Steven Johnson’s essay, “Social Connection,” is an interesting argument in which it raises readers’ consciousness about the impact of technology on our social connection. It is also a strong argument, because Johnson addresses the other side of the opposing argument with personal experience, and logic. For instance, Johnson begins his essay with Thomas Friedman’s side of argument about how technology likes iPod prevents people from communicating and interacting with each other. Then, based on his 15 years of commuting on subways and other arguments, he honestly admits that phones and earplugs do stop people from having a conversation with those nearby, and logically responds that people from the past, when Apple was not in the tech market, still disengaged themselves from social interaction.
Like Johnson, I believe that technology does not stop social connection, but the people; there would be no social connection if people only engage in their own world and are not willing to initiate the conversation. I also agree with him that technology, such as the internet, is an important tool that facilitates social connection. I agree with him that websites like Facebook, Yahoo, and Blogger are good environment for people to start, discuss, and present controversial ideas. Although it lacks face-to-face interaction, this missing feature of social connection can be a positive; as Johnson mentions in the last paragraph of his essay, such conversation is the most intensive and in-depth conversation than he has ever encountered with any stranger on the subway. Face-to-face conversation is necessary in our daily life, for it helps to influence and to detect credibility and truthfulness of the speakers through facial expression and vocal variation. However, it can be a hindrance for people to truthfully express their ideas, especially when presenting controversial ideas on censored topic in front of their peers. For example, I engage in more conversation and present more controversial ideas through writing on paper or typing on a blog than speaking in front of peers. When standing among their peers or confronting people face-to-face, the individuals will be obligated to the view of majority of the group, because they want to belong within that group. Therefore, face-to-face conversation creates a more constricted environment, whereas, online conversation provides a more open-ended environment for people to exchange controversial ideas with each other.
Kaela,
ReplyDeleteGood job introducing the topic, and giving a brief summary of what the author mentioned in his passage. Also, good job following through with your own opinions and thoughts.
I agree with what you mention. Although face to face communication is effective because we can fully understand what people are trying to tell us, sometimes people are not truthful because of the fear of what the other person might say. Which is what you stated, and I agree with that 100 percent.
I also like how you mention that people tend to take sides with the majority because of fear and intimidation, but not everyone is like that. In my case, I tend to prove my point even if I'm the only one with that opinion.
Other than that, good job and nice examples.