Dave, I appreciate your analysis of Turkle’s article. Though I am allied with Turkle in her quest, I too found the article a mixed bag. I think Turkle mistakenly characterizes conversation unfolding slowly while digital devices are ramping up the velocity of communications. In fact, one of the reasons digital media is preferred is because of the buffer placed between interlocutors, a point Turkle makes at the beginning of her article. Heck, writing changed the world because it made possible the kind of in-depth reflection Turkle is advocating, so I think she got off track promoting conversation as the key to self-reflection.

However, I think you missed the strength of her argument. What she is saying, to put it very simply, is that human beings are increasingly desperate for someone to be there for them, and they’re turning to technology to meet their need. And it does meet their need, providing a shriveled version of human interaction – “connection over conversation.” You dismiss this by pointing out that people have always been too busy for one another – same story, different chapter. But there is in fact plenty of sociological evidence that points to the fact that people are lonelier and have fewer close friendships than ever. In his seminal work “Bowling Along” published in 2000, Robert Putnam found that “friendship in the 1990’s were fewer, weaker, and more fluid when compared to the 50’s.” He pointed to “social surfing” as the culprit, and we were only getting warmed up at the turn of the century.

Just because a person hasn’t experienced a healthy allotment of friends and loved ones giving him or her their full attention without any sense of hurry or distraction doesn’t mean that’s not the way human beings are meant to live. That idea, more than anything else, is what Sherry Turkle and others like me are trying to say when we urge folks to put their damn smart phones away, look each other in the eye, and give the person in front of you your full attention.