Reading like a writer: Sherry Turkle, “The Empathy Gap” (pp. 8-13).
Parts/”modes” of writing to keep in mind: Narrative is a mode of writing showing change over time. Exposition is a kind of writing that explains something to the reader. Â A claim is a debate-able statement made by the writer (not a fact). Â A thesis is the largest, overarching claim in a text. Â Evidence is observation or fact that supports a claim/thesis.
–p. 8 / 29: What is Turkle’s thesis? Â Is there also a narrative here? What change is being shown? Â How do we respond to Turkle’s thesis? Agree/disagree? A bit of both? Â Why?
–p. 9 / 30: Where do you notice… claim(s)? …Evidence? …Narrative? Your response?
–p. 10 / 31: Where do you notice… claim(s)? …Evidence? …Narrative? Your response?
–p. 11 / 32: Where do you notice… claim(s)? …Evidence? …Narrative? Your response?
HW (for Wed 9/12): Post your responses to Turkle’s article. Â Read Serpell’s “Triptych: Texas Pool Party” (pp. 18-25). In Grammar Book, read and do exercises on pp. 17-21 and p. 31.
Turkle’s narrative that you need to add things to make your story or plot more interesting. Background is needed to explain the reason for story to exist. I feel that I in between, I do agree back story is need to flesh out a story but it shouldn’t be excessive.
Turkle’s narrative that you need to add things to make your story or plot more interesting. Background is needed to explain the reason for story to exist. I feel that I in between, I do agree back story is need to flesh out a story but it shouldn’t be excessive.
In This article ”The Empathy Gap”by Sherry Turkle shows Turkle’s thesis to being about the day n age switch In how we use technology from this day n age presents now from how it was back in it’s past generations in the prior to it’s beginning development. I’ve decided to not actually agree or disagree but give my reasons to why both might be good or bad. I actually agree to the face that Technology has brainwashed the mind of a Human with new inundation technology to make us isolate from the world and not interact and do as much as once before In past time people knew how to greet one another , be more socially engaged and expand our intelligence with our mouths and not through a device but then again phones can be enjoyable for entertainment and multitasking as far as texting, working or being able to play play station online through microphone with a friend and  so there’s Agreed/disagreed perspective I truly have but the Input I do want to put out Is having the proper limitation to use and when not to use so much technology.
Moving along evidence that backs up the Thesis comes from Turkle written In paragraph 2 line 2 In which she stated ” In 1996, I was on the cover of wired magazine for my work portraying online  avatars as part of a new kind of “Identity play” In which this case shows Turkle to being proud of her foundation and creation to help discover online Ideas, However as we move along the sense of change in tone of the article changes when The author notices as she seen were technology took the people she had concerns with the rise of mobile devices , and the amount of attention people are paying to Phones rather than each other.To evidence this sort of change in tone of the play shows Turkle explanation  In Paragraph 3 Line 1 ” In both cases, there was a flight from face-to face conversation , In both cases , technology was encouraging us to forget that the essence of conversation is one where human meanings are understood , where empathy is engaged”.As you can see from a readers standpoint from two quotes the change the author had with being proud of what technology could possible bring to the people with connection but then the downfall it has with Isolation because of technology expanding.I
Concluding that I’ve learn from the author the causes and effects technology has had on Human kind I would Just say their need to be a balance on the way we use technology and break habits from It but also gain something from It because There is good and bad to technology but to have readers keep in mind too much of everything Isn’t good.
1. Turkle’s thesis is that back in the day, he feels like the internet used to be used for a different reason then what its used for today. He feels like back then the internet used to be for people who wanted to express themselves in a way where in our day to day life Is repressed by society. I feel like there isn’t any narrative going on here, because he is just recalling how the internet used and how its used today, he isn’t really telling a story or connecting specific events. I feel like I agree with him to certain extent because in my opinion people still use the internet today to express themselves in any way they want.
