Summary Of Social Connections By Steven Johnson

Has Technology Been a Positive or Negative Impact on Society?

Steven Johnson’s article Social Connections was published in the New York Times on November 28, 2006. He wrote the article as a response to Thomas Friedman’s article about why technology is causing humanity to become antisocial. Johnson argues that technology has allowed people to connect all over the world, bus has made it harder to have conversation in real life. He even feels that talking over the internet is better, as you hear the person’s ideas without hearing vocal changes or facial expressions. Johnson’s article successfully uses the rhetorical appeals, pathos and ethos, in his article, but still uses fallacies that fail to make his argument stronger

Johnson’s thesis state

was easy to find, but was not at the beginning of the article. He starts it off with giving Friedman’s article a summary and giving a quote from it. This would appeal to both logos and pathos. It appeals to logos because he uses quotes and mentioning the author of the article. He is able to appeal to pathos because he is able to get the readers to read the whole article because they may want to know what his thoughts and ideas on the topic (Johnson 423).
Johnson is appealing to ethos and pathos. He is appealing to ethos by having the authority to speak on the issue. He talks about his fifteen years riding New York subways and how people do not talk to each other, but are too busy in their own worlds. He is able to appeal to pathos by providing a vivid description of what would be a normal subway ride on the good and bad days (424).
Johnson appeals to pathos and logos. He brings up how the internet has allowed people to talk about their communities and what is happening in them. He is able to do this, because everyone can relate to their changes in their community and talking about it (424).
Johnson appeals to ethos and logos. The paragraph talks about how technology has limited face-to-face contact. He was able to admit the limitations and negative effect technology has had on that, while also bringing up the positive ones too. The quote that summarizes this is “I don’t… clearly we lose something in the transitioning to increasingly virtual interactions.” (424).
Johnson is able to appeal to ethos and pathos. He appeals to ethos because he talks about his experience in an online debate over the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. He appeals to pathos because he is pulling heartstrings about how he may have never had some conversations or debates with people if it were in person and not over the internet (425)
In general Johnson’s article was more focused on appealing to pathos and ethos, then trying to appeal to logos. His vocabulary use seemed to be for people with a middle school education and up and was able to use correct grammar. He also seems to have the authority to speak on the subject as he has written many books on topic of science and technology. He was also able to admit that some of what Friedman trying to say was correct.
Johnson was talking about The Taxi Driver by Thomas Friedman, but he did not seem to mention the title of Friedman’s article throughout his own written piece. Why would he not want to say the title of Friedman’s article name, when that was what reason for writing? Yet, he mentioned the title of a book that he talked how he recommended the book for one sentence. That does not seem like a credible thing to do. Johnson was spot on in his summary on Friedman’s article.
When comparing Friedman’s and Johnson’s articles, you can tell both authors are passionate about the subject at hand, so they both were able to appeal to pathos and logos, to some extent. They both used their own experiences, but Friedman also used other people’s experiences, thoughts, and ideas to back up his points, so his article, overall, appealed more to logos. Johnson, on the other hand, talked about multiple experiences with more detail and used that, and his own thoughts and ideas, to back up his points, while his article, overall, appealed more to ethos.
Johnson was lacking in providing actual evidence, like statistics, that supported his claim than his own experiences, which he could have made up. Kathy01i responds to Johnson’s claim about not needing face-to-face interactions with “Technology does not provide users with face to face interaction and that is vital for developing social skills.” And “While sitting at a computer all day, one is missing out on real interaction. One is not learning the necessary skills to survive in the professional world and maintain relationships.” Kathy01i was able to rebuttal Johnson’s statement with common sense. In the professional world people need to be able to interact face-to-face and not have to depend on interacting with people on the computer (“Response”).
At the end of Johnson’s thesis statement, he makes the claim: “We wear white earbuds that announce to the world: whatever you’ve got to say, I can’t hear you.” This seems like hasty generalization, because not every person wears earbuds to block out other’s thoughts and ideas, they may be bored and are just trying to keep their mind busy. The person wearing the earbuds may be blocking out people’s thoughts and ideas, but if someone really wanted to have a conversation with the earbud wearer, they will have that conversation (Johnson 423).
Later on, Johnson starts off a paragraph with “I take these threats seriously…” and he then goes one to say that he is less worried than Friedman about the people and technology and gives his reasons.

He seems to be using scare tactics as he starts off the paragraph with the word “threat.” That was an intense word choice, and it seemed he wanted to get the reader’s attention by making it sound like you need to listen to his thoughts on this whole thing, because what he has to say is really important. (424)

On the same page, Johnson uses the fallacy ad hominem, by attacking Friedman with the remark of “Still there’s…appropriate for someone who writes so powerfully about globalization…” That comment was not needed, Friedman was fearing that people have become too reliant on interaction through a screen that people may forget how to have face-to-face interactions. (424)

Johnson was able to talk about how technology is getting rid of face-to-face interaction, but ends it on that note, instead of elaborating the effect that might have on our society. It seems that he was stacking the deck and only wanting to talk about his side instead of being able to strengthen his argument by being in-depth with his counter argument and trying to rebuttal them.

(424)
Near the end of Johnson’s piece, he gives us an either-or option. “I’ve made… the intensity and depth of discussion has been far greater than any conversation on any topic that I’ve ever had with a stranger on a subway.” This is an either-or choice of having an in-depth argument with a stranger on the internet, or an adequate argument with someone face-to-face.
While Johnson was able to convince his audience that not having that many face-to-face conversations will not be the end of the world, he still used many fallacies that only hurt his argument. He was unable to provide factual information that may back up his claim, or try to rebuttal counterarguments. In the end, his argument was strong, but it could have been even stronger.