I think the idea of technology is going to be merely contextual. Most people who have close friends with conversation can probably still make it with texting and technology. But there is a hint of truth to that when talking to complete strangers, having a meaningful live debate with someone on opposing views is going to be less civil and meaningful in say, a twitter argument. Also making posts online for people who you barely met is definitely not build as much empathy, than some other people. Though like I said texting online is really contextual and varies a lot on what the conversation/platform is, which in a specific, and I’ll admit common context could or not prove what Sherry Turkle’s point.
Category: Uncategorized
One of Gladwell’s criticism of social media activism is the lack of organization. There isn’t much planning nor strategizing with social media networks, which leads to disorder and conflict where progress is less likely to happen. I think I personally agree to this. By going on social media for a movement where things are more impersonal, it’s much more harder to establish any sort of strategy or leadership. But this is definitely an obstacle to overcome with social media, which can be overcome by being personal and establishing leadership.
Cosmopolitans would be the idea of a global understanding and opening up of and to the many different viewpoints of all different types of people across the world. In a way he advocates for it is taking examples from the opposite of cosmopolitanism with Hitler and Stalin, isolated from and villainized outside views to the point it lead to extreme acts. How it lead to change is how outside views on a culture could lead to the culture taking in some of the views and adjusting, Chinese foot binding for example.
I was a bit confused about the hypothetical time traveling child but I got the point after a second read through.
After listening to this podcast from this American Life . I have concluded one of the best cases of changing someone’s mind is with a very personal and emotional conversation and helping lead the person talking into finding out for themselves that the topic at hand, given is in fact something that lines up to their morals. Preventing the “backfire effect” in where straight up facts about the subject would, for lack of a better word backfire and leading them to changing their mind themselves instead of forcing them. I’ve heard many claims the best way to win an argument is to be more emotional and appeal to the human side of the other, this does help me understand it more. But it also shines light the downside against it, it specifically how manipulative it is and the fact that people on the other side of the argument can use this method as equal, personally though I can’t imagine what it would sound like I can imagine it happening. There should also be the fact it won’t work on people who have an even more fundamentally different outlook on life accounted for. Like someone who’s fundamental beliefs are against aspects like abortions and gay marriage. This shows it’s one effective way to change people’s minds but has its clear downsides, and shouldn’t be the only way to convince an argument.
Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. It is a sample to show of a post in this theme. Delete it, then start blogging!