2. On this page, a social scientist claims that the feature on our iphones, “Siri”, can be used as a psychiatrist. Turkle’s supports this claiming by stating, “what an artificial intelligence can know is your schedule, the literal content of your email, your preferences in film, Tv, and food”. By him stating this he is agreeing with the social scientist because he believes that siri can help you with the things listed above.
3. Turkle claims that when two people are having a conversation and the two people have their phones on the table, it leads to a very light conversation because they know that one or the other are going to get interrupted by their phone. He supports his claiming by stating that in 2010, a team at the University of Michigan conducted a study of over 30 years, and they its to believe that there is a 40% decline in in the markers for empathy amongst college students.
4.  Turkles also claims that when a therapist lets their patient have their phone in clear sight, the patient “isn’t cultivating the capacity to pay full attention to another person”. He backs up this statement by saying that also the therapists who leave their phones out during sessions, is considered a form of bad practice.
1. I notice that Jenna Wortham uses narrative everywhere in the article, especially that is told ion the first person. Jenna continuously uses words such as “I, it, I’ve, my” implying her opinion trying to make the reader tomorrow.
2.As parchally stated in answer 1 I feel like Jenna choose narration to connect with the reader as if there is there is a conversation going on, whereas she tells the story, readers listen then respond by questioning situations that were mentioned. She’s trying to show us different types of perspectives of how selfies became an “impact” on our social life online
3.On page 2 paragraph 1, Frederic Della Faille states that a image has more to it than just being ”selfie”, more as a memorable moment, a story that can be told through that image. Which is very agreeable b/c I take a lot of pictures for the memory just b/c I forget a lot of things. On the other hand whereas from the article Mr.Hofmann feels a image is worthless, He doesn’t see any value in it. But I disagree, a image creates a time, moment, and a date that you cant photographically keep in you brain. More as shares an experience with a background story.
4.I can connect with my sister when it comes to “selfies” b/c all we really care about is that we have a photo no matter how crazy we look, its about that moment that you cant back just b/c a photo last much longer. For instance my grandma is in her 70s and doesn’t know how to use a phone very well, so she would ask me to take a picture, even with the bad quality she has, just to look at the moment later on and just smile about it.
1. I notice that Jenna Wortham uses narrative everywhere in the article, especially that is told ion the first person. Jenna continuously uses words such as “I, it, I’ve, my” implying her opinion trying to make the reader tomorrow.
2.As parchally stated in answer 1 I feel like Jenna choose narration to connect with the reader as if there is there is a conversation going on, whereas she tells the story, readers listen then respond by questioning situations that were mentioned. She’s trying to show us different types of perspectives of how selfies became an “impact” on our social life online
3.On page 2 paragraph 1, Frederic Della Faille states that a image has more to it than just being ”selfie”, more as a memorable moment, a story that can be told through that image. Which is very agreeable b/c I take a lot of pictures for the memory just b/c I forget a lot of things. On the other hand whereas from the article Mr.Hofmann feels a image is worthless, He doesn’t see any value in it. But I disagree, a image creates a time, moment, and a date that you cant photographically keep in you brain. More as shares an experience with a background story.
4.I can connect with my sister when it comes to “selfies” b/c all we really care about is that we have a photo no matter how crazy we look, its about that moment that you cant back just b/c a photo last much longer. For instance my grandma is in her 70s and doesn’t know how to use a phone very well, so she would ask me to take a picture, even with the bad quality she has, just to look at the moment later on and just smile about it.
Turkle’s thesis/message that he encountered was the expectations of more from technology than others.
The id a narrative here, this article is told in first person but is telling his story from a different mode over time. First he starts with his opinion about technology and what he developed and noticed about it. Then he states question and answers them b/c maybe some one was probably thinking that question too. lastly he interviews or has conversations with peers about how they feel about technology and the loss of communication between others and quotes what they have said and elaborates from there.
