Orenstein and Pinker

            In Peggy Orenstein’s essay "I Tweet, Therefore I am", she theorizes that social media causes individuals to lose their identity. People are becoming more invested in their social profile and they are able to manipulate the way others perceive them by carefully selecting the photos and statuses they share with others. This nitpicking process turn the person into her ideal self but in the end, she is just deceiving herself and the people around her. This obsession with hiding behind a façade of perfection leads people to being unable to gain a conception of who they really are. Orenstein was able to use the rhetoric of ethos, or credibility. Orenstein can be trusted because she explains her own personal experience with social media. She also referenced the sociologist Erving Goffman who argued that in every aspect of our life, we are all just actors in a play. I do agree with Orenstein to an extent; social media makes it easier for people to be ‘fake’ as people are basically hiding behind their computer screen and not thinking of the consequences to their actions. However, even before social media, we have always been actors in our everyday interactions. It is difficult to achieve self-awareness and many people go through life wondering who they really are.

            In "Mind Over Mass Media", Steven Pinker argues that technology is not making society dumber but rather, it is the only thing keeping society smart. Pinker believes that technology provides people with quick and accessible information with the touch of a finger. Books are no longer perceived as necessary since technology is much more convenient and not as heavy.

Pinker attempts to use logic in his essay but ultimately, fails. For example, Pinker writes, “These days scientists are never far from their e-mail, rarely touch paper and cannot lecture without PowerPoint…discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies…philosophy, history, and cultural criticism, are likewise flourishing.” Pinker mentions that scientists are relying on technology more but it seems as though the reason scientists use technology is for conveniency. E-mail makes it convenient for scientist to stay in contact with other scientists and PowerPoints makes it convenient for scientists to convey their ideas but none of the applications used are actually making the scientist ‘smarter’ or influencing the rate of discoveries. There may a positive correlation between scientists using technology more and the number of discoveries but correlation does not mean causation. Technology is simply making communication easier and allowing scientists to share their ideas amongst each other at a more advantageous pace. Pinker then states ‘examples’ of how technology is making society smarter yet his examples are so broad and generalized, it hard to agree with his argument. He only states that technology is making people smart but does not go in-depth with specific examples of how. He does not give readers specific cases in which technology has helped science, philosophy, history ‘flourish’.

            I do not agree with Pinker’s thesis. I do not believe that technology is the only thing keeping us smart. Technology is not making us dumber or smarter, it is just making information more accessible to us and it is whether or not we use the information to become smarter or misuse it and become dumber. But, that is on the individual and is the individual’s responsibility, not technology’s. Also, before technology, people were able to obtain knowledge from books and modern society still has the opportunity to do so. One part of Pinker’s thesis that I do agree with is that the individual should develop self-control strategies to not let technology dominate their lives.