What do you think?
Rate this book
Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other
Consider Facebook—it’s human contact, only easier to engage with and easier to avoid. Developing technology promises closeness. Sometimes it delivers, but much of our modern life leaves us less connected with people and more connected to simulations of them.
In Alone Together, MIT technology and society professor Sherry Turkle explores the power of our new tools and toys to dramatically alter our social lives. It’s a nuanced exploration of what we are looking for—and sacrificing—in a world of electronic companions and social networking tools, and an argument that, despite the hand-waving of today’s self-described prophets of the future, it will be the next generation who will chart the path between isolation and connectivity.
In Alone Together, MIT technology and society professor Sherry Turkle explores the power of our new tools and toys to dramatically alter our social lives. It’s a nuanced exploration of what we are looking for—and sacrificing—in a world of electronic companions and social networking tools, and an argument that, despite the hand-waving of today’s self-described prophets of the future, it will be the next generation who will chart the path between isolation and connectivity.
360 pages, Hardcover
First published January 11, 2011
About the author
Sherry Turkle
27 books476 followersSherry Turkle is Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT and the founder (2001) and current director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self. Professor Turkle received a joint doctorate in sociology and personality psychology from Harvard University and is a licensed clinical psychologist.
Professor Turkle writes on the "subjective side" of people's relationships with technology, especially computers. She is an expert on mobile technology, social networking, and sociable robotics. Profiles of Professor Turkle have appeared in such publications as The New York Times, Scientific American, and Wired Magazine. She has been named "woman of the year" by Ms. Magazine and among the "forty under forty" who are changing the nation by Esquire Magazine. She is a featured media commentator on the social and psychological effects of technology for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the BBC, and NPR, including appearances on such programs as Nightline, Frontline, 20/20, and The Colbert Report.
Professor Turkle writes on the "subjective side" of people's relationships with technology, especially computers. She is an expert on mobile technology, social networking, and sociable robotics. Profiles of Professor Turkle have appeared in such publications as The New York Times, Scientific American, and Wired Magazine. She has been named "woman of the year" by Ms. Magazine and among the "forty under forty" who are changing the nation by Esquire Magazine. She is a featured media commentator on the social and psychological effects of technology for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the BBC, and NPR, including appearances on such programs as Nightline, Frontline, 20/20, and The Colbert Report.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 878 reviews
February 15, 2012
Conversation with Eliza Bot. Wed Feb 15, 2012. ( http://chayden.net/eliza/Eliza.html )
How do you do? Please state your problem.
>> Hello, Eliza.
Hi. What seems to be your problem?
>> I recently read Sherry Turkle's book, "Alone Together". I am not sure how to review it.
You say you read Sherry Turkle's book.
>> Yes. It's a book about how sociable robots and networked technologies change the way we relate to one another.
You seem to be quite positive.
>> I'm not. In fact I am sympathetic to Turkle's argument that when we interact with sociable robots (like you) we elevate machines to being "alive enough". Yet online I treat many people as objects. In Turkle's words, these are "fearful symmetries".
Is it because you are not that you came to me?
>> I came to you because you are one of the sociable robots Turkle examines.
Perhaps in your fantasies we came to each other.
>> Perhaps we did. I must admit, I am genuinely surprised by that suggestion.
You don't seem quite certain.
>> I rarely am.
Can you elaborate on that?
>> I think the web is incredible. It might be the greatest thing humans have created. Yet I increasingly believe that it screws up the attention spans of people around me, feeds anxiety, and isolates me from others.
That's quite interesting.
>> Really? That's what you have to say?
Why do you ask?
>> I ask because I am concerned about teenagers who feel tethered to their online selves. I ask because I find the act of posting confessions to places like Postsecret, rather than apologising to people we hurt, disturbing. I ask because I worry that we increasingly externalise problems rather than looking within.
How long have you been concerned about teenagers who feel tethered to their online selves.
>> This is ridiculous.
I'm not sure I understand you fully.
>> At least we agree on something. Good night.
Good night.
How do you do? Please state your problem.
>> Hello, Eliza.
Hi. What seems to be your problem?
>> I recently read Sherry Turkle's book, "Alone Together". I am not sure how to review it.
You say you read Sherry Turkle's book.
>> Yes. It's a book about how sociable robots and networked technologies change the way we relate to one another.
You seem to be quite positive.
>> I'm not. In fact I am sympathetic to Turkle's argument that when we interact with sociable robots (like you) we elevate machines to being "alive enough". Yet online I treat many people as objects. In Turkle's words, these are "fearful symmetries".
Is it because you are not that you came to me?
>> I came to you because you are one of the sociable robots Turkle examines.
Perhaps in your fantasies we came to each other.
>> Perhaps we did. I must admit, I am genuinely surprised by that suggestion.
You don't seem quite certain.
>> I rarely am.
Can you elaborate on that?
>> I think the web is incredible. It might be the greatest thing humans have created. Yet I increasingly believe that it screws up the attention spans of people around me, feeds anxiety, and isolates me from others.
That's quite interesting.
>> Really? That's what you have to say?
Why do you ask?
>> I ask because I am concerned about teenagers who feel tethered to their online selves. I ask because I find the act of posting confessions to places like Postsecret, rather than apologising to people we hurt, disturbing. I ask because I worry that we increasingly externalise problems rather than looking within.
How long have you been concerned about teenagers who feel tethered to their online selves.
>> This is ridiculous.
I'm not sure I understand you fully.
>> At least we agree on something. Good night.
Good night.
April 3, 2012
I really wanted to like this book. Honestly I did, it deals with a fascinating topic. Sadly however, I found this far too anecdotal, repetitive and bias. Her point felt laboured, the anti-technology rhetoric was tiring and she seldom gets into any great depth on an issue. I felt she was able to point out a fairly evident phenomenon such as people texting more and calling less but failed to deeply analyse it beyond showing the angst and frustrations it brought teenagers. I do believe "we are all cyborgs now", as a young person I can see our behaviour is changing, our generation is different, this book just never really showed me the fundamental psychological changes that are occuring or where they will lead, beyond the somewhat ludicrous suggestion that we will all want to marry robots in 2020.
Although her anecdotal evidence is considerable, I seldom found it convincing as an argument for anything in a general sense. What's more, many of the problems she pointed to, weren't shown to be explicitly caused or exacerbated by our connectivity or technology. The teenagers she interviews sound like stereotypical teenagers, with stereotypical problems about identity, sex, image etc. She doesn't show that facebook is the problem, rather than just a new way to express and work with their problems. For example she quotes "Adam", an addicted video gamer, who admits he doesn't really like his job. Without doubt he is a sad example of addiction and the power of very clever video designers, but to me the example says more about Adam, and the problems with his real life, than the omnipotent pervasive technology. In another age perhaps he would have been an alcoholic, a drug user, or a problem gambler.
Finally, the anecdotes and her own personal references made her line of argument at times incoherent and unclear. You had to flip back a couple of pages, to figure out exactly where she was going with a particular story of teenage trauma.
Basically a lot of what she claims may be true, some of it sounds dubious, I was just expecting a more thorough treatment of the topic, there were very few moments which were truly thought provoking or original.
Although her anecdotal evidence is considerable, I seldom found it convincing as an argument for anything in a general sense. What's more, many of the problems she pointed to, weren't shown to be explicitly caused or exacerbated by our connectivity or technology. The teenagers she interviews sound like stereotypical teenagers, with stereotypical problems about identity, sex, image etc. She doesn't show that facebook is the problem, rather than just a new way to express and work with their problems. For example she quotes "Adam", an addicted video gamer, who admits he doesn't really like his job. Without doubt he is a sad example of addiction and the power of very clever video designers, but to me the example says more about Adam, and the problems with his real life, than the omnipotent pervasive technology. In another age perhaps he would have been an alcoholic, a drug user, or a problem gambler.
Finally, the anecdotes and her own personal references made her line of argument at times incoherent and unclear. You had to flip back a couple of pages, to figure out exactly where she was going with a particular story of teenage trauma.
Basically a lot of what she claims may be true, some of it sounds dubious, I was just expecting a more thorough treatment of the topic, there were very few moments which were truly thought provoking or original.
January 2, 2020
Wow. Yeah. Can humans find companionship with robots? Should they? 2 years ago I would've thought the author was stretching for scify stories. After working at Verizon and seeing the disproportionate emotional responses people give when their device doesn't work as expected i totally agree with her. Consider the difference between having friends and being "friended" and for too many it is the difference between getting what you want and getting what we think we want. The book does a great job looking at the way technology infiltrates our relationships. A generation who has not had the emotional input from their parents has gone looking for it elsewhere. Moving from multitasking to multi"life"ing combining the real relationships of those around them, seamlessly with the digital relationships of those absent. Many use technology to avoid people in a selfish way in order to keep from having to use social graces, filter themselves, or reveal themselves in a way that might leave them rejected. For those who consider humans to be godless cogs in an evolutionary assembly line, humans can easily be reduced to the level of machines. And for those who believe everything down to the rocks beneath our feet have a soul, machines can easily be elevated to the level of humans. But i believe God created me in his image and breathed life into me. That sets humans apart. Electronics can aid us, but we approach a slippery slope when we look to them for companionship, assurance, and comfort. In the words of Thoreau, live life intentionally and do not live that which is not life. I recommend this book to marketers, counselors, clergy, and anyone else who studies the way our environment molds us and the decisions we make.
June 25, 2013
Sigh. This book. Great title, great subtitle, I wish the content had delivered. Unfortunately I am no closer to telling you why we expect more from technology & less from each other than I was before I read this book.
One of the main things that bothered me about this book was that, even though I was really interested in these issues, Turkle did not argue her points very well or very strongly. She only very briefly touches on why we should be concerned about the phenomena of "being connected" in the first place. She doesn't talk about deaths, injuries, and collisions caused by texting & driving, which is a HUGE problem. All her "research" into the way it changes relationships between friends and family members is anecdotal and shows me pretty much nothing. She only barely--and I do mean barely, maybe two sentences in hundreds of pages--touches on the changes in brain chemistry that takes place when a person is engaged with a screen. Instead she has paragraph after paragraph, chapter after chapter of what this kid said about his Furby, what THIS kid said about HER Furby, what THIS OTHER KID said about THEIR Furby, what this kid said about her Tamagotchi, what THIS kid says about HIS Tamagotchi, what THIS OTHER KID said about THEIR Tomagatchi, what this senior citizen said about My Real Baby, what THIS senior said about My Real Baby, what THIS OTHER SENIOR said about My Real Baby. Seriously. That is what the first half of this book consists of. The second half consists of "this is how this teenager runs her Facebook profile, this is how THIS teenager runs HIS Facebook profile, this is how THIS OTHER TEENAGER runs THEIR Facebook profile!!" It's honestly not a boring read at all, I enjoyed it, but eventually I did remember what this book is supposed to be about. It's really a shame because there are many times that she raises some really important and thought-provoking questions. And then leaves them there unexamined.
Her references are pretty poor. What's more, most of the footnotes don't even show you a source, they are just her rambling about something completely unrelated to the corresponding sentence in-text. O...K...
The "research" she does do is dubious. She says, "I find people willing to seriously consider robots not only as pets but as potential friends, confidants, and even romantic partners." Yeah and I can find people who think alligators built the pyramids if I know where to look. What she claims is widespread she doesn't back up with any statistics or studies, and from my own anecdotal experiences, the whole "robot as friend/romantic partner" fantasy is not at all widespread or commonplace. And I'll point out that I don't work at MIT or go to robotics conferences so my experience may be the more mainstream of the two. Maybe she finds people willing to consider robots as potential friends because she is asking them to do so. Hell, I think robots are pointless and they basically hold zero interest for me (also I think it's sort of unethical to put so much time and money and support behind them when there are actual people and actual animals that are starving and suffering to death--but I feel that way about a LOT of things, not just robots), and I would consider the question of robots as friends if somebody asked me to. I mean, you ask people to consider robots as friends and romantic partners and then you're like "OMG THEY WERE WILLING TO CONSIDER A ROBOT AS A FRIEND!!!!!!"? Why would you even do that?
I stuck about 200 page markers in this book and I could go on for a lot longer, but I will say, in Turkle's defence, that only about half of them are things I took issue with. She made a lot of assumptions I didn't agree with and she didn't support her thesis to my satisfaction, but like I say, she does raise some important questions. The writing is engaging and fun to read. I'm glad I read the book but I wish it had lived up to its promises.