I do agree with Turkle’s thesis, our phones has brought us to communicate less with our peers and focus on things not as important. We depend on our phones for majority of our needs, instead of using a paper map, we have GPS. Instead of asking a teacher a questioned we aren’t sure about we ask google. if homework is to hard, come on be honest… we look for the answers online.
The article “The Empathy Gap” by Sherry Turkle, explains how technology gave people the chance to portray themselves in an aspect where they typically oppressed in our daily life. She further explains how technology has taken hold of our lives, which we cant live without them. And we pay more attention to devices more than the people around us, which I agree. Even though, technology has brought a good impact on the world as a connected zone of communications, yet it controls us in a way that the people around us sometimes think we are lunatics. I once saw an Art on social media illustrating an accident occurred with severe injury, and the people who was at the scene were taking pictures of themselves and the occurred accident like a celebrity show case.
Sherry continue to give example about how Apple phones, the way people talk to Siri about their personal daily life rather than people. Which says “Siri counseling people about their lives without having lived one” to me its like a kid telling an elderly what to do with his or her life. The connection of a face to face communication is far more greater of comfort than communicating on a phone or device, face to face communication portrays a respond in a way without someone talking.
1. Turkle’s thesis is that technology is taking us in a different direction and is making us forget the importance of conversation with human meanings and understanding. I would say that there is narrative here because she starts off the article by saying “when I first began studying online…” she starts off by talking about her own experience with technology. The change that is being shown is how at first she supported technology by saying “I hoped my work would make psychotherapists more comfortable with technology…” but then she goes on to be a critic of technology, by saying “I was changing my mind about where we were allowing technology to take us”. I agree to Turkle’s thesis because I agree that we are expecting more from technology and less from each other. we seem to rely on it too much.
2. On page 9 I noticed a claim where it says “Digital culture threatens our capacity for spontaneous talk, and perhaps even more importantly, it undermines our ability to understand the value of talk”. Evidence to this claim would be that she interviewed someone and they said that when you have a conversation, what’s wrong with it is that it takes place in real time and you can’t control what you are going to say. I agree with this claim because I have actually seen people that talk so much online but then when you are in person with them its awkward and can’t seem to have a good conversation with them.
3. a claim I noticed on page 10 was where it says “we want to be with each other, but to also be connected to other people and places online” Some evidence that I saw was that it said research shows that when people are having lunch and a phone is in presence it changes the conversation. I would agree to this because sometimes I will be at dinner with my family and most of us will be on our phones instead of having a conversation.
4. A claim I found is where it says “A client who has a phone out isn’t cultivating the capacity to pay full attention to another person” I agree with this. Therapist should not allow their clients to have their phone on because it will distract them, as well as the therapist should not have their phone on as well.
1. Turkle’s thesis statement is that, he feels the internet was used for different reasons, then they are used today. Back in the day, the internet was used for people to express themselves compared to how we use social media daily to express ourselves rather than trying to communicate with actual people face to face. I feel like Turkle’s narrative could be how he is connecting the internet in the past, to the internet now. In my opinion, I think that he is right because the internet has changed drastically and now people are relying on it for everything.
2. The first piece of evidence, “When I talk to therapists, they tell me that clients today find it harder to concentrate on face to face conversation” (9). This shows that, internet has changed because therapists usually met with their clients face to face but now they are starting to do phone calls and video chats.
3. Another piece of evidence , “It didn’t seem to bother him that siri, in the role of psychiatrist; would be counseling people about their lives without having lived one” (9). By using siri as a psychiatrist this shows that the internet is expanding and is getting way more universal.
4. Last piece of evidence is, “More and more, we turn away from each other as our face to face communication competes with our phones” (10). Using our phones for phone calls, and video chats is taking time away from memorable conversations, so that also shows that the internet is affecting peoples everyday lives.
