Going into these readings I knew that the theme of the class was going to revolve around technology. So when I went into our first reading of Turkle’s, “The Empathy Diaries,” I knew that I needed to look for possible passages that could relate to our usage of technology and how it affects us. While obviously Turkle’s whole essay is about what I aforementioned, I read the reading with a special interest in any passages that could be used for my essays, or comments in class. I would look to underline sections that provided a “so what” to why digital technology is bad for you. As Turkle says, “learning isn’t all about the answers. It’s about what the answers mean” (344). I wanted to underline the passages that seemed unordinary compared to the rest of the text; I wanted it to be so that if I compiled all of my underlined sections, a random reader could just read them to get an idea of Turkle’s most important points. As I was reading Turkle’s paper, I would start to see a theme in how digital technology affects us; then following that, I would begin to subconsciously look for examples that can help further the theme that I discovered. For example, as I read The Empathy Diaries I noticed how Turkle consistently returned to the idea of digital technology being a flight from conversation, almost as though we feared it. From there on, I would subconsciously be attracted to passages that exemplified this. Passages like the following caught my eye, “Even children text each other rather than talk face-to-face with friends – or, for that matter, rather than daydream, where they can take time alone with their thoughts” (344). I always looked at my readings through an essay-centric point of view. I wanted to compile ideas and thoughts through Turkle’s writing where I could return to the text and just look at any of my underlined sections for citations. I developed a theme, and an idea about what my essay would revolve around as I was reading the essay. For each section that I thought applied to a theme I was gathering, I would underline, and usually write a few words about the gist of that passage.
Author: mdewhurst
Below is my 1000+ word draft from before my peer review:
Digital technology is a highly scrutinized innovation with many pros and cons. Its brilliance and wide access to unlimited information is eye-opening. From a personal educational point of view, the vastness of the internet is extremely helpful for learning and keeping up with my classes. However, outside of the classroom, digital technology can be a very distracting thing that takes time away from what is most important to us. Conversations with my family and friends are being replaced by time on my phone or computer. The time it takes me to complete assignments is drawn out and takes longer due to the distractions of digital technology. Nicholas Carr, writer and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011, highlights these pros and cons of digital technology in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He details how digital technology can be a distraction and causes us to have less attention for things we used to be able to focus on. There are a lot of comparisons between Carr’s writing, and some of my classmates’ writing in English 110. Liv Arvidson argues that technology today is becoming an addiction, and a huge distraction for children especially. She argues that screen time for kids needs to be limited so that they don’t grow up with unhealthy habits. Her opinions on the matter of digital technology align with Carr’s; it is a distraction, and we need to decrease our usage of it. Jack Thurmond, another classmate of mine, underlines the importance of technology in a working sense, while also calling attention to the dangerous, addicting side of it. Thurmond emphasizes his addiction to his phone, specifically, while talking about how it can make him less productive and more inefficient due to its distractions. Through the work of the aforementioned three writers, I will demonstrate how we see a theme through their experiences and opinions that digital technology can be detrimental, due to its addictive, distracting features.
