Hi all This article has been extensively critiqued – see a summary of some posts here: https://www.netfamilynews.org/generation-destroying-smartphone-researchers-p... 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@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org>" <air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org>> on behalf of Charles Ess <c.m.ess@media.uio.no<mailto:c.m.ess@media.uio.no>> Date: Saturday, 26 August 2017 at 15:24 To: "air-l@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l@listserv.aoir.org>" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:air-l@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@lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:j.unger@lancaster.ac.uk><mailto:j.unger@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@chass.utoronto.ca<mailto:wellman@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@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:Air-L@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@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:Air-L@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@media.uio.no<mailto:c.m.ess@media.uio.no> _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org<mailto:Air-L@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/