1. Turkle begins narrating her life and career during technology’s early years. However in 1996 she was on the cover of Wired Magazine, but she stated that ironically, her mind changed about how far technology took us. She goes on to state her claim, “we expected more from technology and less from each other.” Another change that occurred in her career was when she taught at MIT and some of her closest colleagues were building programs to help psychotherapy work better. Yet she disagreed with what they were doing and believed those programs and machines wouldn’t be as empathetic or genuine enough for patients. I agree with Turkle that people care more about their own technology instead of more important things such as other human beings.
2. Turkle continues to narrate her path down her career. She talks about a personal anecdote she’s had with technology, stating, “It was essentially the argument I encountered when I appeared on a panel of engineers and social scientists to talk about the introduction of Siri, the controversial agent on Apple’s iPhone.” It was a debate whether Siri could serve as a psychiatrist once it’s program would be “smoothed out.” However Turkle believed Siri would be an unsettling spectacle where a piece of technology is giving advice to people who are breathing, living life, yet Siri has never gone through what humans have. Turkle also points out that instead of seeing a therapist face to face, clients would turn to apps in which you tell your story and the app analyzes their thoughts and feelings. In my opinion it’s unnerving to believe that people lack the capacity to have spontaneous conversations and don’t realize the power of words. Another piece of evidence Turkle uses to back up her claim was when she interviewed a young man. He stated, “Conversations? I’ll tell you what’s wrong with conversation. It takes place in real time, and you can’t control what you’re going to say.” After reading Turkles own encounters with technology out the years I do believe there is an empathy gap among the younger generation.
3. Turkle continues to narrate her career, as she starts talking to colleagues and other therapists. While talking to them to pursue her research, she uncovered that many talented clinicians lack in confidence and are hesitant of the relevance of their career, due to high technology taking over. She continues to stick to her claim and talks more about the empathy gap and “the rule of three.” Right after she restates her thesis on technology stating, “the effect is what you’d expect: conversation is kept to topics that people feel they can easily drop in and out of.” I completely agree with Turkle’s claim because I believe in an empathy gap and that people would rather be on their phones than have an in depth conversation with someone. I also agree with Turkle when she said a phone in sight while having a face to face conversation does two things. It urges people to keep the conversation light, in other words the conversation can easily be diminished if the phone goes off. Second phones in sight can interfere with human’s empathetic connections. The conversations just wont be the same or as genuine with a phone in plain sight.
4. Turkle makes it clear to me that our generation is facing an empathy gap and technology is taking over the clinical workforce. To support her claim further, she narrates about her encounter with Vanessa, a college junior. Vanessa talks about her experience dealing with people and technology, stating, “My phone is my safety mechanism from having to talk to new people, or letting my mind wander. I know that this is bad, but texting to pass the time is a way of life.” It’s just sad that young people like myself actually have this mindset because of technology’s impact on their social skills. Turkle continues to provide evidence such as what she believes is improper among therapists. When therapists have their phones out during a session. You cant genuinely talk to someone and understand their emotions if your concern is more shifted towards your notifications.
1) Turkle’s thesis is about how digital media changed human interactions over the course of time till the present. His narrative begins when he tells us about his view on technology and how it affects daily lives. He tells us about the early days of using online chat rooms and online avatars with his writings on technology of its psychological impact of digital culture. His work on online avatars and its “identity play” led to his change in mind about where technology is taking us. I agree with his thesis because throughout the years, technology has increasingly grew larger especially with social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. These types of digital media is used everyday and a replacement for face-to-face interaction. People favored the use of artificial intelligence over other people as the first solution to most things such as guidance.
2)According to page 9, a claim, “One of the social scientists on the program suggested that soon a souped-up and some-what smoothed out Siri could serve as a psychiatrist.” Turkle’s response is that when we talk to machines, it’s a part of a “culture of forgetting that challenges psychotherapy today” and that it makes conversation authentic. Also, that it makes it human and makes psychotherapy the “talking cure.” I disagree with the idea that Siri could serve as a psychiatrist. Like Siri, it’s an artificial intelligence machine that was programmed to say whatever it was intended to. When it comes to psychotherapy, machines cannot replace the human aspect of a back-to-back conversation with understanding of each other.