Digital technology’s ease and brilliance has a negative effect on our ability to focus and take in information. Carr worries that we have become accustomed to relying on the internet for our source of knowledge. Everything is so quick and easy on the internet, so now anything more time-consuming will feel boring and unimportant. Carr furthers this idea, by writing, “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski” (2). The internet at times proves to be a nuisance when it comes to focusing and completing mental tasks. Its efficiency and ease cause us to lose our attention-span and patience. We have become so accustomed to the bulk of the demanding work being done by digital technology that we are now ill-prepared for doing it ourselves. Similarly to Carr, Thurmond claims that the freedom and recreational use of digital technology causes him to be distracted and spend longer amounts of time when doing his work due to unnecessary distractions. He writes, “I can think of countless times when I have sat down to do a homework assignment and ended up watching tik toks, film and spent more time than needed to complete an assignment.” Thurmond’s work, and ability to focus are compromised by his attachment to his phone. Thurmond’s phone is used as a coping mechanism to cure his boredom; because of this, he is no longer able to focus on things that don’t interest him. This demonstrates how despite all digital technology’s good aspects, it proves to be a burden when it comes to putting in hard, attention-required work. Digital technology is an addictive innovation that causes us to be more distracted and less focused. The ease and importance that technology possesses in our social and work life has caused us to rely on it and be controlled by it. Carr details technology’s chokehold on us by writing, “Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets’ reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to it podcasts, or just tripping from link to link. (unlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them)” (2). Carr describes how his life often revolves around digital technology. When not working, his entertainment comes in the form of the internet’s services. As Carr mentions, the internet and its information, ideas, and entertainment “propel you toward them.” This is an interesting choice of words, and hints at Carr’s inability to ignore them. Likewise to Carr, Arvidson has a similar idea regarding how digital technology draws us in and causes us to be addicted to it. Arvidson focuses more on how technology’s addictive ways affect kids growing up. She writes, “I see kids at restaurants and other public settings who will only “behave” when on a screen. I have a cousin who is 8 years old, and he cannot go very long without his tablet, because his parents have always allowed him to have it whenever he wanted. Now, when they say no, he throws tantrums and acts out because he does not know life without it.” Arvidson demonstrates how the attitude, and ability to behave for kids revolves around whether they have a screen around them. Their reliance on digital technology is so strong that they are not able to conduct themselves in the right way without it. Arvidson shows how the drug of digital technology causes withdrawals when taken away. When parents don’t allow kids to be around a screen they misbehave and throw a tantrum. This will prove to be detrimental later in life; this bad habit of addiction to technology will make them unable to function without it. When they grow up they won’t be able to complete the same tasks and skills that adults were once able to. They also won’t have the same level of social skills due to the amount of conversations taken away due to digital technology. The addiction-riddled side of digital technology is something that’s distracting humans and making us less focused and competent.
Now, below is my final draft:
Matthew Dewhurst
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
19 April 2024
Why Digital Technology is a Drug
Digital technology is a highly scrutinized innovation with many pros and cons. Its brilliance and wide access to unlimited information is eye-opening. From a personal educational point of view, the vastness of the internet is extremely helpful for learning and keeping up with my classes. However, outside of the classroom, digital technology can be a very distracting thing that takes time away from what is most important to us. Conversations with my family and friends are being replaced by time on my phone or computer. The time it takes me to complete assignments is drawn out and takes longer due to the distractions of digital technology. Nicholas Carr, writer and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011, highlights these pros and cons of digital technology in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He details how digital technology can be a distraction and causes us to have less attention for things we used to be able to focus on. There are a lot of comparisons between Carr’s writing, and some of my classmates’ writing in English 110. Liv Arvidson argues that technology today is becoming an addiction, and a huge distraction for children especially. She argues that screen time for kids needs to be limited so that they don’t grow up with unhealthy habits. Her opinions on the matter of digital technology align with Carr’s; it is a distraction, and we need to decrease our usage of it. Jack Thurmond, another classmate of mine, underlines the importance of technology in a working sense, while also calling attention to the dangerous, addicting side of it. Thurmond emphasizes his addiction to his phone, specifically, while talking about how it can make him less productive and more inefficient due to its distractions. Through the work of the aforementioned three writers, I will demonstrate how we see a theme through their experiences and opinions that digital technology can be detrimental, due to its addictive, distracting features.
Digital technology’s ease and brilliance has a negative effect on our ability to focus and take in information. Carr worries that we have become accustomed to relying on the internet for our source of knowledge. Everything is so quick and easy on the internet, so now anything more time-consuming will feel boring and unimportant. Carr furthers this idea, by writing, “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski” (2). The internet at times proves to be a nuisance when it comes to focusing and completing mental tasks. Its efficiency and ease cause us to lose our attention-span and patience. We have become so accustomed to the bulk of the demanding work being done by digital technology that we are now ill-prepared for doing it ourselves. Similarly to Carr, Thurmond claims that the freedom and recreational use of digital technology causes him to be distracted and spend longer amounts of time when doing his work due to unnecessary distractions. He writes, “I can think of countless times when I have sat down to do a homework assignment and ended up watching tik toks, film and spent more time than needed to complete an assignment.” Thurmond’s work, and ability to focus are compromised by his attachment to his phone. Thurmond’s phone is used as a coping mechanism to cure his boredom; because of this, he is no longer able to focus on things that don’t interest him. This demonstrates how despite all digital technology’s good aspects, it proves to be a burden when it comes to putting in hard, attention-required work. I can relate to Thurmond’s ideas; the wide world of the internet poses many diversions when doing work. It has become so difficult to ignore the internet, and the distractions it poses, while working that I need to allocate more time to doing my work just because of it. Thurmond’s writing, like Carr’s, demonstrates their agreement that digital technology poses many distractions, and causes us to be more inefficient and unproductive.
