Vhea Marie P.

Bretana October 10, 2019

Critique Paper on “What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us?”

The main focus of this critique paper about an article “What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us?”
is about how technology affects us humans on how we socialize through the internet and how we
are on the real world. This article is written by Jenna Clark, Ph.D., she is a senior behavioral
researcher at Duke University’s Center for Advanced Hindsight, where she works to help people
make healthy decisions in spite of themselves. She’s also interested in how technology contributes
to our well-being through its effect on our close personal relationships. The main point and purpose
of the author about this article is on how technology affects our well-being partly depends on
whether it strengthens our relationships.

The aim of this article is to know the good and bad sides of technology for us humans, and on how
does technology affect our behaviour in the real world, and how we are in technological view or
online world, also this article aims to know on how technology affects our relationship with
everyone. The method done to understand more the goal of this article which consist the
consequences of online socialization, is that we have to to dig deeper into situational factors and
circumstances. This article was done for most of us people living in this modern world, where most
of us are so into our smartphones, we cannot spend a day without using technology, this article is
very relatable for us.

The reason why this article is done for us to know and understand more the sole purpose of this
article which is completely obvious in the title which is “What Makes Technology Good or Bad for
Us?”, it is for us to be more aware on the consequences or the aftermath on the time that we spend
on technology, if we are properly using technology. Also, we should know that there are some
limitations when using technology, we should put that in our mind for us to avoid the harm that it
may bring us.

It is said in the article that everyone’s worried about smartphones. Headlines like "Have
smartphones ruined a generation of people?" And "Smartphone addiction can change your mind"
paints a bleak picture of our smartphone dependence and its long-term consequences. This is not a
new lament — the newspaper's public opinion worried that people would forget the relaxing
pleasures of early-morning conversation in favor of reading the daily. Is the technology tale really
bad? There's definitely a reason to worry about it. Smartphone use has been associated with serious
issues such as declining attention spans, crippling depression, and even increased brain cancer
incidence. At the end of the day, though, the same concern comes up again and again: smartphones
can't be good for us, because they're losing the real human contact of the good old days.
Everyone has heard that teenagers today are just sitting together in a house, texting, rather than
actually talking to each other. But could these teenagers really get something substantive and
genuine out of all that texting?. In relation to the science of connection, a quick look at the
technology-mediated communication research reveals a literature that is ambivalent. Some studies
show that time spent online socializing can minimize isolation, improve well-being and help socially
anxious people learn how to communicate with others. Other studies suggest that time spent
socializing online can lead to isolation, reduce well-being, and promote unhealthy reliance on
technology-based communication, to the extent where users prefer to face-to-face conversation.

Occasionally, superficially similar acts have profoundly different consequences. Internet socialization
is good for you at times, it's awful at times, and the devil is in the details. It is tempting to say that
some of these findings must be right and others incorrect, but the body of evidence on both sides is
a little too robust to be swept under the carpet. Alternatively, the influence of digital media is more
complex. Occasionally, superficially similar actions have radically different implications. Sometimes
online socialization is great for you, sometimes it's terrible, and the devil is absolutely in the details.

This is not a new proposition; after all, conflicting results began to appear in the first few reports on
the social implications of the Internet back in the 1990s. Several people (including this publication)
have indicated that, in order to understand the implications of digital socialization, they need to dig
deeper into situations and circumstances. Yet what we still have to do is push beyond awareness of
the issue and give an answer: where, where, and why are some online interactions good, while
others are dangerous?

While in relation to The Interpersonal Connection Behaviors Framework, the author said that as a
researcher of close relationship, she can't help but see online interactions differently from thinkers
in other fields. People build relationships by showing their appreciation of each other's needs and
experiences, a cyclical cycle that brings them closer together. The process of If I tell you my secrets,
and you respond supportively, I’m much more likely to confide in you again—and you, in turn, are
much more likely to confide in me.

It means that every time two people talk to each other, an opportunity for relationship development
is unfolding. Many times, it chance is not being seized; we're not about to have an in-depth
conversation with the barist who asks for our order. Yet interaction is always possible theoretically,
and that is so if we communicate online or face-to-face. Close relationships are bread and butter for
happiness — and even nutrition. Feeling socially isolated is a better predictor of mortality than
smoking several cigarettes a day. If we want to understand the role technology plays in our well-
being, we need to begin with the role that technology plays in our relationships.

