Unit - 8 Technology and Humanity Flashcards
In the first reading for this unit, an ex-Google executive is quoted as saying: “It’s Homo sapiens minds against the most powerful supercomputers and billions of dollars . . . It’s like bringing a knife to a space laser fight . . . We are going to look back and say, ‘Why on earth did we do this to ourselves’?” Explain this comment by tying it into the research that is presented concerning the human proclivity for novelty bias, insecurity, and addiction. What kinds of abilities, if any, do human beings have for mitigating against these forces? Do you think emerging technologies have enhanced or frustrated those abilities? Why or why not?
This comment refers to the dangers of smart phones and their propensities to exploit human proclivities thereby resulting in decreased attention spans, brain power, and quality of relationships.
- Smart phones take advantage of novelty bias (a survival function in humans to wire out attention to the new). Phones use this bias against us by buzzing us with new notifications and having the notification in symbol in a bright and attractive red, we are helpless to ignore such novel notifications.
- Notifications are all the more transfixing because they can play on insecurities by potentially presenting positive feedback to us. Instagram withholds showing all the likes on a post at a time to encourage checking and further use in the hopes of gaining the positive feedback.
- Devices are designed through the method of variable rewards which has been known to facilitate addiction i.e. not knowing when the reward will be distributed.
Humans have the ability of cognizance and self-control, we have lived with various attention grabbing and addictive technologies our whole lives and the modern smart phone is just another more powerful technology of this kind. Yes, the smartphone has certainly frustrated our abilities for self-control as the author shows through decreasing attention spans. However, our access to knowledge through the device offers an enhanced means of cognizance that can facilitate our re-negotiation with these devices. The new challenge of our attention that smartphones present demands critical decision making that can help people gain a deeper understanding into how they divide their time through value judgements. These judgements can be aided through the smartphone which we can use to explore our deepest values. Whether our judgement leads us to mis-attentive life or a one well spent will reflect the values we appreciate.
What does Thomas mean by the Aristotelian ideal of “companion friendship”? What reasons does he present for thinking that digital technology is a great facilitator for communication but not for conversation? Why does he think those considerations severely inhibit the possibility of “companion friendship” in the digital age? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
Companion friendship is a type of friendship in which a person has very few of this kind, friends of this kind genuinely enjoy spending time with each other and may even consider each other an extension of themselves. Friends of this kind constantly affirm and reinforce the depth of their friendship, while gaining insight on themselves and each other.
Because digital technology allows for communication any and everywhere, attention during communication is often divided and when it is least likely to be undivided it will lack spontaneity. The mobility of the cell phone disincentives spontaneous fully-attentive calls and replaces them with the more convenient and pragmatic texts and facebook posts.
Thomas argues that digital technology inhibits companion friendship by disallowing for spontaneity and direct conversation thereby disallowing the friends from getting a greater understanding of each others character and demonstrating their care for each other. Digital communication fails to deliver or prove sincerity or caring through messages, thereby disallowing affirmation of the depth of friendship and making the friendship more replaceable.
I agree with Thomas that a friendship through digital communication would be unable to get to the companion level but I doubt that the presence of the digital is actually making these kinds of friendships rarer. Because people want to be known and know other people and have genuine relationships, It is unlikely that digital media would inhibit the development of this friendship. Thomas then argues that people share meaningless content with each other and do not express their true feelings online, and he claims that it might make sense to have 5000 facebook friends rather then 3 companion friends and this type of relationship is decaying. I would argue that the phenomenon he is describing is symptomatic of the platforms he refers to but it is not at all characteristic of the current state of people in general.
Perhaps the fact the term “facebook friend” helps explicate the fact that most people vividly see a clear divide between an online presence (that where posts lives) and an actual human presence (that where companion friendships take place).
Consider the following passage from Thomas’s essay:
There is simply no denying the extraordinary wonders of technology as a vehicle for communicating information. The mistake lies in losing sight of the truth that in so very many instances what matters enormously to human beings is not just that the right information is communicated to us, but also the way in which we experience that information being communicated to us. (Thomas, p. 388)
Explain this passage by drawing upon the phenomenon of a parent saying “I love you” to a child. Can digital communication capture the depth and meaning of such a phrase in the same way that a face-to-face encounter can? Why or why not?
This passage explains how the efficiency of digital communication threatens real relations through its ever-growing incorporation into our lives. Thomas notes that friendship is more then the transfer of information from one to another, but it involves the direct presence of another, thereby allowing for full recognition and affirmation of friendship.
The failure of digital communication to support human relationships can be illustrated by comparing I love you in a text compared to a parent telling their child i love you. Through the digital form no human emotion can be transfered and therefore no proof of sincerity or care can be expressed whereas a caring and loving parent expressing the same sentiment offers a truth beyond doubt.
Why does Turkle think that our reliance upon digital technology has frustrated not only our social relationships but also our capacity for self-reflection? What kinds of strategies does Turkle suggest we employ for addressing these challenges in the digital age?
Turkle argues that digital technology has frustrated our social relationships by competing our attention with the distracting phones. Allows people to be social with each-others on their own terms through technology. This threatens to retard social skills in youth. Texting offers more control over self-presentation.
It has frustrated our self-reflection by competing with our alone time. Conversation with others grows our ability to have conversations with ourselves. Sharing content gives us feeling rather then feeling being shared and is isolating. Being connected disallows for solitude and therefore makes us unable to find ourselves.
Turkle suggests that we should take the time to self-reflect and have conversation about what technology is doing to our daily lives, there is time to reconsider how technology is used. Turkle suggests that solitude should be taken seriously, talk about what matters with friends and really listen to others about what they have to say.