Digital technology is an addictive innovation that causes us to be more distracted and less focused. The ease and importance that technology possesses in our social and work life has caused us to rely on it and be controlled by it. Carr details technology’s chokehold on us by writing, “Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets’ reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to it podcasts, or just tripping from link to link. (unlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them)” (2). Carr describes how his life often revolves around digital technology. When not working, his entertainment comes in the form of the internet’s services. As Carr mentions, the internet and its information, ideas, and entertainment “propel you toward them.” This is an interesting choice of words, and hints at Carr’s inability to ignore them. Likewise to Carr, Arvidson has a similar idea regarding how digital technology draws us in and causes us to be addicted to it. Arvidson focuses more on how technology’s addictive ways affect kids growing up. She writes, “I see kids at restaurants and other public settings who will only “behave” when on a screen. I have a cousin who is 8 years old, and he cannot go very long without his tablet, because his parents have always allowed him to have it whenever he wanted. Now, when they say no, he throws tantrums and acts out because he does not know life without it.” Arvidson demonstrates how the attitude, and ability to behave for kids revolves around whether they have a screen around them. Their reliance on digital technology is so strong that they are not able to conduct themselves in the right way without it. Arvidson shows how the drug of digital technology causes withdrawals when taken away. When parents don’t allow kids to be around a screen they misbehave and throw a tantrum. This will prove to be detrimental later in life; this bad habit of addiction to technology will make them unable to function without it. When they grow up they won’t be able to complete the same tasks and skills that adults were once able to. They also won’t have the same level of social skills due to the amount of conversations taken away due to digital technology. I can relate the ideas of Carr and Arvidson to my own firsthand experiences. I am in agreement with the other writers that I am distracted by my phone while I work. It causes me to look at it every few moments, interrupting my work, to see if there’s anything of importance on it. My addiction to my phone is evident through my inability to be without it for a short period of time. The addiction-riddled side of digital technology is something that’s distracting humans and making us less focused and competent.
The brilliant and multi-faceted side of digital technology is making us more distracted and less focused on things that came easy to us. Due to the efficiency and accuracy of technology, our reliance on it has grown too strong and powerful. We expect technology to do things that we were once able to do ourselves, and have now become too lazy, and impatient to do it. Not only is technology affecting adults in the way they work, but it is also negatively affecting children in the way they act in public. Their reliance on screens to behave will have long-lasting effects on them, where it will become evident in their social skills. Our reliance on technology has become an addiction; we need it to complete our everyday tasks, and without it we aren’t able to carry out our lives at the same level. There is no doubt that digital technology is vital to our lives; it makes us more efficient and effective. However, there are sides of technology that are distracting, and detrimental to our productivity. We need to limit children’s usage to these sides of technology; growing up without them will create good habits later in life where these children will not be addicted to technology.
Works Cited
- Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. July 2008.
- Thurmond, Jack. “Journal #1.” https://miller-eng110-1.uneportfolio.org/2024/03/31/journal-20/. Accessed 9 April 2024.
- Arvidson, Liv. “Journal 20: Revised Technology Essay.” https://miller-eng110-1.uneportfolio.org/2024/03/31/journal-20/. Accessed 9 April 2024.
In project 3 my goal for the paper was to demonstrate how digital technology is an addictive distraction in our life. Its intellectual superiority causes us to be less efficient and productive than we once were. This is because of our reliance on technology to complete the difficult tasks in our lives.
I thought this lab was really interesting and insightful. I think it demonstrated how important context is when reading about politics and history. The three articles I read I drew that they were all shining a positive light on MERC. It seemed like the protests against it were “ambushes” as they put it. That wording hints that these people were protesting unnecessarily and without proper reason. When combining information with other groups, I noticed that MERC wasn’t actually a positive company. It was through context and discussion that I was able to uncover the truth behind MERC. Comparing information with my classmates helped me discover some of the valid reasons on why the people were protesting MERC. Going forward, I think a lesson we can learn from this is that when it comes to history and politics, the most important and helpful thing you can do to better understanding a topic is to talk and to converse with others of the same and differing opinion to yours.