One of the main things that bothered me about this book was that, even though I was really interested in these issues, Turkle did not argue her points very well or very strongly. She only very briefly touches on why we should be concerned about the phenomena of "being connected" in the first place. She doesn't talk about deaths, injuries, and collisions caused by texting & driving, which is a HUGE problem. All her "research" into the way it changes relationships between friends and family members is anecdotal and shows me pretty much nothing. She only barely--and I do mean barely, maybe two sentences in hundreds of pages--touches on the changes in brain chemistry that takes place when a person is engaged with a screen. Instead she has paragraph after paragraph, chapter after chapter of what this kid said about his Furby, what THIS kid said about HER Furby, what THIS OTHER KID said about THEIR Furby, what this kid said about her Tamagotchi, what THIS kid says about HIS Tamagotchi, what THIS OTHER KID said about THEIR Tomagatchi, what this senior citizen said about My Real Baby, what THIS senior said about My Real Baby, what THIS OTHER SENIOR said about My Real Baby. Seriously. That is what the first half of this book consists of. The second half consists of "this is how this teenager runs her Facebook profile, this is how THIS teenager runs HIS Facebook profile, this is how THIS OTHER TEENAGER runs THEIR Facebook profile!!" It's honestly not a boring read at all, I enjoyed it, but eventually I did remember what this book is supposed to be about. It's really a shame because there are many times that she raises some really important and thought-provoking questions. And then leaves them there unexamined.
Her references are pretty poor. What's more, most of the footnotes don't even show you a source, they are just her rambling about something completely unrelated to the corresponding sentence in-text. O...K...
The "research" she does do is dubious. She says, "I find people willing to seriously consider robots not only as pets but as potential friends, confidants, and even romantic partners." Yeah and I can find people who think alligators built the pyramids if I know where to look. What she claims is widespread she doesn't back up with any statistics or studies, and from my own anecdotal experiences, the whole "robot as friend/romantic partner" fantasy is not at all widespread or commonplace. And I'll point out that I don't work at MIT or go to robotics conferences so my experience may be the more mainstream of the two. Maybe she finds people willing to consider robots as potential friends because she is asking them to do so. Hell, I think robots are pointless and they basically hold zero interest for me (also I think it's sort of unethical to put so much time and money and support behind them when there are actual people and actual animals that are starving and suffering to death--but I feel that way about a LOT of things, not just robots), and I would consider the question of robots as friends if somebody asked me to. I mean, you ask people to consider robots as friends and romantic partners and then you're like "OMG THEY WERE WILLING TO CONSIDER A ROBOT AS A FRIEND!!!!!!"? Why would you even do that?
I stuck about 200 page markers in this book and I could go on for a lot longer, but I will say, in Turkle's defence, that only about half of them are things I took issue with. She made a lot of assumptions I didn't agree with and she didn't support her thesis to my satisfaction, but like I say, she does raise some important questions. The writing is engaging and fun to read. I'm glad I read the book but I wish it had lived up to its promises.
Read
March 14, 2012Poorly written and not that well-researched -- and my eyes glazed over so much during the long first half about robots I didn't retain much about it -- but the second half, which discusses avatars, Second Life, Skype, texting, Facebook, WoW, and so on, was a lot better, and helped me articulate some of the misgivings I've been having recently about the time I spend on the internet.
It was interesting, and saddening, she spent almost no time on blogging and the "classic" journaling sites like LiveJournal, Blogger, Diaryland, well-known bloggers like Neil Gaiman or Cory Doctorow, or even corporate "blogs" (essentially press releases - but look what happened in Netflix's comments section when they announced the death of DVDs). It's all about Facebook and Twitter and texting, in no small part because the book is focused on very young people (it's essentially a "letter" to her college-age daughter). I first got on the internet basically to blog and for free web-based email, in 2000, and the drinking-from-the-firehose effect of Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook and other sites seems overwhelming and superficial to me. But there I am anyway, at least on G+ and Twitter, trading bits of my identity for bytes of connection. Not a good bargain.
Like some other reviewers here, I also felt the book was pretty much two disconnected halves -- I kept waiting for something like an insight about how the robot nannies and nurses described in the first part resemble the virtual selves and 'weak connections' detailed in the second, but no dice. The argument is pretty convincing that the internet is built on hundreds and thousands of weak connections -- strangers 'liking' a post on Facebook, or a review on GoodReads, a photograph on Flickr, what have you. Is there that much difference between a cadre of silent lurkers -- 'friends' or 'readers' -- and the wondrously detailed motion capture in modern films, or endlessly attentive robot nannies? Probably not. She struggles at the end to come up with a "it's not going away so we have to know how to deal with it" conclusion; probably noone today would buy a book that points out the real core problem with the simulacra is that it is, in fact, inauthentic. The virtual Emperor has no (tangible) clothes.
It was interesting, and saddening, she spent almost no time on blogging and the "classic" journaling sites like LiveJournal, Blogger, Diaryland, well-known bloggers like Neil Gaiman or Cory Doctorow, or even corporate "blogs" (essentially press releases - but look what happened in Netflix's comments section when they announced the death of DVDs). It's all about Facebook and Twitter and texting, in no small part because the book is focused on very young people (it's essentially a "letter" to her college-age daughter). I first got on the internet basically to blog and for free web-based email, in 2000, and the drinking-from-the-firehose effect of Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook and other sites seems overwhelming and superficial to me. But there I am anyway, at least on G+ and Twitter, trading bits of my identity for bytes of connection. Not a good bargain.
Like some other reviewers here, I also felt the book was pretty much two disconnected halves -- I kept waiting for something like an insight about how the robot nannies and nurses described in the first part resemble the virtual selves and 'weak connections' detailed in the second, but no dice. The argument is pretty convincing that the internet is built on hundreds and thousands of weak connections -- strangers 'liking' a post on Facebook, or a review on GoodReads, a photograph on Flickr, what have you. Is there that much difference between a cadre of silent lurkers -- 'friends' or 'readers' -- and the wondrously detailed motion capture in modern films, or endlessly attentive robot nannies? Probably not. She struggles at the end to come up with a "it's not going away so we have to know how to deal with it" conclusion; probably noone today would buy a book that points out the real core problem with the simulacra is that it is, in fact, inauthentic. The virtual Emperor has no (tangible) clothes.
November 7, 2013
Every time I read one of these books, I am amazed by how utterly they manage to miss the mark, and by how the author manages to track down the 8 people who are still playing Second Life.
March 25, 2011
This is the second book of my "The Dangers of New Technologies" series of book reviews. I decided to read Sherry Turkle's Alone Together after reading an article in Slate about it. When I started working in an office that blocked Facebook, I stopped spending unnecessary amounts of time on the website and came to the realization that my life was unchanged because of it. So when I learned that someone had written something of a psychoanalytic profile on the website's effects on our daily lives, I had to read it.
Of course, Turkle's book isn't just about Facebook. It is divided into two sections, the first of which, "In Solitude, New Intimacies" is about our growing attachment to robots. Turkle shows how people will open up to robots such as MIT's ELIZA or Furbys or the robotic dog AIBO, eventually coming to love and nurture them. Despite the fact that these people are completely aware that these cybernetic creations aren't alive, they project human emotions onto them to the point where the line between robot and living being is blurry to them. She argues that a great appeal is that they are somehow better than the "real thing" - robots won't deliberately hurt you, they won't die after you've become attached to them and they're always there. However, by simplifying these relationships, you cut out all the complexities (or some might say "difficulties") that make genuine relationships worthwhile. Turkle talks about robots primarily in nursing homes and daycare centers, focusing heavily on how children and the elderly would interact with them. After reading this, my reactions ranged from shock (children so readily accepting robots into their lives) to sadness (adults sending robots to visit Grandma instead of themselves).
But I bought and read this book for the second section, "In Intimacy, New Solitudes." Here is where Turkle talks about Facebook, texting and chat. She talks about how a Facebook avatar is only a version of one's self, a projected, ideal version that we broadcast to the world in vain hopes of representing the convergence of all our most desirable personality traits. Second Life takes this to a new extreme by literally letting you create your avatar as a heightened, "better" self. Texts are bereft of the spontaneity of real conversation and robs the dialogue of the essence of social interaction. Phone calls have been relegated to logistical exchanges and chats are one of seven different concurrent activities. With this, we have to ask, is the act of spending uninterrupted time with one another slowly becoming archaic?
Turkle's conclusions rely very heavily on the opinions of her subjects. The grand majority of this book is composed of transcripts from her sessions. In true psychoanalytic fashion, she reflects her subjects' thoughts back to them in the form of more questions and ultimately conclusions. She rarely directly cites works and keeps the focus largely on what is said and what it means. It can get repetitive but not to a fault. Instead, you just keep reading and asking yourself, Who are these kids and why are they sending upwards of 200 texts a day?
A few weeks ago, I called a friend of mine from college just to see how his life was. We literally talked just to talk and catch up. Yet, I couldn't help but feel like I had to have a singular question to ask, or a particular issue to communicate other than "What's Up?" Awareness, regrettably, does not imply immunity.
Of course, Turkle's book isn't just about Facebook. It is divided into two sections, the first of which, "In Solitude, New Intimacies" is about our growing attachment to robots. Turkle shows how people will open up to robots such as MIT's ELIZA or Furbys or the robotic dog AIBO, eventually coming to love and nurture them. Despite the fact that these people are completely aware that these cybernetic creations aren't alive, they project human emotions onto them to the point where the line between robot and living being is blurry to them. She argues that a great appeal is that they are somehow better than the "real thing" - robots won't deliberately hurt you, they won't die after you've become attached to them and they're always there. However, by simplifying these relationships, you cut out all the complexities (or some might say "difficulties") that make genuine relationships worthwhile. Turkle talks about robots primarily in nursing homes and daycare centers, focusing heavily on how children and the elderly would interact with them. After reading this, my reactions ranged from shock (children so readily accepting robots into their lives) to sadness (adults sending robots to visit Grandma instead of themselves).
But I bought and read this book for the second section, "In Intimacy, New Solitudes." Here is where Turkle talks about Facebook, texting and chat. She talks about how a Facebook avatar is only a version of one's self, a projected, ideal version that we broadcast to the world in vain hopes of representing the convergence of all our most desirable personality traits. Second Life takes this to a new extreme by literally letting you create your avatar as a heightened, "better" self. Texts are bereft of the spontaneity of real conversation and robs the dialogue of the essence of social interaction. Phone calls have been relegated to logistical exchanges and chats are one of seven different concurrent activities. With this, we have to ask, is the act of spending uninterrupted time with one another slowly becoming archaic?
Turkle's conclusions rely very heavily on the opinions of her subjects. The grand majority of this book is composed of transcripts from her sessions. In true psychoanalytic fashion, she reflects her subjects' thoughts back to them in the form of more questions and ultimately conclusions. She rarely directly cites works and keeps the focus largely on what is said and what it means. It can get repetitive but not to a fault. Instead, you just keep reading and asking yourself, Who are these kids and why are they sending upwards of 200 texts a day?
A few weeks ago, I called a friend of mine from college just to see how his life was. We literally talked just to talk and catch up. Yet, I couldn't help but feel like I had to have a singular question to ask, or a particular issue to communicate other than "What's Up?" Awareness, regrettably, does not imply immunity.
March 3, 2017
If I had to pick two descriptors for this book, I'd say "thought-provoking" and "stone-cold chilling."
As for the first part of that, I found myself alternately highlighting brilliant pieces and writing counterpoints in the margins. By the end, though, I was swayed to her way of thinking: that in our excitement for the benefits of technology, we have overlooked real and true dangers.
The sections about human-robot interactions are the creepiest thing I've read in a long time, and not not solely because of the threat of some future dystopia. More often than not, hearing (in quotes from her interviews) what people ALREADY BELIEVE about simulation and the value of humanity will stop your blood in its tracks (and make you want to throw your arms around the person next to you).
Highly unsettling and thoroughly enjoyable! If you haven't read her early works, like Life on the Screen and The Second Self, go back and find them. The technology she describes may be old now, but the implications are timeless.
As for the first part of that, I found myself alternately highlighting brilliant pieces and writing counterpoints in the margins. By the end, though, I was swayed to her way of thinking: that in our excitement for the benefits of technology, we have overlooked real and true dangers.
The sections about human-robot interactions are the creepiest thing I've read in a long time, and not not solely because of the threat of some future dystopia. More often than not, hearing (in quotes from her interviews) what people ALREADY BELIEVE about simulation and the value of humanity will stop your blood in its tracks (and make you want to throw your arms around the person next to you).
Highly unsettling and thoroughly enjoyable! If you haven't read her early works, like Life on the Screen and The Second Self, go back and find them. The technology she describes may be old now, but the implications are timeless.
February 27, 2011
A mixed bag. Turkle's overall tone, despite her constant denials of Luddism, is one of "Get off my lawn!," of cranky alienation from digital culture. There's too much of "the technology I grew up with is natural and human; the technology of Kids These Days is causing a parade of horrors."
Despite Turkle's crankiness, she does have some excellent critical observations. Her methodology is somewhat troubling, though, relying on anecdote and case study. I found myself wondering how much she cherry-picked examples, giving us only Thoreauvian teens craving wilderness and solitude, or longing for their parents to put down their BlackBerries.
That said, she does effectively problematize a clear cultural trend for more attenuated contact with other people, and the role played by technology in enabling us to maintain a screen between ourselves and others.
Despite Turkle's crankiness, she does have some excellent critical observations. Her methodology is somewhat troubling, though, relying on anecdote and case study. I found myself wondering how much she cherry-picked examples, giving us only Thoreauvian teens craving wilderness and solitude, or longing for their parents to put down their BlackBerries.
