If I had to read Alone Together again, I believe I would read and follow the instructions of the Derek Humphry book mentioned above instead.Finally I have struggled my way to the end of Alone Together. The second half of the book is long. Oh so long. It recounts story, after story, after story, after story, after story of people who are tied to technology, worried about the Facebook profiles, texting all of the time. It was such an abrupt shift from the robot-rant and it is so poorly edited (come on, do you need that many of the same type of stories with no real solution).
We all understand now. Yes we get it.
My friend Joanie and I used to make fun of people who talked on their cell phones in the mall. We once took a landline, cord and all and walked in the mall talking on it, just to...I don't know, just to be weird! Now I talk on my cell phone all of the time in the mall and even fake talking on it when I'm near those kiosks for hand cream or perfume where the sales people chase you down and won't let you go. You've seen them. If I have to hear, "Pretty lady, let me show you this..." One more time....I am NOT a pretty lady and that is harassment, I just want to walk through the mall!
Years later after cell phone use had become so popular, Joanie and I decided that the only people who complain about people talking on cell phones (as long as they are polite about it) are people no one wants to talk to. Now that probably isn't true, but it is worth putting out there.
When I was in Johannesburg in 1994 everyone had cell phones. It was the most reliable ways to make and receive calls. It was weird to me, but I could see that they had adapted very well and the whole cell phone drama was no big deal.
Remember that the good ole days weren't always good. Remember that human nature never changes. There will be bright sides, there will be darkness.
This whole book of Turkle's is way too simplistic. She talks and talks about all of these social ills, but blames technology. Very little attention is paid to the reality that humans harm other humans. Again in the last chapter, Necessary Conversations, she tells of a disabled man who would prefer a robot to care for him because while many of his care-takers have been great, some have been cruel. She pays very, very little time and attention to this, especially when you reflect upon the 153 story of a high school junior who can't live without her cell phone.
Couldn't Turkle have spent a bit more time on the reality of human cruelty, about which she says, when talking about her disabled friend, "he makes the best possible case for robotic helpers when he turns the conversation to human cruelty." (page 181)
At that point I thought she would take a LITTLE more time to talk about this. A paragraph? No we don't even get that. Turkle goes on to say that he friend was dragged and had it hair pulled, but at the end of the day, even this sadist human had a story. I admire this man for forgiving his abusive caretakers. I do. I pray I would do the same and realize that an abuser probably has also been abused. But you know, that's a heck of a lot easier to do when you are the one who was abused. That's your own right to forgive the abuser.
But what if that person who was abused was my child? Or Turkle's friend's elderly mother? Do I or does Turkle's friend have the right to then say that the abuser is forgiven?
I submit to you that we are much more able to forgive a harm done to ourselves than a harm done to those whom we love, or even a stranger. As I read about the abuse that Turkle's friend suffered, I thought, I was outraged. I don't even know the man. But, even if we do forgive a caregiver who harms our child, parent or friend, do we have the right then to just let that continue? Or to force or child, parent or friend to forgive? Turkle says that her disabled friend, "Although he would not want his life endangered, he prefers the sadist to the robot." (page 182)
I, Too may choose the sadist. But would I choose the sadist for my 2 year old? For my 89 year old mother? This, Ms. Turkle, is a necessary conversation as well.
Alas, not one we will have, as immediate after that Turkle goes back on her relentless and repetitive reminder that robots don't feel. Yes. We know. We know.
And if a robot had babysat Caylee Anthony, she might still be with us. Ah, Turkle and her friend would say, "but Caylee Anthony's killer had a story". So true. And because of it, Caylee's story is now ended.
All I wanted was a bit more intelligent dialog from Turkle about human nature, human cruelty. Why didn't I get it? Not for the sake of brevity. And further more, the book's subtle implies that we will talk about this! The "and less from each other".
This book was required reading in a graduate school course in an MLIS program. I would have loved to know what kind of discussion it prompted. While no book is perfect, unless it is written by Robert B. Parker, this book is a shallow and deviously flawed tome.
We all understand now. Yes we get it.
My friend Joanie and I used to make fun of people who talked on their cell phones in the mall. We once took a landline, cord and all and walked in the mall talking on it, just to...I don't know, just to be weird! Now I talk on my cell phone all of the time in the mall and even fake talking on it when I'm near those kiosks for hand cream or perfume where the sales people chase you down and won't let you go. You've seen them. If I have to hear, "Pretty lady, let me show you this..." One more time....I am NOT a pretty lady and that is harassment, I just want to walk through the mall!
Years later after cell phone use had become so popular, Joanie and I decided that the only people who complain about people talking on cell phones (as long as they are polite about it) are people no one wants to talk to. Now that probably isn't true, but it is worth putting out there.
When I was in Johannesburg in 1994 everyone had cell phones. It was the most reliable ways to make and receive calls. It was weird to me, but I could see that they had adapted very well and the whole cell phone drama was no big deal.
Remember that the good ole days weren't always good. Remember that human nature never changes. There will be bright sides, there will be darkness.
This whole book of Turkle's is way too simplistic. She talks and talks about all of these social ills, but blames technology. Very little attention is paid to the reality that humans harm other humans. Again in the last chapter, Necessary Conversations, she tells of a disabled man who would prefer a robot to care for him because while many of his care-takers have been great, some have been cruel. She pays very, very little time and attention to this, especially when you reflect upon the 153 story of a high school junior who can't live without her cell phone.
Couldn't Turkle have spent a bit more time on the reality of human cruelty, about which she says, when talking about her disabled friend, "he makes the best possible case for robotic helpers when he turns the conversation to human cruelty." (page 181)
At that point I thought she would take a LITTLE more time to talk about this. A paragraph? No we don't even get that. Turkle goes on to say that he friend was dragged and had it hair pulled, but at the end of the day, even this sadist human had a story. I admire this man for forgiving his abusive caretakers. I do. I pray I would do the same and realize that an abuser probably has also been abused. But you know, that's a heck of a lot easier to do when you are the one who was abused. That's your own right to forgive the abuser.
But what if that person who was abused was my child? Or Turkle's friend's elderly mother? Do I or does Turkle's friend have the right to then say that the abuser is forgiven?
I submit to you that we are much more able to forgive a harm done to ourselves than a harm done to those whom we love, or even a stranger. As I read about the abuse that Turkle's friend suffered, I thought, I was outraged. I don't even know the man. But, even if we do forgive a caregiver who harms our child, parent or friend, do we have the right then to just let that continue? Or to force or child, parent or friend to forgive? Turkle says that her disabled friend, "Although he would not want his life endangered, he prefers the sadist to the robot." (page 182)
I, Too may choose the sadist. But would I choose the sadist for my 2 year old? For my 89 year old mother? This, Ms. Turkle, is a necessary conversation as well.
Alas, not one we will have, as immediate after that Turkle goes back on her relentless and repetitive reminder that robots don't feel. Yes. We know. We know.
And if a robot had babysat Caylee Anthony, she might still be with us. Ah, Turkle and her friend would say, "but Caylee Anthony's killer had a story". So true. And because of it, Caylee's story is now ended.
All I wanted was a bit more intelligent dialog from Turkle about human nature, human cruelty. Why didn't I get it? Not for the sake of brevity. And further more, the book's subtle implies that we will talk about this! The "and less from each other".
This book was required reading in a graduate school course in an MLIS program. I would have loved to know what kind of discussion it prompted. While no book is perfect, unless it is written by Robert B. Parker, this book is a shallow and deviously flawed tome.
However, if you did like this book, you may also enjoy...What to Do When the Russians Come.
No comments:
Post a Comment