The easy answer to “was America the land of freedom from 1898-1960” is it’s complicated. There were many examples of how there was a lack of freedom for certain people in the country, and abroad, due to America’s policies. For example, although equality for African-American’s got better at the time, it certainly wasn’t at the same level as most white people. On top of that, communists were hunted down, and often executed. The problem was that it’s difficult to prove that someone is a communist, so most of the time non-US citizens were used as scapegoats for the rise of communism. Some of America’s actions abroad in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, for example, didn’t allow for freedom and independence for those countries. At the same time, there’s a reason that so many immigrants flooded into the country. America was a land of opportunity for most people around the world, because while it wasn’t perfect, it had more freedom than the countries these people were immigrating from. For the most part, the American Dream was feasible, and an opportunity for many. This highlighted the economic freedom that most Americans had up until the Great Depression. In most times in our country’s history I would easily say that America was the land of freedom. However, due to world-wide conflicts such as World Wars I and II, as well as The Great Depression, there wasn’t as much freedom as there usually would be. Men were forced to serve in the military through drafts, and families were forced to contribute money in the form of social security.
Reading over the letters sent home from soldiers at the war was a really interesting task, which provided a little bit of context about what some of these men and women were feeling at the time. Getting a first hand example of the morale and togetherness of the soldiers was an intriguing demonstration of how the war was taking the fight out of the soldiers. The letters were all very vague, due to the fact that the soldiers couldn’t disclose too much information – – even to their family. An example of this idea is presented in one of the letters, written by John Bechtel, it says, “I have become attached to the town where my headquarters are located. We have taken over a tiny hotel.” The man isn’t allowed to share his location with his family, which demonstrates the extent of secrecy that the military were carrying out during the war. Overall, I’m glad we got to read some of the war letters at the time, while some of them were more positive than others, it gave me an idea what the general consensus and feelings about the war were.
America, from 1870-1920, was the land of opportunity for most, but not for some. With industrialization came more jobs; however, at the same time those jobs were hardly enough money to raise a family. There was land to move into to farm thanks to the homestead act of 1862. However, due to the commercialization of agriculture such as cattle, the government held control over these farmers, which resulted in lost land and debt. There were strikes and protests, where workers could fight for fair working conditions, something that in other places of the world was maybe not a thing. However, sometimes these strikes were suppressed; an example of this being the police shooting down protesters at the Haymarket Strike. The sheer numbers of immigrants moving to America demonstrated how the US was the land of opportunity – at least compared to the country they were immigrating from. These immigrants sought to move to America thanks in part to the idea of the American dream. At the same time, however, there no doubt were less opportunities for non-white protestant men. Women couldn’t vote, the south was riddled with Jim Crow laws, Native American lands were settled into. Overall, America was the land of opportunity for many, but not for certain groups of people. However, as the US was such a young country at this time, there definitely was a clear improvement as time went by, for offering opportunities to most people in the country.
Visiting the mills was a fun, interesting learning experience that helped me see what working conditions may have been like in the past. Understanding history that happened so long ago is a lot easier when you’re able to put a picture to it and recognize a little bit better what it was like then. If I understood correctly, the two men said that they worked in a mill many years ago, which is nice that we were able to learn from men that worked in those conditions in the past. Although I never worked there, I can imagine how difficult the working conditions may have been back then. For example, there were limited windows, and when there were windows they were small, in an attempt to control the amount of sun that got in the room. It was also interesting what our tour guide was mentioning about the fire door. I believe he told us that they had an aluminum block weighing the door open, but if it melted due to a fire then the door would be able to shut, thereby containing the fire. Also, it struck me when our guide mentioned how many eels would block the waterflow, and they would pay men to kill eels because of this. While the working conditions may have not been the best, I was able to get the sense of just how important these mills are, and how many jobs they bring into the community.
Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. It is a sample to show of a post in this theme. Delete it, then start blogging!