That said, she does effectively problematize a clear cultural trend for more attenuated contact with other people, and the role played by technology in enabling us to maintain a screen between ourselves and others.
October 11, 2014
It is books like this that give social science a bad name.
February 17, 2013
Hmmm. Fascinating concept. Copiously researched. Boring as all hell.
Okay, just kidding. A cheap effort to get the attention of all my on-line friends out there with whom I apparently have these illusory relationships (and, perhaps, feel pressure to serve up charming and witty sound bytes that I'm less compelled to do IRL). The book wasn't boring as all hell; it made some very interesting points at times. But there were certainly problems with the overall execution, and provocative though it was, I can't unreservedly recommend it as a fabulous read.
I started out devouring the first half of the book. Gradually I found myself skimming, then finally skipping to the second half which was far more relevant to my life. The first half of the book focuses on electronic toys which seem to be imbued with personalities of their own such as Tamagotchi, Furby, My Real Baby, etc. This was a trend which completely passed me by; I was too old for these toys when they came out and would never consider buying them for my children simply because I have this weird policy of not buying them any electronic toys (whole other story which I won't go into here).
The question of how it affects us and our view of relationships when toys give the illusion of having personalities and feelings can be fascinating. Unfortunately, though, the book got bogged down in endless examples of kids with their furbies and Tamagotchies which was ultimately highly repetitive. All of these kids were basically saying the same things: sometimes I feel like my toy is alive, sometimes I remember that it isn't, sometimes I feel overly responsible for my toy, sometimes I'm cruel to my toy, and variations thereof. In this chapter, we heard several kids say this about their furbies. And then, in the next chapter, we heard several kids say all the same things about My Real Baby. It got old, and I was feeling beaten over the head about a topic which was completely irrelevant to me in any case.
So I skipped to the second half, which suffered many of the same flaws but at least covered ground that was more personally relevant to me. Online relationships, social networking, confessional sites, etc. The author talked about the attraction of attachment without commitment, the illusion of intimacy provided by these relationships when in fact, you don't actually know these people and won't truly be there for each other in a real-life crisis, how texting and facebook updates are replacing face-to-face contact (although this was questionable considering that much of the described texting was about making appointments to get together) and certainly phone calls, woe is me, woe is me. It was interesting to read Turkle's points, even if they were a bit belabored, and to contemplate whether or not they held true for me and for people I know. I reacted a bit when she wrote about today's teenagers having grown up with parents texting while they pushed them on the swings; my oldest children are sixteen and fourteen and texting certainly wasn't around when they were kids so I don't know which teenagers she means. It's the teenagers of tomorrow who we have to be concerned about, I think. It's a picky thing, but it seemed to me as if Turkle's zeal to predict doom was getting her ahead of herself.
In truth, I'm as concerned about the effects of our digital world as anyone else. It was strange to me even several years back to see a family eating out in a restaurant with a child playing on his gameboy throughout the meal, although I wouldn't jump to conclusions because for all I know the child may have had some issue and this could have been the only way the family could eat in peace. So I do like the topic, and many of Turkle's ideas resonated with me at least as open questions if not clear conclusions. I just wish the book had been better.
Okay, just kidding. A cheap effort to get the attention of all my on-line friends out there with whom I apparently have these illusory relationships (and, perhaps, feel pressure to serve up charming and witty sound bytes that I'm less compelled to do IRL). The book wasn't boring as all hell; it made some very interesting points at times. But there were certainly problems with the overall execution, and provocative though it was, I can't unreservedly recommend it as a fabulous read.
I started out devouring the first half of the book. Gradually I found myself skimming, then finally skipping to the second half which was far more relevant to my life. The first half of the book focuses on electronic toys which seem to be imbued with personalities of their own such as Tamagotchi, Furby, My Real Baby, etc. This was a trend which completely passed me by; I was too old for these toys when they came out and would never consider buying them for my children simply because I have this weird policy of not buying them any electronic toys (whole other story which I won't go into here).
The question of how it affects us and our view of relationships when toys give the illusion of having personalities and feelings can be fascinating. Unfortunately, though, the book got bogged down in endless examples of kids with their furbies and Tamagotchies which was ultimately highly repetitive. All of these kids were basically saying the same things: sometimes I feel like my toy is alive, sometimes I remember that it isn't, sometimes I feel overly responsible for my toy, sometimes I'm cruel to my toy, and variations thereof. In this chapter, we heard several kids say this about their furbies. And then, in the next chapter, we heard several kids say all the same things about My Real Baby. It got old, and I was feeling beaten over the head about a topic which was completely irrelevant to me in any case.
So I skipped to the second half, which suffered many of the same flaws but at least covered ground that was more personally relevant to me. Online relationships, social networking, confessional sites, etc. The author talked about the attraction of attachment without commitment, the illusion of intimacy provided by these relationships when in fact, you don't actually know these people and won't truly be there for each other in a real-life crisis, how texting and facebook updates are replacing face-to-face contact (although this was questionable considering that much of the described texting was about making appointments to get together) and certainly phone calls, woe is me, woe is me. It was interesting to read Turkle's points, even if they were a bit belabored, and to contemplate whether or not they held true for me and for people I know. I reacted a bit when she wrote about today's teenagers having grown up with parents texting while they pushed them on the swings; my oldest children are sixteen and fourteen and texting certainly wasn't around when they were kids so I don't know which teenagers she means. It's the teenagers of tomorrow who we have to be concerned about, I think. It's a picky thing, but it seemed to me as if Turkle's zeal to predict doom was getting her ahead of herself.
In truth, I'm as concerned about the effects of our digital world as anyone else. It was strange to me even several years back to see a family eating out in a restaurant with a child playing on his gameboy throughout the meal, although I wouldn't jump to conclusions because for all I know the child may have had some issue and this could have been the only way the family could eat in peace. So I do like the topic, and many of Turkle's ideas resonated with me at least as open questions if not clear conclusions. I just wish the book had been better.
February 15, 2011
This one falls into the same trap as "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens: while I agree with the subject matter very much, after awhile I grew somewhat bored by it for that very reason. In this case, more so. Turkle's approach is very dry and academic. She is an instructor at MIT and it reads as such. The book is very easily broken down into introduction (explaining what she is going to cover), the two main sections (one on robots, one on social media and online/electronic interactions) and then a conclusion (what did we learn?). She even made a point to devote equal space to each subject, as the second part begins at exactly the half-way mark in the book!
In the interest of full disclosure, I went into this looking to read more on her thoughts on social media, after hearing her discuss it on The Colbert Report. Unfortunately, I would have to get through her section on robots, and as she started researching this back in the mid-nineties, it starts with Tamagotchis and Furbies, which hardly seems relevant at all now. She also touched on some of the first video games in the late 70's/early 80's, and supposes that children, when confronted with a machine that can play against it, wonder if the machine is thinking. She says that the games made the children into philosophers, in the way they question a machine's motives. That phrase, which she used a few times, just rang so utterly false and pretentious to me. As a child who grew up at just that time, I never once pondered if my NES or Atari was, in fact, learning to beat me or adapting. I was well aware it was a program. I never once projected any sort of human personality characteristics onto it. After that, I skimmed through the robot section fairly quickly, trying to get to what I came for. As I said, I agreed with her thoughts on interactions through texts, tweets, Facebook, and the like, but it just came off like someone lecturing to me about it, and bemoaning the loss of actual communication.
I had really hoped, from hearing her speak, that her approach to this subject would be different than much of what is out there. Sadly, that was not the case.
In the interest of full disclosure, I went into this looking to read more on her thoughts on social media, after hearing her discuss it on The Colbert Report. Unfortunately, I would have to get through her section on robots, and as she started researching this back in the mid-nineties, it starts with Tamagotchis and Furbies, which hardly seems relevant at all now. She also touched on some of the first video games in the late 70's/early 80's, and supposes that children, when confronted with a machine that can play against it, wonder if the machine is thinking. She says that the games made the children into philosophers, in the way they question a machine's motives. That phrase, which she used a few times, just rang so utterly false and pretentious to me. As a child who grew up at just that time, I never once pondered if my NES or Atari was, in fact, learning to beat me or adapting. I was well aware it was a program. I never once projected any sort of human personality characteristics onto it. After that, I skimmed through the robot section fairly quickly, trying to get to what I came for. As I said, I agreed with her thoughts on interactions through texts, tweets, Facebook, and the like, but it just came off like someone lecturing to me about it, and bemoaning the loss of actual communication.
I had really hoped, from hearing her speak, that her approach to this subject would be different than much of what is out there. Sadly, that was not the case.
July 17, 2016
Knjiga se bavi načinima na koje tehnologija utiče na nas, na naš razvoj i na naše odnose. Podeljena je na dva dela: prvi govori o društvenim robotima koji se već dugo koriste u naprednijem svetu, drugi je o sredstvima za komunikaciju, telefonima i internetu. Suština knjige: sve smo spremniji da nežive objekte tretiramo kao subjekte a da jedni druge tretiramo kao objekte. Ljudi misle da imaju kontrolu nad tehnologijom ali na kraju shvate da je jedina odluka koju su zaista doneli sami, ona prva, da se prepuste tehnologiji a ona ih dalje voza sama. U početku tehnologiju koristimo kao zamenu, kao bolje ni od čega, kasnije nam ona postaje bolja od bilo čega.
Društveni roboti se već dvadestetak godina koriste kao kućni ljubimci i kao podrška starima. Sa daljim razvojem doći će mogućnost da brigu o deci i starima u potpunosti prepustimo robotima. Zamislite svet u kome stari u domovima imaju kontakt jedino sa robotima. Jedno dete koje je intervjuisano za knjigu se pita šta će nam roboti za negu kad imamo ljude. Šta će ljudi da rade? Ako brigu o starima i deci posmatramo kao prevelik teret pa ih obavljamo bezvoljno, po automatizmu i bez emocija onda je možda u redu koristiti zamene za ljude. Ali da li je to ono što želimo? Kopija retko donosi sve što ima original.
Deca su uz kućne ljubimce sticala osećaj odgovornosti i posvećenosti. Roboti omogućavaju vezanost bez odgovornosti. Preko robota učimo da tretiramo stvari, a na kraju i ljude, kao nešto što nam pripada bez pogovora. U odnosima polako postaje uobičajeno da postoji samo jedna strana, najbitnija nam postaje kontrola. Danas, kada su već stasale prve generacije koje su celi život bile okružene robotima i internetom, već se javljaju izveštaji o smanjenju empatičnosti i porastu narcizma. Ljudi postaju nenaviknuti na to da postoje i tuđe želje, kompleksna osećanja i ambivalentna stanja. Dodatno, kada uvidimo da je većina ispovesti na internetu u stvari lažna, da ljudi glume da bi ostavili utisak, postoji šansa da još više otupimo na stvaran bol drugih.
Nama ovde su od robota mnogo bliži problemi sa telefonima i internetom. Deca se od najranijih dana bore sa telefonima za pažnju roditelja i često gube u toj borbi, osećaju se odbačeno. Vodeći se za primerom, i ona postaju opsednuta telefonima i računarima. Otuđenost postaje glavni problem. Kucamo SMS-ove da ne bi morali da razgovaramo jer razgovor doživljavamo kao nešto previše invazivno i opterećujuće. Krijemo se a poruke ostavljaju dovoljnu distancu. Ali na jednu poruku stigne nam deset novih tako da opet moramo da se „bavimo“ kontaktima po ceo dan. A ne ostaje nam nimalo vremena za stvarno druženje. Ljudi koriste telefone kao štit jer se bez njih osećaju ogoljeni i nezaštićeni.
S druge strane, deca odrastaju uvek povezana, nikad ne moraju da prolaze kroz sve one probleme koje donosi osamostaljivanje pa ostaju nedorasla i nezrela. Danas nešto istinski doživljavamo samo ako dobijemo elektronsku potvrdu. Nema tu previše autonomije. Ljudi u virtuelnom životu izgledaju i ponašaju se drugačije nego u „stvarnom“ životu. Mnogi su na internetu surovi čak i kada nisu anonimni. Mladi su stalno pod pritiskom da izgledaju kul na Fejsbuku i trude se da potisnu sve ono što nije dovoljno potvrđujuće za ulogu koju igraju. Te probleme prenose i u „stvaran“ život jer moraju da se ponašaju kao roboti u strahu da neka ponižavajuća situacija ne osvane na internetu. Ljudi se kontrolišu čak i kad ne bi trebalo. Deca se boje isprobavati, dolazi do gubitka različitosti i do dresure. A ponekad je potrebno pobuniti se.
Ovo su samo neke od tema kojima se bavi ova vrlo zanimljiva i korisna knjiga. Ocena je niža jer, iako je autorka obavila vrlo opsežna istraživanja, sve se svodi na mnogobrojne anegdote i iskustva ispitanika a to nije ono što najviše cenim u stručnim knjigama. Većina zaključaka deluje ubedljivo ali je očigledno da su anegdote birane i sortirane tako da postepeno navode na autorkin zaključak. Pozitivne strane tehnologija su navedene stidljivo i potom detaljno zatrpane negativnim primerima. Ipak, u mom sistemu tri zvezdice ne znače da je knjiga loša, naročito kad je u pitanju stručna knjiga. Ovo je važna knjiga, bavi se aktuelnim temama i preporučujem je svakome da je pročita.
