3 ms·

If he had an interesting, thought-provoking point to make, I couldn't extract it through the technophobia and sweeping generalizations and general framework of

If he had an interesting, thought-provoking point to make, I couldn't extract it through the technophobia and sweeping generalizations and general framework of data-impoverished assumptions that began the article. At the risk of committing the same sin, it does seem that this is the very essence of the out-of-touch article. The author feels greatly disconnected, or for some reason feels like other people are too greatly disconnected for his comfort, and blames modernity. If I am (shallowly) reading this correctly, that is not an original nor profound thought.

keiferski 15y ago
Why does any criticism of technology instantly get labeled as technophobia or luddism? Is it not good to ask why technology X is in your life, and if you want it to be?
- drunkpotato 15y ago
  I think the burden of proof is on the author of: > Yet what, in our brave new mediated world, is friendship becoming? The Facebook phenomenon, so sudden and forceful a distortion of social space, needs little elaboration. Having been relegated to our screens, are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction? to show he is not technophobic. Similar missives have been written for each generation. So I am skeptical and don't think he met that burden in this article.
  - chunky1994 15y ago
    Even if he is technophobic, I think he's illustrated his point clearly and with force. What makes you skeptical of his point of view?
grovulent 15y ago
I dont feel you deserve to be voted down on this comment... I actually think your statement - while ultimately needing more argument behind it - is actually true of just about all of the analysis I read these days. It's all thoroughly atavistic - without a particularly well explained explanation as to what exactly is the value of the thing being lost. This article is actually better than most... but it's not great. It intimates that the strength of friendship comes from the intimacy that allows for critique as well as support. But then the author goes on to focus on the elements of social networking which are actually entirely compatible with the account of friendship that he praises - namely the drop in signalling costs associated with online social networking. Backward looking authors such as these are usually confused in this way - they fret over the seeming 'cheapness' of online social networking - but confuse this with the corresponding superficiality of those relationships. To dispel this confusion I like to use the following analogy. Back when were apes - we used to signal allegiance by grooming - an expensive and time consuming activity. Now imagine that we developed language within the space of generation (not true - but bear with me) - imagine what the grand parents would have thought of their grandchildren signalling to each other cheaply to one another using language. they would have thought it cheap - and insincere. But of course - the use of language in and of itself is not constitutive of a shallow relationship. What they would be reacting to is a sudden drop in the cost of signalling - and would mistrust it because of the costs that they were used to. The upshot is that there is nothing essential in the nature of social networking that leads to a lack of intimacy. You can't blame the tech here. Having said that - there is a danger posed to intimacy by some of the uses being made of the tech. But it will come from the ability to trade out your established intimacy for economic reward.
chunky1994 15y ago
His general framework of data impoverished assumption? His assumptions in the first two paragraphs are quite evident, and any later assumptions are supported by data which he provides later on. I find no sweeping generalizations on his part, he deals with modern society as a whole and maybe that requires him to make general comments. Which parts of the article are you specifically referring to in your comment?

keiferski 15y ago

Why does any criticism of technology instantly get labeled as technophobia or luddism? Is it not good to ask why technology X is in your life, and if you want it to be?

drunkpotato 15y ago
I think the burden of proof is on the author of: > Yet what, in our brave new mediated world, is friendship becoming? The Facebook phenomenon, so sudden and forceful a distortion of social space, needs little elaboration. Having been relegated to our screens, are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction? to show he is not technophobic. Similar missives have been written for each generation. So I am skeptical and don't think he met that burden in this article.
- chunky1994 15y ago
  Even if he is technophobic, I think he's illustrated his point clearly and with force. What makes you skeptical of his point of view?

grovulent 15y ago

I dont feel you deserve to be voted down on this comment... I actually think your statement - while ultimately needing more argument behind it - is actually true of just about all of the analysis I read these days. It's all thoroughly atavistic - without a particularly well explained explanation as to what exactly is the value of the thing being lost. This article is actually better than most... but it's not great. It intimates that the strength of friendship comes from the intimacy that allows for critique as well as support. But then the author goes on to focus on the elements of social networking which are actually entirely compatible with the account of friendship that he praises - namely the drop in signalling costs associated with online social networking. Backward looking authors such as these are usually confused in this way - they fret over the seeming 'cheapness' of online social networking - but confuse this with the corresponding superficiality of those relationships. To dispel this confusion I like to use the following analogy. Back when were apes - we used to signal allegiance by grooming - an expensive and time consuming activity. Now imagine that we developed language within the space of generation (not true - but bear with me) - imagine what the grand parents would have thought of their grandchildren signalling to each other cheaply to one another using language. they would have thought it cheap - and insincere. But of course - the use of language in and of itself is not constitutive of a shallow relationship. What they would be reacting to is a sudden drop in the cost of signalling - and would mistrust it because of the costs that they were used to. The upshot is that there is nothing essential in the nature of social networking that leads to a lack of intimacy. You can't blame the tech here. Having said that - there is a danger posed to intimacy by some of the uses being made of the tech. But it will come from the ability to trade out your established intimacy for economic reward.

chunky1994 15y ago

His general framework of data impoverished assumption? His assumptions in the first two paragraphs are quite evident, and any later assumptions are supported by data which he provides later on. I find no sweeping generalizations on his part, he deals with modern society as a whole and maybe that requires him to make general comments. Which parts of the article are you specifically referring to in your comment?