750 WORD DRAFT

(Reflection is below my final draft at the bottom)

At the root of human existence, our decisions. They carry more weight than anything in our life. They affect our future, present and past all at once. These decisions are finite. They’re erasable. They give life thought, emotion and meaning. It;s what makes us real. It’s what makes us human. Without the ability to think and decide for ourselves, we would be inanimate object’s. Also, known as the decisions less. Also known as a pebble, or a car, or your boat named Sue. We often form a deep, sentimental relationship with these inanimate objects. We name them, we take care of them, and sometimes we hold emotional value to them.. But at the end of the day their not alive. They don’t have the luxury of asking themselves: Do I go for a salad, or do I eat the super mega large stuffed crust pizza? Do I scroll on social media for a minute, or an hour? Do i go out to party, or do i go to bed early? What do all these decisions have in common? Confliction. It’s inevitable. Inacsacple. It’s a part of every single person’s life. It’s evidently clear that as a species, we face this idea of confliction when it comes to technology. Every single essay I read showed a conflicted view when it came to technology. Not a single person was unequivocally for or against it. Nick Carr was conflicted. Every single person in this class was conflicted. Even Kevin Kelly, while small, still showed some confliction, when it came to technology. It’s clear this ample pattern of confliction, in decision making, is more abundant than ever as it relates to technology. Where essays are usually one sided, ,the human conflict is so strong in technology that it breaks that barrier for everyone. Everyone is unilateral conflicted, in their writing as it pertains to technology. This conflict is specifically highlighted in Nick carrs, “essay ” Is Google Making Us Stupid”, Caden’s essay on technology . These all support the ideal that people are conflicted when it comes to technology, as it leads to positive, negative and unsure thoughts, emotions and interactions..

People feel positive about a multitude of aspects of technology. This is unanimously shown In these both Nick Carr’s andthree Cadenessays I read’s works of writing.. This can’t be disputed. First up we have Nick Carr. HisThe premise of his essay highlights how “the internet is turning our brains into mush””. While this might be a bit sarcastic, I want you, the reader, to envelop a sense of realism,
on how he views technology in a negative light. Now for the upper hook, the quote, that while doesn’t dispute his claim, offers distinct evidence that supports, my claim, that he is conflicted:”The web has been a godsend to me as a writer” (Carr 2). This quote clearly shows that he has enveloped a sense of positivity as it relates to digital technology. He explains how the internet has been a “godsend” to him, meaning that its something he views to be very helpful and valuable. Therefore this cites the positive outlook, on the topic I was referring to, in turn highlighting the positive, and negative view, in the essay which is the basis for conflinction. Now turning to Caden,

Both these quotes are interconnected, as they both have an outward, opposite look comparative to the central claim in their essay’s. Carr’s positive, becnifcul idea in the web, is overshadowed his underlying central theme, of the negative, anxiety provoked skepticism of digital technology, while Caden’s

These both underline, the main ideal that confliction in various degrees is prevalent, when it comes to technology.

People have negative associations with technology.

People a lot of times are unsure about how to think and feel when it comes to technology. While positive and negative thoughts do show uncertainty, I was talking about uncertainty in terms of the structure of the writing in the essay. Speiffalcy on how sentences themselves were built and strung together. Technology breeds uncertainty. This is certainly evdint in wrtin as well. In no way is this a predicament on the author’s writing ability. All three essays were wonderfully constructed with careful thought, consideration and effort. This more has to do with the connection of technology and how the subject of it, paved the way for uncertainty in the writing itself. With that being said there were times in each essay, where I got the sense that technology had altered the clarity of the sentence