Društveni roboti se već dvadestetak godina koriste kao kućni ljubimci i kao podrška starima. Sa daljim razvojem doći će mogućnost da brigu o deci i starima u potpunosti prepustimo robotima. Zamislite svet u kome stari u domovima imaju kontakt jedino sa robotima. Jedno dete koje je intervjuisano za knjigu se pita šta će nam roboti za negu kad imamo ljude. Šta će ljudi da rade? Ako brigu o starima i deci posmatramo kao prevelik teret pa ih obavljamo bezvoljno, po automatizmu i bez emocija onda je možda u redu koristiti zamene za ljude. Ali da li je to ono što želimo? Kopija retko donosi sve što ima original.
Deca su uz kućne ljubimce sticala osećaj odgovornosti i posvećenosti. Roboti omogućavaju vezanost bez odgovornosti. Preko robota učimo da tretiramo stvari, a na kraju i ljude, kao nešto što nam pripada bez pogovora. U odnosima polako postaje uobičajeno da postoji samo jedna strana, najbitnija nam postaje kontrola. Danas, kada su već stasale prve generacije koje su celi život bile okružene robotima i internetom, već se javljaju izveštaji o smanjenju empatičnosti i porastu narcizma. Ljudi postaju nenaviknuti na to da postoje i tuđe želje, kompleksna osećanja i ambivalentna stanja. Dodatno, kada uvidimo da je većina ispovesti na internetu u stvari lažna, da ljudi glume da bi ostavili utisak, postoji šansa da još više otupimo na stvaran bol drugih.
Nama ovde su od robota mnogo bliži problemi sa telefonima i internetom. Deca se od najranijih dana bore sa telefonima za pažnju roditelja i često gube u toj borbi, osećaju se odbačeno. Vodeći se za primerom, i ona postaju opsednuta telefonima i računarima. Otuđenost postaje glavni problem. Kucamo SMS-ove da ne bi morali da razgovaramo jer razgovor doživljavamo kao nešto previše invazivno i opterećujuće. Krijemo se a poruke ostavljaju dovoljnu distancu. Ali na jednu poruku stigne nam deset novih tako da opet moramo da se „bavimo“ kontaktima po ceo dan. A ne ostaje nam nimalo vremena za stvarno druženje. Ljudi koriste telefone kao štit jer se bez njih osećaju ogoljeni i nezaštićeni.
S druge strane, deca odrastaju uvek povezana, nikad ne moraju da prolaze kroz sve one probleme koje donosi osamostaljivanje pa ostaju nedorasla i nezrela. Danas nešto istinski doživljavamo samo ako dobijemo elektronsku potvrdu. Nema tu previše autonomije. Ljudi u virtuelnom životu izgledaju i ponašaju se drugačije nego u „stvarnom“ životu. Mnogi su na internetu surovi čak i kada nisu anonimni. Mladi su stalno pod pritiskom da izgledaju kul na Fejsbuku i trude se da potisnu sve ono što nije dovoljno potvrđujuće za ulogu koju igraju. Te probleme prenose i u „stvaran“ život jer moraju da se ponašaju kao roboti u strahu da neka ponižavajuća situacija ne osvane na internetu. Ljudi se kontrolišu čak i kad ne bi trebalo. Deca se boje isprobavati, dolazi do gubitka različitosti i do dresure. A ponekad je potrebno pobuniti se.
Ovo su samo neke od tema kojima se bavi ova vrlo zanimljiva i korisna knjiga. Ocena je niža jer, iako je autorka obavila vrlo opsežna istraživanja, sve se svodi na mnogobrojne anegdote i iskustva ispitanika a to nije ono što najviše cenim u stručnim knjigama. Većina zaključaka deluje ubedljivo ali je očigledno da su anegdote birane i sortirane tako da postepeno navode na autorkin zaključak. Pozitivne strane tehnologija su navedene stidljivo i potom detaljno zatrpane negativnim primerima. Ipak, u mom sistemu tri zvezdice ne znače da je knjiga loša, naročito kad je u pitanju stručna knjiga. Ovo je važna knjiga, bavi se aktuelnim temama i preporučujem je svakome da je pročita.
February 6, 2013
First, I can't escape the irony of writing a review of this book for a social media website. I hope that the author can appreciate that! Like many other reviewers, I really wanted to like this book. The first half of the book deals with human-robot interactions including research conducted by Turkle and her colleagues. She does a great job of describing the results for a popular audience. The second half of the book pertains to every mode of on-line communication: gaming, chat rooms, IM, social media, video conferencing, etc. Turkle's training as a psychotherapist infuses her interpretations of the research. After reading the first half of the book, I felt she had a very dystopian view of modern technology, and I had a hard time motivating myself to finish the book. However, my curiosity motivated me to continue, and I'm glad I did. Turkle raises some interesting questions, especially regarding adolescent development and how relationships are maintained in modern times. I would have liked for her to go further with her analysis and postulate some new theories based on her findings, but she did not. This book makes us stop and think critically about our embrace of technology, and that's a good thing.
June 21, 2012
quote from Turkle: “children were encouraged to see the stuff of computers as the same stuff of which life is made”
which children? what "stuff"? whom are they "encouraged" by?
which children? what "stuff"? whom are they "encouraged" by?
Read
May 31, 2012Recently, I read an article by Jonah Lehrer. He started this article by warmly responding to a negative book review which he received. Lehrer’s smart reply gave me some ideas about reviewing other’s work. In fact, after reading his reply, I have some misgivings about reviewing a person’s work negatively. Constructively critiquing each other’s work is something I think we are still working on in social media. But how is that done? How do I warmly critique someone’s work? Yet, before I start my review, I also think that we appraise the work which speaks to us. And, in the most profound ways, this book, Alone Together, speaks to me. This is why I spend an hour in late May to record my thoughts on a book published nearly two years ago.
With that said, I am not an adherent to Sherry Turkle’s perspectives advanced in Alone Together Alone. Turkle’s ideas seem to advance a type of mechanical determinism. In particular, she contends that social media is metering out a type of group think fostered by the new media culture and its devices. In some ways, it seems that there are two types of thinking in our new social media age. I think many of social media’s thought leaders are too uncritical of social media. Yet, I will tackle the “a critical” tone of social media at another time. Today, with my comments on Turkle’s work, I am not concerned about an uncomplicated understanding of social life. Her ideas are appropriately complex. Yet, at important times, Turkle seems too much of a psychoanalyst. That is, her theoretical framework of dysfunction seems to be the only lens through which she views the culture which has developed around social media. And, in this way, I wonder the extent to which the Academy can speak to issues in social media if their frameworks are strictly orthodox. This may be the case with Turkle. Her analysis is too deeply seeped in one framework to tell the full story about social media and its current impact on society.
First, I understand that I am coming late to this party. Turkle’s work has been out since the beginning of 2011. However, social media has had growing traction in this time. My reading of Turkle seems to have changed somewhat given the time since it has been release. In particular, I have noticed how Turkle seems to have one response to the growing reach of social media- a negative one. To a degree, I understand this. She highlights how both teenagers and parents are distracted by their mobile devices. And, I believe there are concerns about the ways mobile technology and social media platforms are influencing the process of thinking.
Turkle, especially on the second reading, lays-out what seems to be a relatively uncomplicated understanding of technology. I know this seems somewhat strange given that Turkle has been studying the influence of technology for nearly 30 years. And there are caveats- Turkle never outwardly frames her arguments so straightforwardly. Yet, on reflection, I wonder about the academic’s role in social media. In particular, I wonder if someone like Turkle can fully tackle social media. More completely, Turkle’s theoretical framework of psychoanalysis may be too pronounced. I wonder if it can bring practically insightful understandings to social media. Going even further, I am not convinced that Turkle’s theoretical framework is sufficiently complex to understand social media because the framework itself often provides much the analysis rather than the data.
For example, in the introduction, Turkle outlines the “robotic moment” in ways that are too Freudian for me. In fact, I found the introduction, which lays the structure for the book, is too “tethered” to notions of dysfunction to provide a relatively objective perspective. I found the examples provided somewhat bombastic. From the turtles in the American Museum of Natural History to focusing on an arcane figure like David Levy, it was all too unbelievable.
Social Media’s Thought Leaders: Reflections on Sherry’s Turkle’s Alone Together
This is not to say that Turkle has not made a number of salient points. She consistently points out that there is a tendency for many of us to prefer the “technological” experience to an authentic one. I tend to fully agree with her in this case. Turkle is right. There is a type of simulacrum that permeates some aspects of social media. However, in many parts of this book, I think Turkle could have employed a more fully complex theoretical context to the problem. I think using other frameworks may have been helpful. For example, Jean Baudrillard way of understanding of integration of symbols, relationships, and society could have been an illuminating use of theory. In particular, Baudrillard outlines four distinct semiotic stages of simulacra and simulation. The integration of theoretical frameworks may more fully reflect the ways in which social life is enacted in the world of social media.
This brings me to our last point: the role of the academic in the growing field of social media. I am not fully sure I know how to answer this question. Yet, if the academic brings her epistemological frameworks to bear, it may not be completely helpful to the academic or the field. First, I think it is not helpful to the field of social media because the theories are too rigid. There is often too little room for nuanced arguments. However, in enacted life, nuance is the rule not the exception. Additionally, academics are commissioned to study social life. However, in doing so, they may unconsciously employ understandings of social life which to too bound to a philosophical position that does not describe the problem at hand.
With that said, I am not an adherent to Sherry Turkle’s perspectives advanced in Alone Together Alone. Turkle’s ideas seem to advance a type of mechanical determinism. In particular, she contends that social media is metering out a type of group think fostered by the new media culture and its devices. In some ways, it seems that there are two types of thinking in our new social media age. I think many of social media’s thought leaders are too uncritical of social media. Yet, I will tackle the “a critical” tone of social media at another time. Today, with my comments on Turkle’s work, I am not concerned about an uncomplicated understanding of social life. Her ideas are appropriately complex. Yet, at important times, Turkle seems too much of a psychoanalyst. That is, her theoretical framework of dysfunction seems to be the only lens through which she views the culture which has developed around social media. And, in this way, I wonder the extent to which the Academy can speak to issues in social media if their frameworks are strictly orthodox. This may be the case with Turkle. Her analysis is too deeply seeped in one framework to tell the full story about social media and its current impact on society.
First, I understand that I am coming late to this party. Turkle’s work has been out since the beginning of 2011. However, social media has had growing traction in this time. My reading of Turkle seems to have changed somewhat given the time since it has been release. In particular, I have noticed how Turkle seems to have one response to the growing reach of social media- a negative one. To a degree, I understand this. She highlights how both teenagers and parents are distracted by their mobile devices. And, I believe there are concerns about the ways mobile technology and social media platforms are influencing the process of thinking.
Turkle, especially on the second reading, lays-out what seems to be a relatively uncomplicated understanding of technology. I know this seems somewhat strange given that Turkle has been studying the influence of technology for nearly 30 years. And there are caveats- Turkle never outwardly frames her arguments so straightforwardly. Yet, on reflection, I wonder about the academic’s role in social media. In particular, I wonder if someone like Turkle can fully tackle social media. More completely, Turkle’s theoretical framework of psychoanalysis may be too pronounced. I wonder if it can bring practically insightful understandings to social media. Going even further, I am not convinced that Turkle’s theoretical framework is sufficiently complex to understand social media because the framework itself often provides much the analysis rather than the data.
For example, in the introduction, Turkle outlines the “robotic moment” in ways that are too Freudian for me. In fact, I found the introduction, which lays the structure for the book, is too “tethered” to notions of dysfunction to provide a relatively objective perspective. I found the examples provided somewhat bombastic. From the turtles in the American Museum of Natural History to focusing on an arcane figure like David Levy, it was all too unbelievable.
Social Media’s Thought Leaders: Reflections on Sherry’s Turkle’s Alone Together
This is not to say that Turkle has not made a number of salient points. She consistently points out that there is a tendency for many of us to prefer the “technological” experience to an authentic one. I tend to fully agree with her in this case. Turkle is right. There is a type of simulacrum that permeates some aspects of social media. However, in many parts of this book, I think Turkle could have employed a more fully complex theoretical context to the problem. I think using other frameworks may have been helpful. For example, Jean Baudrillard way of understanding of integration of symbols, relationships, and society could have been an illuminating use of theory. In particular, Baudrillard outlines four distinct semiotic stages of simulacra and simulation. The integration of theoretical frameworks may more fully reflect the ways in which social life is enacted in the world of social media.
This brings me to our last point: the role of the academic in the growing field of social media. I am not fully sure I know how to answer this question. Yet, if the academic brings her epistemological frameworks to bear, it may not be completely helpful to the academic or the field. First, I think it is not helpful to the field of social media because the theories are too rigid. There is often too little room for nuanced arguments. However, in enacted life, nuance is the rule not the exception. Additionally, academics are commissioned to study social life. However, in doing so, they may unconsciously employ understandings of social life which to too bound to a philosophical position that does not describe the problem at hand.
