkids. Thus it seems the 1960s mantra that Chuck and Janet used to utter, “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” has for their grandkids morphed into, “We don’t care about anyone over 30 because we can’t see or hear them.”

Connection/Disconnection

Interestingly, many digital natives think that young people are isolated and disconnected—more interested in machines than people. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, no generation in history has been more interconnected than Generations Y and Z. Statistics readily back this up. One study found that in 2009 more than half of American teens logged on to a social media site at least once per day, and nearly a quarter logged on 10 or more times per day. In the same year, a study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that more than three-quarters of U.S. teens owned a cellphone, with 88 percent texting regularly. Boys were sending and receiving 30 texts per day, with girls averaging 80. A more recent Pew study, this one conducted in 2012, finds these numbers are rising rapidly among every Gen Y and Z demographic. In fact, the first sentence of the 2012 study’s overview reads: “Teens are fervent communicators.” Indeed!

This same survey also reveals (to the chagrin of many digital immigrants) that texting is now the primary mode of communication between teens and their friends and family, far surpassing phone calls, emails, and face-to-face interactions. Depending on your age and point of view, of course, this may or may not be a bad thing.

Consider Brad, a tech-savvy digital immigrant who recently flew home from the West Coast to visit his family in Chicago. One evening at dinner there were three generations—his parents, him and his sister, and his sister’s kids. During dinner the oldest child, 17, asked him via text:

“Are you going to marry that girl you brought home last year?”

He texted back: “Yes, but no one else knows yet. Is that OK?”

In response, she typed: “I’m so excited. I know you don’t want your mom and dad to know yet, but they are really hoping you will. They liked her. So just between us, can I be a bridesmaid?”

He texted: “I know my secret would be safe with you, and of course you will be a bridesmaid!”

For Brad, this poignant conversation with his niece was one of the more meaningful exchanges of his entire five-day visit. And it is possible that without the privacy shield provided by texting, his 17-year-old niece may not have had the courage to broach the subject, even if she’d been able to find a moment alone with him. For her, the digital buffer of texting made this sweet and intimate exchange possible. And the conversation was no less meaningful for either person just because it was conducted via text.

Talk versus Text: Does It Matter?

It is possible that human interactions are no less meaningful or productive simply because they are digital rather than face-to-face. It is also possible the exact opposite is true. Frankly, it depends more on those doing the communicating than anything else. Most often, digital immigrants (Baby Boomer and Gen X types) tend to want/need/prefer in-person, live interactions, or at least telephone conversations where they can hear the other person’s voice.

Digital natives, on the other hand, seem to feel that communication is communication, no matter the venue. To them, it seems silly to wait until they run into someone when they can text that person right now and get an instant response. They ask: “Why would I be disconnected when I can post, tweet, and text to let my family and friends known what I’m doing and what I need, and they can do the same with me?” This, of course, is the crux of the current generation gap—shifting from a fully analog world to one that is increasingly digital.

In my recently released book Closer Together, Further Apart, my coauthor Jennifer Schneider and I note that in today’s world the best communicators are those who are willing and able to engage other people in whatever venue is most appropriate and useful at the time. They neither avoid nor insist on a particular mode of interaction. Instead, they work hard to make sure their message is fully understood by the intended audience no matter what. In other words, they embrace the idea that they need to live and communicate fluently in both the digital and analog worlds. As technology evolves, so do good communicators, and they do so without forgetting or discounting what has worked in the past, remaining constantly aware of the fact that some people may prefer the older methodology, while others prefer the new.

Unfortunately, as has always been the case when changes in technology have swiftly and profoundly affected our day-to-day lives, many people, young and old alike, become entrenched in the belief that “the way we do it is the best way.” The simple truth is that cultural/technological assimilation is rarely an easy task. Sometimes it can feel easier to judge and avoid, rather than to embrace and evolve. Thus we have the current communications-driven generation gap. That said, the effort of reaching out beyond our generational comfort zone is usually well worth the effort. Brad found that to be true with his niece, and Chuck and Janet might also find it to be the case if they were only willing to give it a shot.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. Weiss opens his essay with a two-paragraph anecdote. What point does this anecdote illustrate? Is this an effective opening strategy? What other options might have been more effective?

