In the new age of technology today, one that is constantly modifying and updating to the best features the market has to offer, it is safe to say that the availability to share thoughts, feelings, and ideas with people all around the world has become increasingly easier. Now families with students in different parts of the country can talk on a daily basis through cell phone usage and the apps on them. A CEO in China can seal the deal in an international business arrangement with minimal clicks and some conversation on a computer – faster and more efficient in turning more deals and making more profit. One could argue against the success of technology and state that it is instead crippling society as a whole, which is exactly what published
…show more content…
Without the common assumption that technology is bad and harming people, all of the warrants and backing Turkle tries to influence the audience with aren’t effective. All attempts at logos in the article are based on the opinions of Turkle followed by ploys at the emotional response of the audience. This method of a biased statement trailed by a sympathy stirring pass as evidence happens the entire article from the very first line. Turkle writes, “Face-To-Face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience… We ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down out communications, even on the most important matters,” (3) and continues later with a heart wrenching story about a high school sophomore that “wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about dating” (3). There are a handful of arguments that can be used against Turkle for having too many expectations that the audience shares the same values. One could argue that simple technology may affect a person’s reaction and need for emotional connections instantly, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are dumbing themselves down. Turkle’s method at logos may offend the reader and destroy any argument present. The Flight From Conversation is …show more content…
Sherry Turkle’s opinion piece, The Flight From Conversation, fails to provide an enriched argument due to the missing aspects found in many successful papers. Insufficient evidence, questionable credibility, and large amounts of saddening sob stories are just a few elements mentioned that backfired on Turkle and caused the argument to fail. On a first pass through the paper the reader is unaware of how jumbled and incoherent the organization and supporting claims actually are. Mixed through the paper were insults accusing readers of being “in a tribe of one” (1), using technology to “dumb down our communications” (3). For Turkle’s goal to argue that technology was causing withdrawal in humanistic function – the massive amounts of assumptions, offenses, and lack of respect for the audience put this article in critical condition. If Turkle’s argument had cited sources and hadn’t been so focused on relating to the audience possible opinion, it may have worked. Turkle had a great idea and tried her best to engage the audience, perhaps in light of her weak argument, but she fell short in doing so because of the vagueness and unreliability the article was composed
Without the common assumption that technology is bad and harming people, all of the warrants and backing Turkle tries to influence the audience with aren’t effective. All attempts at logos in the article are based on the opinions of Turkle followed by ploys at the emotional response of the audience. This method of a biased statement trailed by a sympathy stirring pass as evidence happens the entire article from the very first line. Turkle writes, “Face-To-Face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience… We ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down out communications, even on the most important matters,” (3) and continues later with a heart wrenching story about a high school sophomore that “wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about dating” (3). There are a handful of arguments that can be used against Turkle for having too many expectations that the audience shares the same values. One could argue that simple technology may affect a person’s reaction and need for emotional connections instantly, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are dumbing themselves down. Turkle’s method at logos may offend the reader and destroy any argument present. The Flight From Conversation is …show more content…
Sherry Turkle’s opinion piece, The Flight From Conversation, fails to provide an enriched argument due to the missing aspects found in many successful papers. Insufficient evidence, questionable credibility, and large amounts of saddening sob stories are just a few elements mentioned that backfired on Turkle and caused the argument to fail. On a first pass through the paper the reader is unaware of how jumbled and incoherent the organization and supporting claims actually are. Mixed through the paper were insults accusing readers of being “in a tribe of one” (1), using technology to “dumb down our communications” (3). For Turkle’s goal to argue that technology was causing withdrawal in humanistic function – the massive amounts of assumptions, offenses, and lack of respect for the audience put this article in critical condition. If Turkle’s argument had cited sources and hadn’t been so focused on relating to the audience possible opinion, it may have worked. Turkle had a great idea and tried her best to engage the audience, perhaps in light of her weak argument, but she fell short in doing so because of the vagueness and unreliability the article was composed