December 4, 2018
Since I previously enjoyed Turkle’s ‘Reclaiming Conversation,’ I decided it was time to read her oft-cited book ‘Alone Together.’ As Turkle summarizes, “The narrative of ‘Alone Together’ describes an arc: we expect more from technology and less from each other.” It’s sort of a depressing book, and even more so when you realize how much has changed in nearly a decade since she wrote it. The issues she raises and the explosion of platforms and technology have more, not less, of a pressing issue. Here are a few quotes that stood out to me:
“Technology is seductive when what it offers meets our human vulnerabilities. And as it turns out, we are very vulnerable indeed. We are lonely but fearful of intimacy. Digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our networked life allows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to each other. We’d rather text than talk.’
“People are lonely. The network is seductive. But if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude.”
“Winston Churchill said, ‘We shape our buildings and then they shape us.’ We make our technologies, and they, in turn, shape us. So, of every technology we must ask, Does it serve our human purposes?—a question that causes us to reconsider what these purposes are. Technologies, in every generation, present opportunities to reflect on our values and direction.”
“Today, our machine dream is to be never alone but always in control. This can’t happen when one is face-to-face with a person.”
“Communities are constituted by physical proximity, shared concerns, real consequences, and common responsibilities. Its members help each other in the most practical ways. On the lower east side of Manhattan, my great grandparents belonged to a block association rife with deep antagonisms. I grew up hearing stories about those times. There was envy, concern that one family was doing better than another; there was suspicion, fear that one family was stealing from another. And yet these families took care of each other, helping each other when money was tight, when there was illness, when someone died. If one family was evicted, it boarded with a neighboring one. They buried each other. What do we owe to each other in simulation?”
“We have to love our technology enough to describe it accurately. And we have to love ourselves enough to confront technology’s true effects on us. These amended narratives are a kind of realtechnik. The realtechnik of connectivity culture is about possibilities and fulfillment, but it also about the problems and dislocations of the tethered self. Technology helps us manage life stresses but generates anxieties of its own. The two are often closely linked.”
“We became tethered to the network, we really didn’t need to keep computers busy. They keep us busy. It is as though we have become their killer app. As a friend of mine put it in a moment of pique, ‘We don’t do our e-mail; our e-mail does us.’ We talk about ‘spending’ hours on e-mail, but we, too, are being spent.”
“Technology is seductive when what it offers meets our human vulnerabilities. And as it turns out, we are very vulnerable indeed. We are lonely but fearful of intimacy. Digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our networked life allows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to each other. We’d rather text than talk.’
“People are lonely. The network is seductive. But if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude.”
“Winston Churchill said, ‘We shape our buildings and then they shape us.’ We make our technologies, and they, in turn, shape us. So, of every technology we must ask, Does it serve our human purposes?—a question that causes us to reconsider what these purposes are. Technologies, in every generation, present opportunities to reflect on our values and direction.”
“Today, our machine dream is to be never alone but always in control. This can’t happen when one is face-to-face with a person.”
“Communities are constituted by physical proximity, shared concerns, real consequences, and common responsibilities. Its members help each other in the most practical ways. On the lower east side of Manhattan, my great grandparents belonged to a block association rife with deep antagonisms. I grew up hearing stories about those times. There was envy, concern that one family was doing better than another; there was suspicion, fear that one family was stealing from another. And yet these families took care of each other, helping each other when money was tight, when there was illness, when someone died. If one family was evicted, it boarded with a neighboring one. They buried each other. What do we owe to each other in simulation?”
“We have to love our technology enough to describe it accurately. And we have to love ourselves enough to confront technology’s true effects on us. These amended narratives are a kind of realtechnik. The realtechnik of connectivity culture is about possibilities and fulfillment, but it also about the problems and dislocations of the tethered self. Technology helps us manage life stresses but generates anxieties of its own. The two are often closely linked.”
“We became tethered to the network, we really didn’t need to keep computers busy. They keep us busy. It is as though we have become their killer app. As a friend of mine put it in a moment of pique, ‘We don’t do our e-mail; our e-mail does us.’ We talk about ‘spending’ hours on e-mail, but we, too, are being spent.”
May 11, 2017
I've been feeling a becoming-less-vague dislike of social media and portable connectivity for a while now, but had chalked those up to Luddite impulses that I should get over. This book has made me reevaluate whether those feelings are actually good. Things like my partner being on his phone constantly during meals (I feel lonely), browsing aimlessly through Facebook and feeling more and more insecure about the image I get of other people's lives compared to my own, and wishing I kept in touch with more people by phone and letters. These are all normal results of having the illusion of closer connections to people, when really they are elsewhere or only sharing an inauthentic version of themselves to the masses, rather than just me.
It makes me want to quit FB. I'm not going to do that (curiosity about people who are only there in my life), but I've started only logging on to check notifications and then getting out. I think it's better for my brain. I've never got into Twitter and couldn't come up with a really good justification for why not; I'm just not interested. Now I realize that it's because while it would connect me to a lot of people, those would all be superficial connections to people who didn't actually care about me, might not be there tomorrow, and of whom I couldn't expect a whole lot. I don't want 1000 followers; I want 10 friends that I talk to and see regularly.
This book also made me think a lot about parenting, and how I hope my kid(s) don't grow up with the assumption that they have no privacy and no space to themselves without other people expecting them to respond. Good lord; ten years ago I could spend a whole day out and about and only have pay phones to use! I don't want to be always on, always available. I don't want to be the parent that bans cell phones, and I also don't want to spend their adolescence constantly arguing about how I resist things that everyone else already does. It's too much for one person to fight. Step one, though, I'm getting from Turkle, would be to put away *my* phone and computer, and just pay attention to them. Duh. They'll learn manners by watching me. (Duh!)
It makes me want to quit FB. I'm not going to do that (curiosity about people who are only there in my life), but I've started only logging on to check notifications and then getting out. I think it's better for my brain. I've never got into Twitter and couldn't come up with a really good justification for why not; I'm just not interested. Now I realize that it's because while it would connect me to a lot of people, those would all be superficial connections to people who didn't actually care about me, might not be there tomorrow, and of whom I couldn't expect a whole lot. I don't want 1000 followers; I want 10 friends that I talk to and see regularly.
This book also made me think a lot about parenting, and how I hope my kid(s) don't grow up with the assumption that they have no privacy and no space to themselves without other people expecting them to respond. Good lord; ten years ago I could spend a whole day out and about and only have pay phones to use! I don't want to be always on, always available. I don't want to be the parent that bans cell phones, and I also don't want to spend their adolescence constantly arguing about how I resist things that everyone else already does. It's too much for one person to fight. Step one, though, I'm getting from Turkle, would be to put away *my* phone and computer, and just pay attention to them. Duh. They'll learn manners by watching me. (Duh!)
March 27, 2014
3.5/5
This was a fascinating collection of ideas presented by one of the foremost experts on technology and its effects on human behavior... I will be thinking about it for a long, long time. I think it's important for individuals, families, and classrooms to really consider how best to incorporate the "always on" culture without losing what she calls sacred spaces, and the human values that we want to preserve.
However.
The first part of the book was very Furby-anecdote heavy. I know she has been at this research for decades and wanted to provide some context, and I get that social robots are part of this brave new technological world we will live in, but... I wanted to cry Furby Uncle there for a while. I was also very interested in her methodology, her research questions and procedures, etc. and those never fully were explained which gave this book a very anecdotal feel that was not as satisfying as I had hoped. I had the sense that she was mostly sharing the experiences of wealthy, white private school students (this may or may not be true, but it's really hard to tell either way) and I wondered if her research had been conducted throughout the U.S. in more than one kind of community or if the social media usage/attitudes featured are just standard for teenagers now no matter the geographic location.
While I did find some observations in Part II about how smartphones have begun to change behaviors/motivations, I was most interested in the conclusion and epilogue—I feel that's where the most important and interesting points of discussion ended up, and I wanted more of that. It's still worth reading (especially for educators and parents) and essential for discussion, because the technological world will continue to change in ways we can't even imagine--better to be aware and involved than to be a pawn in those outcomes.
This was a fascinating collection of ideas presented by one of the foremost experts on technology and its effects on human behavior... I will be thinking about it for a long, long time. I think it's important for individuals, families, and classrooms to really consider how best to incorporate the "always on" culture without losing what she calls sacred spaces, and the human values that we want to preserve.
However.
The first part of the book was very Furby-anecdote heavy. I know she has been at this research for decades and wanted to provide some context, and I get that social robots are part of this brave new technological world we will live in, but... I wanted to cry Furby Uncle there for a while. I was also very interested in her methodology, her research questions and procedures, etc. and those never fully were explained which gave this book a very anecdotal feel that was not as satisfying as I had hoped. I had the sense that she was mostly sharing the experiences of wealthy, white private school students (this may or may not be true, but it's really hard to tell either way) and I wondered if her research had been conducted throughout the U.S. in more than one kind of community or if the social media usage/attitudes featured are just standard for teenagers now no matter the geographic location.
While I did find some observations in Part II about how smartphones have begun to change behaviors/motivations, I was most interested in the conclusion and epilogue—I feel that's where the most important and interesting points of discussion ended up, and I wanted more of that. It's still worth reading (especially for educators and parents) and essential for discussion, because the technological world will continue to change in ways we can't even imagine--better to be aware and involved than to be a pawn in those outcomes.
July 11, 2019
The concept for the story outweighed the excitement for reading it. In the vein of others that discuss how technology has pulled humans farther apart, Turkle, wants to add to that and heavily, heavily focuses on robots and their work now in companionship and love.
She references studies and conversations with others scientists in the field and at conferences but it seems to go around in circles discussing the same thing over and over without really digging in. It seemed surface and cyclical. Related, there weren't as many nuggets as Reclaiming Conversation to sit and think about though certainly there were a few evocative statements.
Ultimately, I expected more and my expectations didn't match the information shared in the book, but that's not to say I'm not going to keep reading Turkle's others since Reclaiming Conversation was life-changing for me.
She references studies and conversations with others scientists in the field and at conferences but it seems to go around in circles discussing the same thing over and over without really digging in. It seemed surface and cyclical. Related, there weren't as many nuggets as Reclaiming Conversation to sit and think about though certainly there were a few evocative statements.
Ultimately, I expected more and my expectations didn't match the information shared in the book, but that's not to say I'm not going to keep reading Turkle's others since Reclaiming Conversation was life-changing for me.
May 7, 2011
I admit, I gave up on this book after about 100 pages. For those of us over 40 (45?), this book sometimes seems like an academic rant against all the technology that connects us, while keeping us separate. While I agree with some of the concepts outlined in this book, I felt that the author was constantly looking for research (or conducting her own) to support her own preconceived ideas. I had been looking forward to a somewhat original take on technology and society, but the beginning of the book was a rehash of old, tired opinions. A disappointment.
December 4, 2012
The best things about the book are the titles of its two sections: 1) In Solitude, New Intimacies 2) In Intimacy, New Solitudes. The first section deals with how we perceive and interact with robots and how this may develop in the future. The second section deals with how our networked lives that are supposed to keep us more connected may be going the other way. Turkle has done most of his research on teenagers. Call me old, but I didn't like reading chapter after chapter about teenagers who send hundreds of texts a day and live their entire lives on Facebook.
September 20, 2013
Who cares about Second Life
October 24, 2014
Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other is not a book about technology. It is a book about people and how they interact with technology. Technology obsession or addiction is a symptom to a larger problem. Sherry Turkle is a MIT professor of social science and the science of technology as well as a licensed psychologist. She began studying people’s relationship to technology in the days before the personal computer was a household item. This book is the third in a trilogy about her work over the years of the personal computing movement. However, this book can stand alone as an assessment of what our love affair with our smartphones and obsession with artificial intelligences says about us.
Most lay-level philosophy of technology books are either so melancholy that we might as well be living in a post-apocalyptic technocratic society where all we can do is lament the bygone days when we were in a technological infancy. Other technology books are so optimistic that you get the uncomfortable sense that the author broke into songs of praise while writing about how technology will save us from our ills. Alone Together is neither doom-and-gloom nor overly optimistic about technology.
When the book does take a melancholy tone, it is not because technology wreaks havoc on our society, but because of the needs that people are trying to meet using technology. It is not so much that technology is the bad guy. Indeed, she argues that robots are not sentient beings. I take that to mean that they, or our smartphones, cannot be morally culpable for how we, as a society, use them. Many people talk about addiction to technology as though it was a drug, but Turkle points out that technology is the mechanism by which people satisfy something else:
“Sometimes people try to make life with others resemble simulation. They try to heighten real-life drama or control those around them. It would be fair to say that such efforts do not often end well. Then, in failure, many are tempted to return to what they do well: living their lives on the screen. If there is an addiction here, it is not to technology. It is to the habits of mind that technology allows us to practice.” (288)
Those habits of the mind, incidentally, are entrenched through the use of technology. They come from relationships you can control and interactions that are completely mediated. They come from constant stimulation through everything from getting “likes” on Facebooks (a type of recognition and approval) to video games (adrenaline rush) to online erotica to feeling important and productive by multitasking.
