Every technological advancement, especially mechanical technology, has faced rigorous opposition by critics before it finally became (or did not become) the norm; cell phones and text messaging is no exception. When the technology was first released it was advertised as an enhanced method of communicating, but now people are arguing that they have made true communicating harder. In her essay “No Need to Call” Sherry Turkle claims that technology has not only removed the intimacy from communication but also made it harder for students to communicate via anything besides a short string of words; inversely Michaela Cullington writes im “Does Texting Affect Writing?” that children's’ writing and analytical skills are no worse off due to technology. If Cullington were to respond to Turkle’s writings, she would argue that technology is not the cause for a decrease in communication but the catalyst that has allowed people to communicate in the fashion they prefer; if anyone feels limited by technology then it is just the result of their own doings.
Turkle, a professor at MIT and director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, writes about a girl named Meredith who describes the difference between communicating in person and via text: “‘I was shocked [about my friend’s death]..., but I was more okay than I would’be been if I saw people. I went through the whole thing not seeing anyone and just talking to people online about it…. I think it would’ve been much worse if they’d told me in person’” (Turkle 385). Turkle uses this section to exemplify that texting decrease the intimacy of conversations to the point where even death is unmoving, but Cullington (a speech and language pathologist with her Master’s from Marywood University) would argue that this is not necessarily a problem. According to a 2014 survey by Frank Newport from Gallup Polling, the second-largest and respected polling company (right behind Google), almost 20% more respondents (aged between 18 and 29) responded that they frequently texted than those who said they frequently called. Not only this but Gallup also found that emailing was almost as popular as calling and social media platforms only fell 10% behind as well. Using this information Cullington would argue that students aren’t forced but prefer the unintimate conversations; it just wasn’t until recently did it become possible.
Later on in her essay Turkle recounts a time she met had communication issues with her friend, saying, “Joyce said that she had thought of calling to congratulate me, but a call had seemed ‘intrusive.’ I admitted that I hadn’t called her to share my good news for the same reason. Joyce and I both felt constrained by a new etiquette but were also content to follow it” (Turkle 386). Turkle states that, because it is now easier to say more with less, the bare minimum of communication is expected and anything more is a disturbance; as a result there’s no intimacy in communication but just an exchanging of words. However, Cullington would attribute Turkle’s and Joyce’s actions to a placebo effect of sorts. According to Oxford Dictionary the placebo effect is, “a[n]...effect, produced by a...treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the…[treatment] itself, and must therefore be due to the patient’s belief in that treatment”. Simply put: since Turkle and her friend believe technology hinders communication they will end up hindering their own technology-based communications. In fact Cullington’s investigations and research show no correlation between texting and decreases in ability to communicate; so, with the only other factor left being the communicators, the responsibility for the loss in communication falls squarely on the operator’s shoulders. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”
Newport, Frank. "The New Era of Communication Among Americans."Gallup.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.
Turkle, a professor at MIT and director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, writes about a girl named Meredith who describes the difference between communicating in person and via text: “‘I was shocked [about my friend’s death]..., but I was more okay than I would’be been if I saw people. I went through the whole thing not seeing anyone and just talking to people online about it…. I think it would’ve been much worse if they’d told me in person’” (Turkle 385). Turkle uses this section to exemplify that texting decrease the intimacy of conversations to the point where even death is unmoving, but Cullington (a speech and language pathologist with her Master’s from Marywood University) would argue that this is not necessarily a problem. According to a 2014 survey by Frank Newport from Gallup Polling, the second-largest and respected polling company (right behind Google), almost 20% more respondents (aged between 18 and 29) responded that they frequently texted than those who said they frequently called. Not only this but Gallup also found that emailing was almost as popular as calling and social media platforms only fell 10% behind as well. Using this information Cullington would argue that students aren’t forced but prefer the unintimate conversations; it just wasn’t until recently did it become possible.
Later on in her essay Turkle recounts a time she met had communication issues with her friend, saying, “Joyce said that she had thought of calling to congratulate me, but a call had seemed ‘intrusive.’ I admitted that I hadn’t called her to share my good news for the same reason. Joyce and I both felt constrained by a new etiquette but were also content to follow it” (Turkle 386). Turkle states that, because it is now easier to say more with less, the bare minimum of communication is expected and anything more is a disturbance; as a result there’s no intimacy in communication but just an exchanging of words. However, Cullington would attribute Turkle’s and Joyce’s actions to a placebo effect of sorts. According to Oxford Dictionary the placebo effect is, “a[n]...effect, produced by a...treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the…[treatment] itself, and must therefore be due to the patient’s belief in that treatment”. Simply put: since Turkle and her friend believe technology hinders communication they will end up hindering their own technology-based communications. In fact Cullington’s investigations and research show no correlation between texting and decreases in ability to communicate; so, with the only other factor left being the communicators, the responsibility for the loss in communication falls squarely on the operator’s shoulders. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”
Newport, Frank. "The New Era of Communication Among Americans."Gallup.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.