And it turns out that the form of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive results are
precisely those that are likely to build stronger relationships. Increased social engagement seems to
pay dividends by spending your time offline and arranging interactions with people you see day in
and day out. Using the internet to make up for being lonely just makes you lonely; using the internet
to actively search for communication has the opposite effect. Like eating junk food, social snacking
can satisfy you momentarily, but it lacks nutritional content. Looking at the posts of your friends
without ever answering may make you feel more connected to them, but it does not create
intimacy.
On the other hand, technology-mediated experiences that don't really resolve our close
relationships don't seem to do us any good — and could potentially do us harm. This kind of passive
use is a good example of "social snacking." Like eating junk food, social snacking can momentarily
satisfy you, but it lacks nutritional content. Checking at the posts of your friends without ever
responding to them might make you feel more connected to them, but it doesn't create intimacy.
Passive participation has a second drawback, as well: personal contrast. If we compare our chaotic
encounters with others ' polished self-presentations, we are likely to suffer from lower self-esteem,
satisfaction, and well-being. This impact is only compounded when we ingest people's online lives
without engaging with them, making it all too easy to ignore the less photogenic moments of their
lives.

Moving Forward, The Interpersonal Connection Behaviors Framework does not describe everything
that might affect our well-being after spending time on social media. The internet offers a lot of
other dangers — for two examples, the fear of wasting time or the psychological contagion of
negative news. However, a focus on meaningful social interaction can help explain decades of
contradictory findings. And even if the framework itself is challenged by future work, its central
concept is bound to be upheld: we have to study the details of how people are spending their time
online if we want to understand its likely effects. In the meantime, this approach has some practical
implications for those who are worried about their own online time. When you make sure that
you're using social media for purely social purposes, constantly thinking about how it can better your
life and relationships, you'll be much more likely to enjoy your online experience.

All in all, technology's impact on human interaction paints a rather dull picture. But it's a worthwhile
conversation, as it shows us the importance of managing our offline and online interactions with
others – both personal and professional. I guess the best approach is to make yourself available
through technology only when appropriate, so that it supplements our relationships rather than
replacing them. As what the author said in conclusion of the article, that In the meantime, this
framework has some practical implications for those worried about their own online time. If you
make sure you’re using social media for genuinely social purposes, with conscious thought about
how it can improve your life and your relationships, you’ll be far more likely to enjoy your digital
existence.

The strengths and the weaknesses of the article are, first it is a good topic that most of us people can
relate to. It can help us understand more about technology, its positive and its negative effects. Also,
this article is a wakeup call for us to step aside in the online world, and start living in the real world,
because some of us might not be aware that they are being addicted to technology that can lead
them to disregarding the actual world, and later on will cause them a lot of negative effects that can
damage them. Second, the title “What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us” is the appropriate
title for this article because it is certainly connected to the content, the abstract, introduction and
the whole plot of the article that the author wrote.
The methodology that the author has done for this article to be understood more was right, because
it is important to know both sides which are the good and bad effects of technology that may bring
us to prevent one-sidedness, and also to know and to see the wider perspective of the topic. The
argument is logical, but somehow there is no sufficient evidence to support it, it lacks deeper
reasons to support the main goal of the topic, but the author has quite enough things that can help
us use our creative minds to help us understand more about what the author is pointing out.

This kind of article is quite known and very common, that is why I think that this research or the
article that the author wrote is a work replicate already done. This article is very usual because this
kind of topic is very relatable for the most of us, articles like this will help us dig deeper for the
causes of the problem that we have recognize, and also to come up with solutions that can help us
solve the problems. Overall, I think that we just can’t accept the fact that the real problem in this
world is us, humans, we don’t care about our limitations, we lack discipline. We always want more,
we are not contented. Which somehow can lead us to more problems, we might not be aware of it
but we are silently destroying our ownselves.

My suggestions in this article are first to put more evidences that can support the topic, to make the
article more interesting. Second, to not focus on only one problem, the topic is very common there
should be enough knowledge we can get in this article, wider perspective should be observed for us
to not limit our knowledge relating to this topic. Lastly, the article is not lengthy enough, it is a very
interesting topic but the knowledge in this article is limited, it must contain more connected topics
to explain further the main purpose of the article, and for the readers to gain more knowledge about
this kind of topic or article.

The questions or the observations that the article suggest