Arguements Concerning Electronic Media: Steven Pinker and Peggy Orenstein

Steven Pinker addresses the effects of electronic media by stating that technology isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. The new forms of media make people panic. They think that these new forms of media are hurting our way of thinking. They think, for example, that search engines are lowering our intelligence because people are only skimming the surface of knowledge instead of really digging into it and that twitter is shortening our attention spans. Pinker’s argument is that technology is helping people think on a level that they were never able to without technology. He argues this by saying that scientists are always attached to their email, never really touch paper to write anything, and can't teach without PowerPoints. With the help of technology, scientist’s discoveries have multiplied rapidly. The quality of work from scientists and professors has become even better. Just because people are accessing information faster does not mean that they are not learning from the information in front of them. Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, can be a distraction but distractions are everywhere. People just need to learn how to use these tools with moderation.

 I agree with Pinker’s argument. Having information at the snap of our fingers is only helping us advance our way of thinking. Technology is not popular because it is hurting our world but because it is helping it. The advances in science alone prove this point. Pinker uses ethos when he uses sources to prove his argument. I praise Pinkers use of ethos because he uses sources from two psychologists who explain that in order to become a good scientist you must read loads of information about science. Technology gives scientists easy access to this information.

Peggy Orenstein addresses the effects of electronic media by stating that social media is changing the way people communicate with each other. People are sharing what they are doing with others throughout their whole day and making their lives seem more entertaining as if they were performing for an audience. Orenstein thinks that Twitter is fun and that it is a great way to connect with people but she also feels that there should be a line between person and persona. She feels that people shouldn't tweet or post statuses about every single thing they are thinking about or doing every second of the day but instead write in moderation. People shouldn't share their whole lives with the world because then they will not have any intimate relationships.

I also agree with Orenstein’s argument that social media is changing our communication habits. People who use social media websites are sharing too much information. There needs to be a point where people can decide what is good or bad to share with the public. People can use social media freely to express ideas and thoughts but shouldn’t share everything with the world because all people need to have privacy in their lives. Orenstein uses ethos by connecting to the readers’ interest in social media websites and using a source from sociologist Erving Goffman. She uses pathos by adding events that are relatable to the readers’ such as lying around outside with a friend or family. I praise her for using ethos and pathos because all of her statements helped her prove her argument.