3)On page 10, a claim, “This means that in a conversation, say among six at dinner, you have to check that three people are paying attention to the speaker- with their heads up- before you give yourself permission to look down at your phone.” A research shows that when people are together with their phones in presence, the conversation is light because the phone reminds them that the conversation might be interrupted. I do agree with this because the presence of a phone while having a conversation leads to you thinking that you will get a message or a notification about something important. Either one, you’re not fully committed in the conversation when you’re anticipating a message or notification.
4) A claim on page 11, “Some therapists tell me that when clients tell them that they want to keep their phones out during sessions, the therapists often say yes. Perhaps, say the the therapists, this will be calming. Perhaps, this is how we all will live our new lives.” I agree and disagree because having phones during a treatment session is both beneficial and negative. Obviously, when it’s an “emergency” it will always be beneficial. But phones can distract the patient when the phones rings. It can interrupt the session and the patient’s thoughts on the matter. The same goes for the therapists.
Turkle’s thesis statement is that people are becoming less social because of technology resulting in difficulty when it comes to understanding each other. She says that people nowadays are more willing to talk to machines first than they are likely to talk with a real person in front of them. Turkle uses narrative to tell us about the changes that she’s noticed over the years of her career. She says that she was hopeful about technology at first but then she began to realize how technology began to affect people socially. I have mixed feelings about her assessment on how technology has changed us. I do agree that in some cases technology has made it harder for some people to socialize face to face. However I think that we have never ever before been so connected with each other and that’s because of technology.
On this page Turkle claims “Our willingness to talk to machines is a part of a culture of forgetting that challenges psychotherapy today.” Turkle explained this by telling us about a time when she was on a panel talking about siri and what the advancement of AI could do for people. She says tells us that once AI reaches a level can know most if not everything about us we will reach a point where we expect more from machines than we do from people. I think that what she’s saying is very intriguing but with AI being somewhat primitive it’s hard to say if she’s right or not.
On this page Turkle claims that phones have changed how people socialize and connect with each other in real life. Turkle tells us about research that was conducted in which it was found that when people go out together the presence of their phone leads them to keeping conversation light and less meaningful. According to Turkle this is because the thought of the phone reminds them that at any point they could get interrupted and shows how low their commitment is to the other person. I can agree with this. In my experience when people have their phones out they tend to have some attention towards their phone, anticipating for their next notification. It’s something i’m guilty of and I see a lot of other people do.
On this page Turkle claims that “ a phone in our sights puts us in a state of attentional disarray.” She talks about therapists who do this and calls it a bad practice. According to her when people have a phone in their sights they are unable to give their full attention to someone else. I agree with this again because it’s what I have also noticed from personal experience.
Turkle believes that the introduction of modern and digital communications has made us less empathetic.
Yes, the first three paragraphs are all just narrative. You can also find narrative used throughout the text as a means of transitioning
It shows how her opinion on the impact of digital communications on the human psyche changed from being an asset to use to potentially harming us.
I mostly disagree with Turkle. The idea that we are less empathic because of digital communications is a bit of a stretch. Our ability to look at a person during a conversation doesn’t connect to our ability to show empathy. If anything we are more empathic as a whole because of digital communications. Because we are shown constant streams of information on each other’s lives, we can better relate to each other even if we’ve never met in person.
She does show proof that we are less empathic, but I wouldn’t say it is because of the presence of a phone during a conversation. A better argument could be because we live in the “Information Age,” we are constantly bombarded with different and diverse emotional experiences that we become numb to it. For example, despite having a school shooting every couple months, we’ve become numb to each passing day. In other words, I agree with her thesis but not the reasoning behind it.