Key Themes
It is difficult to summarize Alone Together because Turkle walks the reader through countless studies and interviews. But if there is one narrative strand throughout the work, it is the tension between fear of loneliness and fear of intimacy.
Part One is entitled “The Robotic Movement: In Solitude, New Intimacies.” This section looks at how people respond to artificial intelligence, or robots that are meant to mimic human mannerisms. These robots are designed to give the sense that they are responding to the human who is interacting with it. Turkle provides high tech examples from MIT’s robotics labs as well as lower-tech examples from off-the-shelf robots such as Furbies and Tamagotchis for children. She provides examples from product testing of My Real Baby and Paro the seal as stand-in companions for the elderly. All of these robots, to an extent, give the impression that they are responding to the user’s care. Particularly in the studies with the elderly, they ostensibly provide a remedy for loneliness.
However, in these examples lies another theme in her book: What starts as better than nothing becomes just better. For the elderly having a robot seal that “loves” them is better than nothing. But in her discussions with career adults, some would prefer a robot companion to a real human. Their reasons reveal more about the person than the technology. A robot will not hurt you and a robot will not get sick and die. The robot will always be there, but you also have the freedom to leave the robot at home and be your own person. It is both doing away with the fallenness of other human beings, while enabling self-centeredness and autonomy.
Part one is aptly subtitled “in solitude, new intimacies” because despite how a robot may make the person feel, he or she is still alone in the room. The robot is a substitute that is good enough to satisfy a need for intimacy. “Good enough” in this case means not only that it is “real enough” but also that it does not have the baggage that comes with actual intimacy.
Part Two is entitled “Networked: In Intimacy, New Solitudes.” Unlike artificial intelligence, which is still a futuristic prospect, living networked lives is a present reality. This section looks at the trends in smartphone usage, including the anxiety people feel when they are without their phone. Many people truly fear being “off the grid” (16). Their lives are lived partially in the physical world and partially online. Turkle recounts the “stress” many people, young and old, feel about creating their Facebook profile and maintaining their online interactions. For example, at the time this book was written, Facebook was the hottest social network. Students she interviewed would get nervous if it had been a day (or even a few hours, in some cases) since someone had commented on their wall. They want to appear popular and well-liked, so, in order to construct this identity, they will comment on other people’s wall in hopes that they will comment on theirs.
Today this game is played on places like Twitter, where the aspiration is to increase the ratio of “followers”/ “following”. In other words, the goal is to have more people following you than you follow. One way to manipulate this ratio is to start by following everyone possible. Twitter etiquette is that if someone follows you, you follow them back. Once you have a large number of followers, you un-follow some to maintain the ratio. It is a game of identity craft where everyone wants to (appear to) be a celebrity.
Turkle spends a chapter on communication. Many of the students she interviewed don’t like talking on the phone, but prefer texting or messaging because it gives them more control. In assessing some of her interviews, Turkle says that the phone is too much but “Texting offers just the right amount of access, just the right amount of control. She is a modern Goldilocks: for her, texting puts people not too close, not too far, but at just the right distance. The world is now full of modern Goldilockses, people who take comfort in being in touch with a lot of people whom they also keep at bay” (15). Turkle says that the machine dream to be never alone but always in control is impossible with face-to-face interactions, and difficult when talking on the phone. But is made possible through digital life (157).
The concept of identity craft is not new. Charles Taylor wrote about this in Sources of Self (1992). Identity craft is a distinctly modern task that arises from several factors, including our lack of moral foundation and lack of common culture. Turkle points out that we are simply reworking our identities with the materials on hand (158). This explains the cell phone addiction studies which showed that really people were addicted to social networking sites, not to the cell phone, per se. This also explains the anxiety when a person, for whatever reason, is without their smartphone. They have become dependent upon constant connection, and in order to stay connected in what are often shallow, utilitarian relationships, many of them are distressed over maintaining their carefully crafted identity so that they will receive the affirmation they crave.
Reflection
There are many aspects in Alone Together that make me think of technology as the new religion or idol of our times. I had just finished reading a short academic piece by Sean Desmond Healy entitled Boredom, Self, and Culture which traces the emergence of hyperboredom as a prolific condition in our modern times. As in so many of these history-of-ideas pieces, Healy says that hyperboredom comes out of a sense of meaninglessness that emerged from the modern fragmentation of our common moral foundation. Technology serves as a kind of false-solution in that it provides as a diversion from hyperboredom and its twin, anxiety.
In Alone Together, Turkle discusses people’s vulnerabilities. In a world of meaninglessness, people create their own meaning by consuming themselves with online identities, archiving their lives, creating robot companions, living in a fantasy game, etc. Photos, robots, and video games are problems in-and-of themselves, but when people seek them out in a kind of obsessive compulsive cycle of needing to check email or text alerts or Facebook in order to allay anxieties, technology becomes something far more than a tool. It becomes something around which we can all come together and orient our lives. It becomes our god.
I appreciate that this book does not call for abandoning the smartphone or the internet, but for putting technology back in its place. Technology can be a good tool, but taken too far, it begins to control us rather than us controlling it. This comes out of what Turkle calls an over optimistic narrative about technology. In reality, technology is not the panacea for all of life’s ills, but one would think so given the way some technophiles talk. She calls for getting back to the virtues of solitude, deliberateness, and living fully in the moment. I would add the Aristotelean idea of temperance to that list.
A key idea of Turkle’s based on this book and some interviews she had done since its publication is that of having sacred spaces, places where technology cannot enter, such as the dinner table or the carpool lane. One of Turkle’s experiences exemplifies the problem:
“When I recently travelled to a memorial service for a close friend, the program, on heavy cream-colored card stock, listed the afternoon’s speakers, told who would play what music, and displayed photographs of my friend as a young woman and in her prime. Several around me used the program’s stiff, protective wings to hide their cell phones as they sent text messages during the service. One of the texting mourners, a woman in her late sixties, came over to chat with me after the service. Matter-of-factly, she offered, ‘I couldn’t stand to sit that long without getting on my phone.’ The point of the service was to take a moment. This woman had been schooled by a technology she’d had for less than a decade to find this close to impossible” (295).
I agree with Turkle that we need to learn to have appropriate boundaries with our devices. I find it odd that the people at the funeral did not even consider the irony of their actions. A funeral is to remind us of our mortality and to live our lives. When all is said and done, do we really want to have spent eight hours per day staring into our phone rather than living life?
Most lay-level philosophy of technology books are either so melancholy that we might as well be living in a post-apocalyptic technocratic society where all we can do is lament the bygone days when we were in a technological infancy. Other technology books are so optimistic that you get the uncomfortable sense that the author broke into songs of praise while writing about how technology will save us from our ills. Alone Together is neither doom-and-gloom nor overly optimistic about technology.
When the book does take a melancholy tone, it is not because technology wreaks havoc on our society, but because of the needs that people are trying to meet using technology. It is not so much that technology is the bad guy. Indeed, she argues that robots are not sentient beings. I take that to mean that they, or our smartphones, cannot be morally culpable for how we, as a society, use them. Many people talk about addiction to technology as though it was a drug, but Turkle points out that technology is the mechanism by which people satisfy something else:
“Sometimes people try to make life with others resemble simulation. They try to heighten real-life drama or control those around them. It would be fair to say that such efforts do not often end well. Then, in failure, many are tempted to return to what they do well: living their lives on the screen. If there is an addiction here, it is not to technology. It is to the habits of mind that technology allows us to practice.” (288)
Those habits of the mind, incidentally, are entrenched through the use of technology. They come from relationships you can control and interactions that are completely mediated. They come from constant stimulation through everything from getting “likes” on Facebooks (a type of recognition and approval) to video games (adrenaline rush) to online erotica to feeling important and productive by multitasking.
Key Themes
It is difficult to summarize Alone Together because Turkle walks the reader through countless studies and interviews. But if there is one narrative strand throughout the work, it is the tension between fear of loneliness and fear of intimacy.
Part One is entitled “The Robotic Movement: In Solitude, New Intimacies.” This section looks at how people respond to artificial intelligence, or robots that are meant to mimic human mannerisms. These robots are designed to give the sense that they are responding to the human who is interacting with it. Turkle provides high tech examples from MIT’s robotics labs as well as lower-tech examples from off-the-shelf robots such as Furbies and Tamagotchis for children. She provides examples from product testing of My Real Baby and Paro the seal as stand-in companions for the elderly. All of these robots, to an extent, give the impression that they are responding to the user’s care. Particularly in the studies with the elderly, they ostensibly provide a remedy for loneliness.
However, in these examples lies another theme in her book: What starts as better than nothing becomes just better. For the elderly having a robot seal that “loves” them is better than nothing. But in her discussions with career adults, some would prefer a robot companion to a real human. Their reasons reveal more about the person than the technology. A robot will not hurt you and a robot will not get sick and die. The robot will always be there, but you also have the freedom to leave the robot at home and be your own person. It is both doing away with the fallenness of other human beings, while enabling self-centeredness and autonomy.
Part one is aptly subtitled “in solitude, new intimacies” because despite how a robot may make the person feel, he or she is still alone in the room. The robot is a substitute that is good enough to satisfy a need for intimacy. “Good enough” in this case means not only that it is “real enough” but also that it does not have the baggage that comes with actual intimacy.
Part Two is entitled “Networked: In Intimacy, New Solitudes.” Unlike artificial intelligence, which is still a futuristic prospect, living networked lives is a present reality. This section looks at the trends in smartphone usage, including the anxiety people feel when they are without their phone. Many people truly fear being “off the grid” (16). Their lives are lived partially in the physical world and partially online. Turkle recounts the “stress” many people, young and old, feel about creating their Facebook profile and maintaining their online interactions. For example, at the time this book was written, Facebook was the hottest social network. Students she interviewed would get nervous if it had been a day (or even a few hours, in some cases) since someone had commented on their wall. They want to appear popular and well-liked, so, in order to construct this identity, they will comment on other people’s wall in hopes that they will comment on theirs.
Today this game is played on places like Twitter, where the aspiration is to increase the ratio of “followers”/ “following”. In other words, the goal is to have more people following you than you follow. One way to manipulate this ratio is to start by following everyone possible. Twitter etiquette is that if someone follows you, you follow them back. Once you have a large number of followers, you un-follow some to maintain the ratio. It is a game of identity craft where everyone wants to (appear to) be a celebrity.
Turkle spends a chapter on communication. Many of the students she interviewed don’t like talking on the phone, but prefer texting or messaging because it gives them more control. In assessing some of her interviews, Turkle says that the phone is too much but “Texting offers just the right amount of access, just the right amount of control. She is a modern Goldilocks: for her, texting puts people not too close, not too far, but at just the right distance. The world is now full of modern Goldilockses, people who take comfort in being in touch with a lot of people whom they also keep at bay” (15). Turkle says that the machine dream to be never alone but always in control is impossible with face-to-face interactions, and difficult when talking on the phone. But is made possible through digital life (157).
The concept of identity craft is not new. Charles Taylor wrote about this in Sources of Self (1992). Identity craft is a distinctly modern task that arises from several factors, including our lack of moral foundation and lack of common culture. Turkle points out that we are simply reworking our identities with the materials on hand (158). This explains the cell phone addiction studies which showed that really people were addicted to social networking sites, not to the cell phone, per se. This also explains the anxiety when a person, for whatever reason, is without their smartphone. They have become dependent upon constant connection, and in order to stay connected in what are often shallow, utilitarian relationships, many of them are distressed over maintaining their carefully crafted identity so that they will receive the affirmation they crave.
Reflection
There are many aspects in Alone Together that make me think of technology as the new religion or idol of our times. I had just finished reading a short academic piece by Sean Desmond Healy entitled Boredom, Self, and Culture which traces the emergence of hyperboredom as a prolific condition in our modern times. As in so many of these history-of-ideas pieces, Healy says that hyperboredom comes out of a sense of meaninglessness that emerged from the modern fragmentation of our common moral foundation. Technology serves as a kind of false-solution in that it provides as a diversion from hyperboredom and its twin, anxiety.
In Alone Together, Turkle discusses people’s vulnerabilities. In a world of meaninglessness, people create their own meaning by consuming themselves with online identities, archiving their lives, creating robot companions, living in a fantasy game, etc. Photos, robots, and video games are problems in-and-of themselves, but when people seek them out in a kind of obsessive compulsive cycle of needing to check email or text alerts or Facebook in order to allay anxieties, technology becomes something far more than a tool. It becomes something around which we can all come together and orient our lives. It becomes our god.
I appreciate that this book does not call for abandoning the smartphone or the internet, but for putting technology back in its place. Technology can be a good tool, but taken too far, it begins to control us rather than us controlling it. This comes out of what Turkle calls an over optimistic narrative about technology. In reality, technology is not the panacea for all of life’s ills, but one would think so given the way some technophiles talk. She calls for getting back to the virtues of solitude, deliberateness, and living fully in the moment. I would add the Aristotelean idea of temperance to that list.