2. The title of this essay introduces the two sides of the issue Weiss discusses. Does he take a side in this essay? If so, which side is he on?

3. What is the difference between a digital native and a digital immigrant? How is this distinction central to Weiss’s thesis?

4. What is the “new generation gap” (para. 5)? According to Weiss, how is it different from previous generation gaps? Does he offer strategies for closing this gap? Can you suggest a strategy?

5. What does the text exchange reproduced in paragraphs 10—13 illustrate? How does it support Weiss’s thesis? What other kinds of support does he include? Do you think he needs more (or different) supporting evidence? Why or why not?

6. In paragraph 15, Weiss says, “It is possible that human interactions are no less meaningful or productive simply because they are digital rather than face-to-face.” How do you suppose Sherry Turkle (p. 463) would respond to this comment? Why?

VISUAL ARGUMENT: UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH VIDEO

Image

The text beside the man working on the computer reads, lesser than 2 hours per day. The text above the silhouettes reads, People who use social media. The text below the silhouettes read, had 2 times the odds of perceived social isolation.

Image

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

1. This visual is a still from a video reporting findings of scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. What message does it convey? Is it simply informative, or does it make an argument? Explain.

2. List the individual images depicted in this visual. Would its impact be greater if it used photographs of actual people and items instead of silhouettes? Why or why not?

3. The images in this visual are accompanied by a few lines of text. Is this text necessary, or could the same message be conveyed with just the images? Why are “2x the odds” and “>2” set in larger type than the other text?

TEMPLATE FOR WRITING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

Write a one-paragraph cause-and-effect argument in which you take a position on whether our reliance on social media brings us closer together or drives us apart. Follow the template below, filling in the blanks to create your argument.

Although increased social media use is seen by many as a positive development, some people believe that it has had negative consequences as well. One positive result of the spread of social media has been . Another positive result has been

. Despite these developments, many people see social media as a negative influence. For example, they believe .

Others claim .

These critics suggest .

Granted, .

Still, .

All things considered, it seems clear that our use of social media [brings us together/drives us apart].

Image

EXERCISE 13.6 RECONSIDERING YOUR CONCLUSIONS

Working with two or three of your classmates, discuss your feelings about your generation’s use of social media. Write a paragraph that summarizes your group’s conclusions.

Image

EXERCISE 13.7 WRITING A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENT

Write a cause-and-effect argument on the topic, “Does Our Reliance on Social Media Bring Us Together or Drive Us Apart?” Begin by considering all possible problems associated in our increasing reliance on social media. Then, consider the advantages of social media use. After weighing both sides of this issue, write an essay that supports your position. (If you like you may incorporate material you developed for Exercise 13.7 and the paragraph you wrote following the template on page 472 into your essay.) Cite the readings on pages 451—471 where necessary, and be sure to document the sources you use and to include a works-cited page. (See Chapter 10 for information on documenting sources.)

Image

EXERCISE 13.8 REVIEWING THE FOUR PILLARS OF ARGUMENT

Image

Review the four pillars of argument discussed in Chapter 1. Does your essay include all four elements of an effective argument? Add anything that is missing. Then, label the key elements of your essay.

Image

WRITING ASSIGNMENTS: CAUSE-AND-EFFECT ARGUMENTS

1. What could your school do to encourage students to adopt healthier lifestyles? Write an editorial for your college newspaper in the form of a cause-and-effect argument. In your editorial, take one of these two positions:

§ If the university takes steps to encourage healthier lifestyles, students will benefit greatly.

§ If the university does not take steps to encourage students to adopt healthier lifestyles, the consequences could be serious.

2. Look at images of celebrities online, and consider the likely effects of these images on teenagers. Choose four or five of these images, and then write an essay arguing that such images help to encourage poor self-esteem, risky behavior, or eating disorders—or, that the celebrities pictured serve as positive role models for young people. Include some of the images in your essay, and analyze the impact of their visual elements as well as the effect of the words in the accompanying articles or captions.

3. In recent years, young children’s lives have become more and more structured. Instead of the free play that their parents enjoyed, many of today’s children are busy with scheduled sports, lessons, and play dates. Write an essay structured as a causal chain that traces the probable causes of this change as well as its likely effects on children and on their families. In your thesis statement, indicate whether you consider the effects positive or negative.