[Air-L] smartphones/teens/hyperbole

Sat Aug 26 08:04:32 PDT 2017

Hi all

This article has been extensively critiqued – see a summary of some posts here: https://www.netfamilynews.org/generation-destroying-smartphone-researchers-push-back

I agree with Charles’ unease, though. Arguments that are framed in moral panic terms are not necessarily entirely wrong. It’s on the one hand a problem that they lead to or even stimulate moral panics. It’s on the other hand a problem that they generally fail to make a good social science argument. The Atlantic piece is problematic on both grounds. A better piece of social science might support some concerns about mobile phones use in some contexts. So the piece is thirdly problematic in so annoying people as to make them deny any and all concerns.

Best, Sonia

From: "air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org>" <air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org>> on behalf of Charles Ess <c.m.ess at media.uio.no<mailto:c.m.ess at media.uio.no>>
Date: Saturday, 26 August 2017 at 15:24
To: "air-l at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l at listserv.aoir.org>" <air-l at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l at listserv.aoir.org>>
Subject: Re: [Air-L] smartphones/teens/hyperbole

Hi all,

While I also share some caution with the article, I also have
reservations about how the the arguments offered both here and in
Barry's post may go logically awry, especially when moral panics are
invoked.
That is, I've seen two versions of these arguments offered up in the
literature over the years, both of which are logically weak if not
simply fallacious.
Perhaps no on here has either of these versions in mind, but just in
case ...

Version 1:

(Premise 1) The introduction of contemporary technology X evoked
concerns over loss of community.

(Premise 2) But the introduction of earlier technology Y also evoked
concerns over loss of community.

Implicit assumption: but the earlier concerns are mistaken.

Conclusion by analogy: contemporary concerns are mistaken.

A primary logical problem here (i.e., beyond the problem of induction
that is also in play) is that this is an analogical argument.
On the one hand, analogical arguments are the most common: but, on the
other hand, they are also the most difficult to establish and assess.
(Perhaps one of the reasons why analogical reasoning was dropped from
the US SAT in 2005 or so?  Though contemporary political rhetoric
doesn't suggest we're any more savvy about good analogies vs.
questionable ones ...)
Is there really a strong analogy, for example, between each of the two
technologies?  Are there not significant differences?  Those questions
have to be addressed, rather than assuming the analogy is a good one.
And if the analogy / analogies are weak - i.e., if the relevant
differences outweigh the relevant similarities - then the conclusion is
likewise weak or suspect.

Version 2:

Premise 1: If we introduce technology X, then concerns are expressed.

Premise 2: With careful analysis, we can show that _some_ of these
concerns are moral panics - i.e., ultimately resting on grounds that
should be irrelevant to careful ethical / social / political critique.

Conclusion: If concerns are expressed following the introduction of
technology Y, then those concerns can be dismissed as moral panics.

What I hope is clear in this formulation is that Premise 2 does not
support the conclusion: it is one thing to demonstrate that some set of
concerns are the result of moral panics - but this is not the same thing
as demonstrating all sets of concerns are moral panics.

(For the logicians: the fallacy of affirming the consequent is looming
large here.)

Again, I don't know that anyone here would endorse or fall for either
version of the argument. But again, I have seen these versions
frequently in the literature and think it worthwhile reminding us that
they are logically flawed.

On we go - and thanks all around.
- charles

On 26/08/17 15:59, Unger, Johann wrote:
Most definitely - the article does make some reasonable (and reasoned points), but largely it is tapping into the usual moral panics around childhood, technology and particularly the intersection of the two.
On tracing things back through history - I used to use a set of quotes that showed how each generation complained about new technologies (bark, slates, quills, ball-point pens etc.) ruining the writing skills of a new generation of youths… until I found out the whole set was made up, as detailed in various blogs & articles:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/21/students-bark/
Still, no smoke without fire, right?
Best, Johnny.
Dr J W Unger
Lecturer and Academic Director of Summer Programmes
Department of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University
LA1 4YL
e-mail: j.unger at lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:j.unger at lancaster.ac.uk><mailto:j.unger at lancaster.ac.uk>
tel: +44 1524 592591<tel:+44%201524%20592591>
Follow me on Twitter @johnnyunger<http://twitter.com/#!/johnnyunger>
On 26 Aug 2017, 14:41 +0100, Barry Wellman <wellman at chass.utoronto.ca<mailto:wellman at chass.utoronto.ca>>, wrote:
Re Galen Panger's comment on the list:
"I actually thought the article was hyperbolic, and I felt disappointed to
see it get so much attention. I think there is reason for some concern,
I would have liked to see the evidence presented less selectively
and one-sidedly."
Heartedly agree. Keith Hampton and I have an article asserting that each
generation thinks that community has been lost as compared to the previous
one. Now, it is mobile phones. Two decades ago, it was the internet.
You can keep tracing this back to Tommy Jefferson in 1787.
And perhaps further.
Barry Wellman
A vision is just a vision if it's only in your head
Step by step, link by link, putting it together
Streisand/Sondheim
_______________________________________________________________________
NetLab Network FRSC INSNA Founder
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman twitter: @barrywellman
NETWORKED: The New Social Operating System Lee Rainie & Barry Wellman
http://amzn.to/zXZg39
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:Air-L at listserv.aoir.org> mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:Air-L at listserv.aoir.org> mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/

--
Professor in Media Studies
Department of Media and Communication
University of Oslo
<http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/people/aca/charlees/index.html>

Editor, The Journal of Media Innovations
<https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/TJMI/>

Postboks 1093
Blindern 0317
Oslo, Norway
c.m.ess at media.uio.no<mailto:c.m.ess at media.uio.no>
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org<mailto:Air-L at listserv.aoir.org> mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/