A key idea of Turkle’s based on this book and some interviews she had done since its publication is that of having sacred spaces, places where technology cannot enter, such as the dinner table or the carpool lane. One of Turkle’s experiences exemplifies the problem:
“When I recently travelled to a memorial service for a close friend, the program, on heavy cream-colored card stock, listed the afternoon’s speakers, told who would play what music, and displayed photographs of my friend as a young woman and in her prime. Several around me used the program’s stiff, protective wings to hide their cell phones as they sent text messages during the service. One of the texting mourners, a woman in her late sixties, came over to chat with me after the service. Matter-of-factly, she offered, ‘I couldn’t stand to sit that long without getting on my phone.’ The point of the service was to take a moment. This woman had been schooled by a technology she’d had for less than a decade to find this close to impossible” (295).
I agree with Turkle that we need to learn to have appropriate boundaries with our devices. I find it odd that the people at the funeral did not even consider the irony of their actions. A funeral is to remind us of our mortality and to live our lives. When all is said and done, do we really want to have spent eight hours per day staring into our phone rather than living life?
November 30, 2016
I found 'Alone Together' hugely thought-provoking. The methods used are anthropological and grounded in the ideas of psychoanalysis, which made for an interesting change. The specific points within each theme are introduced and explained through case studies. Such an approach differs from the kind of social science I am used to, which I found powerful as Turkle’s methods displayed no cross-contamination from economics. Most quantitative and some qualitative work regurgitates the assumptions of economics in a manner I find hugely frustrating. On the other hand, it is difficult to generalise from a small sample, or indeed generalise very far at all when you’re dealing with matters of psychology. Nonetheless, it is important to study how rapid changes in technology impact upon people. Turkle’s book is fascinating as a starting point. As I read it I could not help but evaluate the roles of the internet and mobile phones in my life and contemplate how I could establish different boundaries with them.
The book begins with children and their interaction with robotic toys. I am of the generation that first experienced such things; I had an off-brand tamagotchi as a tweenager but never wanted a furby. Those weird chattery things have always freaked me out. Turkle expounds on how very young children interact with these toys, at an age when they are still finding out how to categorise objects. To me it seems odd to contemplate that children try to understand whether a furby is alive like an animal, whether it has feelings, whether it can die. That was strange, but the section about elderly people interacting with robotic baby dolls and Paro the robot seal was heart-breaking. In particular, the insight that the elderly people studied got much more from interactions with the researchers than the robots. The robots were better company than no-one, but not a substitute for real people. Turkle also confronts the social assumption that robots are needed to look after the elderly because young people cannot, for some reason.
The latter part of the book covers changes of communication patterns amongst (presumably American) teenagers and working age people. I found this eye-opening; how can anyone send hundreds of texts a day?! It takes a fairly negative approach to the always-connected ethic of smartphones, which I certainly agree with. I don’t have a smartphone because I don’t like them. It seems a little baffling to me that so many people keep them despite finding the attendant anxiety and obsessive behaviour upsetting. Then again, smartphones didn’t exist when I was teenager, although mobile phones did. Growing up with the assumption of constant connection by social networking and texting must be intensely stressful. Despite it being based in specific cases, I found Turkle’s argument for the negative side effects of recently-adopted technologies convincing. It certainly made a pleasant change from the constant barrage of phone advertising. Why should it be strange to not want a smartphone? Constant connection to the internet is neither necessary nor desirable for every single person.
That said, I wonder to what extent I was convinced by the book because it espoused views that I already held. I am somewhat wary of psychoanalytical theory, as my efforts to gain a basic understanding of it have left me dubious. I would have also liked the book to contain more evidence on the actual uptake of technologies and how it breaks down demographically, even if only for America. How does internet/smartphone use vary along gender, wealth, and age lines? A few numbers here and there would have been nice. Moreover, the massive American bias of the whole thing is not actually mentioned. Although similar trends can be observed in other rich developed nations, most likely, the cultural and demographic contexts will definitely differ. Which will change the impacts of technology, in no doubt very interesting ways.
The book also raises, without delving into, the huge and difficult question of capitalism and authenticity. In the twenty-first century of multinational company-controlled neoliberal capitalism, what is authentic experience? Are texts and emails less authentic forms of communication than letters and face-to-face conversations? If going out to a concert, film, or meal is punctuated by texting, tweeting, and posting photos online, do these attempts to capture the authenticity of the moment diminish it? I was at the cinema a few days ago and noticed at the edge of my vision a blue glow - someone was checking their phone in the middle of an exciting action film. Just the awareness that someone was doing that distracted me from the film. When considering these massive, abstract questions about everyday material experience, it is always tempting to resort to anecdote, so I can sympathise with Turkle.
That said, it is not the case that people are freely adopting fancy new phones, tablets, etc in a neutral environment. These are extremely profitable products, pushed relentlessly upon us by massive companies using sophisticated marketing techniques. As well as the unintended effects, it is worth considering the history behind this rapid technological upheaval and this is definitely something I’d like to read more about. As for authenticity, I once read a book that tried to define it (Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin And The Lust For Real Life), without making much headway. It is one of those things that can scarcely be put into words, yet you know it when you feel it. The main difficulty is that everyone surely experiences it differently. Then, when different people label an experience authentic or otherwise, the disagreement often takes an exclusionary tone of snobbery or trendiness. It is also a snake that eats its own tail, as authenticity seems only available at incredibly high cost or for no money at all. What was once seen as new, original, and innovative is rapidly co-opted for profit and becomes mainstream, thus somehow its authenticity is degraded. Authenticity has itself become a commodity, likely by changing what the words means to people. Which is practically impossible to pin down, making this tangent rather futile. (Although it did remind me to think further about whether irony and authenticity are mutually exclusive.)
On a more pragmatic note, Turkle concludes with a set of personal anecdotes from which I inferred the need to find your comfort level with technology and re-negotiate a compact with it. She could perhaps have made this clearer, although doing so would not necessarily fit with the ethos of the book. Anthropological case study-based methods do not lend themselves to generalisable policy proscriptions. During and after reading this book, though, I contemplated how I use my laptop, my phone, and social media and decided to make some tweaks. I was also reminded of the very frustrating inconsistency of my concentration levels. When reading a book, I can easily concentrate without interruption for three or four hours, basically until I get too hungry. I can’t work for anywhere near that long on an internet-connected computer without being distracted. My PhD work is all being done on a laptop, which is a total procrastination machine. If I can read a book for so long, why is my concentration so pathetically poor with the internet just a click away? I would love to disconnect the wireless but cannot when so many of my research materials are online. It’s maddening. I love the internet, but do not feel adequately in control of my use of it. This worries me. I imagine I’m not the only one.
The book begins with children and their interaction with robotic toys. I am of the generation that first experienced such things; I had an off-brand tamagotchi as a tweenager but never wanted a furby. Those weird chattery things have always freaked me out. Turkle expounds on how very young children interact with these toys, at an age when they are still finding out how to categorise objects. To me it seems odd to contemplate that children try to understand whether a furby is alive like an animal, whether it has feelings, whether it can die. That was strange, but the section about elderly people interacting with robotic baby dolls and Paro the robot seal was heart-breaking. In particular, the insight that the elderly people studied got much more from interactions with the researchers than the robots. The robots were better company than no-one, but not a substitute for real people. Turkle also confronts the social assumption that robots are needed to look after the elderly because young people cannot, for some reason.
The latter part of the book covers changes of communication patterns amongst (presumably American) teenagers and working age people. I found this eye-opening; how can anyone send hundreds of texts a day?! It takes a fairly negative approach to the always-connected ethic of smartphones, which I certainly agree with. I don’t have a smartphone because I don’t like them. It seems a little baffling to me that so many people keep them despite finding the attendant anxiety and obsessive behaviour upsetting. Then again, smartphones didn’t exist when I was teenager, although mobile phones did. Growing up with the assumption of constant connection by social networking and texting must be intensely stressful. Despite it being based in specific cases, I found Turkle’s argument for the negative side effects of recently-adopted technologies convincing. It certainly made a pleasant change from the constant barrage of phone advertising. Why should it be strange to not want a smartphone? Constant connection to the internet is neither necessary nor desirable for every single person.
That said, I wonder to what extent I was convinced by the book because it espoused views that I already held. I am somewhat wary of psychoanalytical theory, as my efforts to gain a basic understanding of it have left me dubious. I would have also liked the book to contain more evidence on the actual uptake of technologies and how it breaks down demographically, even if only for America. How does internet/smartphone use vary along gender, wealth, and age lines? A few numbers here and there would have been nice. Moreover, the massive American bias of the whole thing is not actually mentioned. Although similar trends can be observed in other rich developed nations, most likely, the cultural and demographic contexts will definitely differ. Which will change the impacts of technology, in no doubt very interesting ways.
The book also raises, without delving into, the huge and difficult question of capitalism and authenticity. In the twenty-first century of multinational company-controlled neoliberal capitalism, what is authentic experience? Are texts and emails less authentic forms of communication than letters and face-to-face conversations? If going out to a concert, film, or meal is punctuated by texting, tweeting, and posting photos online, do these attempts to capture the authenticity of the moment diminish it? I was at the cinema a few days ago and noticed at the edge of my vision a blue glow - someone was checking their phone in the middle of an exciting action film. Just the awareness that someone was doing that distracted me from the film. When considering these massive, abstract questions about everyday material experience, it is always tempting to resort to anecdote, so I can sympathise with Turkle.
That said, it is not the case that people are freely adopting fancy new phones, tablets, etc in a neutral environment. These are extremely profitable products, pushed relentlessly upon us by massive companies using sophisticated marketing techniques. As well as the unintended effects, it is worth considering the history behind this rapid technological upheaval and this is definitely something I’d like to read more about. As for authenticity, I once read a book that tried to define it (Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin And The Lust For Real Life), without making much headway. It is one of those things that can scarcely be put into words, yet you know it when you feel it. The main difficulty is that everyone surely experiences it differently. Then, when different people label an experience authentic or otherwise, the disagreement often takes an exclusionary tone of snobbery or trendiness. It is also a snake that eats its own tail, as authenticity seems only available at incredibly high cost or for no money at all. What was once seen as new, original, and innovative is rapidly co-opted for profit and becomes mainstream, thus somehow its authenticity is degraded. Authenticity has itself become a commodity, likely by changing what the words means to people. Which is practically impossible to pin down, making this tangent rather futile. (Although it did remind me to think further about whether irony and authenticity are mutually exclusive.)
On a more pragmatic note, Turkle concludes with a set of personal anecdotes from which I inferred the need to find your comfort level with technology and re-negotiate a compact with it. She could perhaps have made this clearer, although doing so would not necessarily fit with the ethos of the book. Anthropological case study-based methods do not lend themselves to generalisable policy proscriptions. During and after reading this book, though, I contemplated how I use my laptop, my phone, and social media and decided to make some tweaks. I was also reminded of the very frustrating inconsistency of my concentration levels. When reading a book, I can easily concentrate without interruption for three or four hours, basically until I get too hungry. I can’t work for anywhere near that long on an internet-connected computer without being distracted. My PhD work is all being done on a laptop, which is a total procrastination machine. If I can read a book for so long, why is my concentration so pathetically poor with the internet just a click away? I would love to disconnect the wireless but cannot when so many of my research materials are online. It’s maddening. I love the internet, but do not feel adequately in control of my use of it. This worries me. I imagine I’m not the only one.
May 17, 2012
I've struggled with how to review this, but here goes a half-assed attempt...
"Alone Together" is broken down into two parts. The first part deals with robotics. And it was awful. Everything reeks of a psychologist who has found exactly what she set out to find. For example, it felt like she wanted to show that children are unable to tell the difference between human beings and electronic toys. So she interviews, say, 100 of them. And if she finds one of them that confirms her theory, she devotes a chapter to talking about how disconnected today's children are.
I don't know that I'm right about this, of course. I'm just saying that it really felt like her stories were way too fantastic to be the norm. I don't think she fabricated those stories. I just think that things feel a little cherry-picked.
The second part of the book, however, was a bit more interesting. She deals with how human beings communicate in the modern world. Text, IM, Facebook, etc. I'd probably give 1 star to the first half of the book and 3 to the second.
Something else that bothered me about the book was this subtitle - "Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other". For the last 100 or so pages I was reading the book, I kept asking myself about it. "Okay, why do we expect more from technology and less from each other?" For that matter, "Do we expect more from technology and less from each other?"
I came away unconvinced.
The problem here is that things do change. As we get older, it's (I think) natural for people to start getting nostalgic about the "good old days" and seniors always seem to think that the world is going to hell. But I think they forget that the generation before them felt the same way. As did the generation before them. And so forth.
I'm not going to lie. I am a bit of a Luddite at times. I only recently got a smart phone. And I'm a 37-year old who has worked in IT for 12 years now. I guess I'm contrary, or something.
I do see the amazing advances being made in technology and often think "ya, but how is this affecting the way human beings interact with each other?" I sit on a train platform most days and marvel at how many faces are buried in smart phones instead of actually communicating with others.
To go back to an earlier mention, although I felt like she might have been cherry-picking examples for the purpose of writing a harder-hitting book, there are still some things that will stick with me awhile. For example, the number of children who seemed disappointed at having parents who were not present in the moment with them. Instead of sitting down to dinner together or talking on the drive home from school or helping them out with a toy they are trying to figure out, their parents are off to the side with their faces turned towards the glow of some electronic device.
At its best, the book offers some good conversation starters. And maybe a chance for self-reflection. Something that our modern, post-wired world doesn't always afford.
"Alone Together" is broken down into two parts. The first part deals with robotics. And it was awful. Everything reeks of a psychologist who has found exactly what she set out to find. For example, it felt like she wanted to show that children are unable to tell the difference between human beings and electronic toys. So she interviews, say, 100 of them. And if she finds one of them that confirms her theory, she devotes a chapter to talking about how disconnected today's children are.
I don't know that I'm right about this, of course. I'm just saying that it really felt like her stories were way too fantastic to be the norm. I don't think she fabricated those stories. I just think that things feel a little cherry-picked.
The second part of the book, however, was a bit more interesting. She deals with how human beings communicate in the modern world. Text, IM, Facebook, etc. I'd probably give 1 star to the first half of the book and 3 to the second.
Something else that bothered me about the book was this subtitle - "Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other". For the last 100 or so pages I was reading the book, I kept asking myself about it. "Okay, why do we expect more from technology and less from each other?" For that matter, "Do we expect more from technology and less from each other?"
I came away unconvinced.
The problem here is that things do change. As we get older, it's (I think) natural for people to start getting nostalgic about the "good old days" and seniors always seem to think that the world is going to hell. But I think they forget that the generation before them felt the same way. As did the generation before them. And so forth.
I'm not going to lie. I am a bit of a Luddite at times. I only recently got a smart phone. And I'm a 37-year old who has worked in IT for 12 years now. I guess I'm contrary, or something.
I do see the amazing advances being made in technology and often think "ya, but how is this affecting the way human beings interact with each other?" I sit on a train platform most days and marvel at how many faces are buried in smart phones instead of actually communicating with others.
That stranger over there is wearing a Chicago Bears jacket. You're a Bears' fan and there was a big game yesterday afternoon. Why not ask them if they watched the game - see what they thought. Allow them to vent about a bad play or maybe reflect on the big win and bring a smile to somebody's day.
Nah... I'll just go back to checking my e-mail on my Blackberry...
To go back to an earlier mention, although I felt like she might have been cherry-picking examples for the purpose of writing a harder-hitting book, there are still some things that will stick with me awhile. For example, the number of children who seemed disappointed at having parents who were not present in the moment with them. Instead of sitting down to dinner together or talking on the drive home from school or helping them out with a toy they are trying to figure out, their parents are off to the side with their faces turned towards the glow of some electronic device.
At its best, the book offers some good conversation starters. And maybe a chance for self-reflection. Something that our modern, post-wired world doesn't always afford.
January 7, 2016
Most technology books tend to focus on how it negatively affects our mind and impairs our thinking. However, given her unique background as a trained psychologist and professor at MIT, Turkle brings a very unique perspective into discussions about technology.
The book is basically divided into two main parts, both centered on different ways that we seek community through technology: one half of the book focusing on human-robot interactions, and the other half on human-human interactions mediated through technology.
The first half of the book was surprisingly disturbing and creepy. The conversations Turkle describes with people who would be willing to ditch human companions for robotic ones are mind-chilling, especially as it becomes clear that we're quickly moving to that sort of technology--and--in some cases--the technology is already here. We already have robots that people form "emotional attachments" to. We already have social robots, robotic dogs, and robots that can take partial-care of the elderly. The most unnerving part? The fact that, over time, nearly all of the people that Turkle worked with in her experiments would eventually form emotional attachments with their social robots and begin to view them as "alive." These types of robots may be few at the present; but the questions Turkle raises in this section are undoubtedly going to become the sorts of ethical questions we'll need to make in the near-future.
The second half of the book was more applicable than the first to the present-day, as Turkle looks at social interactions online. To her credit, Turkle does not gravitate to extremes, and praises many of the capabilities of these new technologies. But she also raises serious questions about these technologies, and convincingly shows that pretty much all digital technologies push us toward only presenting a cleaned-up, perfect, or even completely different image of ourselves than we are in real life.
Both parts together offer a critical insight: We want to be in community with other people--but we want to avoid all those messy interactions that tend to happen in real-life. Digital technologies now give us the opportunity to feel connected in a community--whether it be with social robots that will never disappoint us, or with social networks that edit out the messiness of actual communities in real-life. Digital life is easy; and by retreating to it, we tune out the complexities of real-life.
All this leads to a question: What do we do next? Assuming that neither an abandonment of real-life to a cleaned-up digital world nor a complete abandonment of the digital world are options, we have the difficulty of navigating a middle path. Turkle's book mostly raises these questions, and doesn't spend a lot of time answering them. As people living in a more and more digital world, this then becomes mandatory for us to consider. How much will we sacrifice the difficulties of the real-world in exchange for the ease of the digital? How do we balance the necessity of interacting with the digital world with its downsides? I'm not sure of all the answers. But one thing is clear in this book: these are questions that need to be asked; and how we answer these questions will dramatically shape our lives.
Rating: 4.5-5 Stars (Extremely Good)
The book is basically divided into two main parts, both centered on different ways that we seek community through technology: one half of the book focusing on human-robot interactions, and the other half on human-human interactions mediated through technology.
The first half of the book was surprisingly disturbing and creepy. The conversations Turkle describes with people who would be willing to ditch human companions for robotic ones are mind-chilling, especially as it becomes clear that we're quickly moving to that sort of technology--and--in some cases--the technology is already here. We already have robots that people form "emotional attachments" to. We already have social robots, robotic dogs, and robots that can take partial-care of the elderly. The most unnerving part? The fact that, over time, nearly all of the people that Turkle worked with in her experiments would eventually form emotional attachments with their social robots and begin to view them as "alive." These types of robots may be few at the present; but the questions Turkle raises in this section are undoubtedly going to become the sorts of ethical questions we'll need to make in the near-future.
The second half of the book was more applicable than the first to the present-day, as Turkle looks at social interactions online. To her credit, Turkle does not gravitate to extremes, and praises many of the capabilities of these new technologies. But she also raises serious questions about these technologies, and convincingly shows that pretty much all digital technologies push us toward only presenting a cleaned-up, perfect, or even completely different image of ourselves than we are in real life.
Both parts together offer a critical insight: We want to be in community with other people--but we want to avoid all those messy interactions that tend to happen in real-life. Digital technologies now give us the opportunity to feel connected in a community--whether it be with social robots that will never disappoint us, or with social networks that edit out the messiness of actual communities in real-life. Digital life is easy; and by retreating to it, we tune out the complexities of real-life.
All this leads to a question: What do we do next? Assuming that neither an abandonment of real-life to a cleaned-up digital world nor a complete abandonment of the digital world are options, we have the difficulty of navigating a middle path. Turkle's book mostly raises these questions, and doesn't spend a lot of time answering them. As people living in a more and more digital world, this then becomes mandatory for us to consider. How much will we sacrifice the difficulties of the real-world in exchange for the ease of the digital? How do we balance the necessity of interacting with the digital world with its downsides? I'm not sure of all the answers. But one thing is clear in this book: these are questions that need to be asked; and how we answer these questions will dramatically shape our lives.
Rating: 4.5-5 Stars (Extremely Good)
December 14, 2012
What a good book this is! Humane, filled with common-sense, and refreshing.
The writing is not graceful—it's a bit wordy, repetitive, occasionally ponderous. It's not as well-organized or tight as it could be, either—somewhat redundant in ideas as well as words. But these are minor quibbles compared to how well this book does on the two critical aspects of nonfiction: the importance of the topic, and the arguments and insights it offers. In these, it shines.
The two main sections of Alone Together consider our engagements with first, robots and robotic toys; next, social networks. Her argument can be summed up with this quote from the introduction: "we seem determined to give human qualities to objects and content to treat each other as things." (p. xiv)
As a researcher of long standing at MIT, Turkle has far more access to robots than I do; so for me, the first section read more as a warning about what's coming, while I had no trouble relating whole-heartedly to the lamentations of the second. Still, after decades of watching actors play androids, speaking lines written by screenwriters rather than assembled by programmers, it's useful to be reminded that, inside the hardware embodying Kismet, Cog, Paro, Furby, or your Tamagotchi, nobody's home. You've been studied, and responses that elicit an emotional response from you have been programmed; that's all. What robots offer is is mimicry, not understanding. That we're so easy to fool speaks volumes about our willingness to be fooled. Are we really so lonely?
Evidently, to go by the social networking discussions. Boy, am I glad that my adolescence encompassed merely LSD and assassinations, and my heart was free to break without the ceaseless need to groom my Facebook profile, or respond to text messages within ten minutes no matter what. Not a new thought, but I had no idea how extreme matters have become. I realize lots of people get good at Guitar Hero because it's easier than learning to play the guitar, but I’d never reflected on how hollow it must feel to be robbed of real accomplishments in so many spheres of your life at once. And I thought I knew about Second Life—ha! I'm haunted by the guy who tells Turkle, while watching his kids at the playground, that he starts his day by engaging his avatar in interactive sex animations with the avatar of a person he's never met, and probably never will. And that this enables him to stay in his marriage. Bleak. So bleak.
I could go on—the book's stuffed with fascinating vignettes, well chosen and sharply drawn, to advance her argument— but you get the idea. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. But try telling that to enthusiastic, myopic, greedy, lonely, vulnerable us.
The writing is not graceful—it's a bit wordy, repetitive, occasionally ponderous. It's not as well-organized or tight as it could be, either—somewhat redundant in ideas as well as words. But these are minor quibbles compared to how well this book does on the two critical aspects of nonfiction: the importance of the topic, and the arguments and insights it offers. In these, it shines.
The two main sections of Alone Together consider our engagements with first, robots and robotic toys; next, social networks. Her argument can be summed up with this quote from the introduction: "we seem determined to give human qualities to objects and content to treat each other as things." (p. xiv)
As a researcher of long standing at MIT, Turkle has far more access to robots than I do; so for me, the first section read more as a warning about what's coming, while I had no trouble relating whole-heartedly to the lamentations of the second. Still, after decades of watching actors play androids, speaking lines written by screenwriters rather than assembled by programmers, it's useful to be reminded that, inside the hardware embodying Kismet, Cog, Paro, Furby, or your Tamagotchi, nobody's home. You've been studied, and responses that elicit an emotional response from you have been programmed; that's all. What robots offer is is mimicry, not understanding. That we're so easy to fool speaks volumes about our willingness to be fooled. Are we really so lonely?
Evidently, to go by the social networking discussions. Boy, am I glad that my adolescence encompassed merely LSD and assassinations, and my heart was free to break without the ceaseless need to groom my Facebook profile, or respond to text messages within ten minutes no matter what. Not a new thought, but I had no idea how extreme matters have become. I realize lots of people get good at Guitar Hero because it's easier than learning to play the guitar, but I’d never reflected on how hollow it must feel to be robbed of real accomplishments in so many spheres of your life at once. And I thought I knew about Second Life—ha! I'm haunted by the guy who tells Turkle, while watching his kids at the playground, that he starts his day by engaging his avatar in interactive sex animations with the avatar of a person he's never met, and probably never will. And that this enables him to stay in his marriage. Bleak. So bleak.
I could go on—the book's stuffed with fascinating vignettes, well chosen and sharply drawn, to advance her argument— but you get the idea. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. But try telling that to enthusiastic, myopic, greedy, lonely, vulnerable us.
June 29, 2013
For someone who feels technology can't provide the authenticity and depth of real life, it's ironic how shallow this book is.
It feels like a printed out Google search. Full of anecdotes and assumptions with no data or proof to support her conclusions.
I'll give it two stars purely because it does bring up interesting questions and some of the anecdotes are worthwhile. But the biggest question that it brings up is: Why would this author work at MIT and give her child so many robots and electronic toys if she hates technology so much?
It feels like a printed out Google search. Full of anecdotes and assumptions with no data or proof to support her conclusions.
I'll give it two stars purely because it does bring up interesting questions and some of the anecdotes are worthwhile. But the biggest question that it brings up is: Why would this author work at MIT and give her child so many robots and electronic toys if she hates technology so much?
July 15, 2018
Like my friend Jonathan McKay said, read the last chapter because it has some great quotes, and skip the first half of the book.
I liked the repeated anecdotes about how technology influences our lives, so three stars instead of two. But the academic prose made me constantly feel like the author was lecturing me, like she thought she was better than me. And it made me feel not so smart. I didn’t appreciate that.
I liked the repeated anecdotes about how technology influences our lives, so three stars instead of two. But the academic prose made me constantly feel like the author was lecturing me, like she thought she was better than me. And it made me feel not so smart. I didn’t appreciate that.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 878 reviews