1000 word Draft

At the root of human existence, our decisions. They carry more weight than anything in our life. They affect our future, present and past all at once. These decisions are finite. They’re erasable. They give life thought, emotion and meaning. It;s what makes us real. It’s what makes us human. Without the ability to think and decide for ourselves, we would be inanimate object’s. Also, known as the decisions less. Also known as a pebble, or a car, or your boat named Sue. We often form a deep, sentimental relationship with these inanimate objects. We name them, we take care of them, and sometimes we hold emotional value to them.. But at the end of the day their not alive. They don’t have the luxury of asking themselves: Do I go for a salad, or do I eat the super mega large stuffed crust pizza? Do I scroll on social media for a minute, or an hour? Do i go out to party, or do i go to bed early? What do all these decisions have in common? Confliction. It’s inevitable. Inacsacple. It’s a part of every single person’s life. It’s evidently clear that as a species, we face this idea of confliction when it comes to technology. Every single essay I read showed a conflicted view when it came to technology. Not a single person was unequivocally for or against it. Nick Carr was conflicted. Every single person in this class was conflicted. Even Kevin Kelly, while small, still showed some confliction, when it came to technology. It’s clear this ample pattern of confliction, in decision making, is more abundant than ever as it relates to technology. Where essays are usually one sided, the human conflict is so strong in technology that it breaks that barrier for everyone. Everyone is unilateral conflicted, in their writing as it pertains to technology. This conflict is specifically highlighted in Nick carrs, “essay ” Is Google Making Us Stupid”. These all support the ideal that technology, causes confliction , as it creates uncertainty in our thoughts, writing and interactions.

Confliction is a byproduct of uncertainty. This is unanimously shown In both Nick Carr’s and Caden’s works of writing. First up we have Nick Carr. The premise of his essay highlights how “the internet is turning our brains into mush””. While this might be a bit sarcastic, I want you, the reader, to envelop a sense of realism, on how he views technology in a negative light. Now for the upper hook, the quote, that while doesn’t dispute his claim, offers distinct evidence that supports, my claim, that he is conflicted:”The web has been a godsend to me as a writer” (Carr 2). This quote clearly shows that he has enveloped a sense of positivity as it relates to digital technology. He explains how the internet has been a “godsend” to him, meaning that it’s something he views to be very helpful and valuable. Therefore this cites the positive outlook, on the topic I was referring to. Now turning to Caden, where he views technology in a positive light, due to its many benefits. This specific quote alters from that course and highlights how he agrees with Carr’s view on how technology has negatively changed are intellect: “I agree with Nichloas Carr in a way where he thinks that people are to focus on their devices, that they are not really connected with the world, they are more focused on their device”(Caden). This quote clearly states that he shares the sentiment with carr that our devices have negatively impacted our intellect. Both these quotes are interconnected, as they both have an outward, opposite look comparative to the central claim in their essay’s. Carr’s positive view on the web, is overshadowed by his underlying central theme, of the negative, anxiety provoked skepticism of digital technology, while Caden’s agreement with Carr’s view on devices, directly goes against his claim of the many benefits of technology. Both of these essay’s show personal opinions for, and against the topic. This in turn highlight’s a sense of uncertainty in their thoughts as it pertains to the subject, supporting the main ideal that they have conflicted thoughts in various degrees, when it comes to technology.

Technology breeds uncertainty. This is certainly evident in writing as well. In no way is this a predicament on the author’s writing ability. All three essays were wonderfully constructed with careful thought, consideration and effort. This more has to do with the connection of technology and how the subject of it, paved the way for uncertainty in the writing itself. With that being said there were times in each essay, where I got the sense that technology had altered the clarity of the sentence. Disclaimer: I often find this pattern in my writing, and therefore was not surprised when i found the thread in others. But this is clearly not on the writer, it’s on the technology. This is because out of the nearly hundred sencatses in each essay, these 2 were only the one’s i could find that were lacking what i thought was cohesiveness and clarity. Meaning most likely these mistakes were not based off poor human ingenuity, but rather poor spell check ingenuity, considering that each writer had over a 99% clarity check write per sentence. Meaning if i were a betting man, I would bet the side that had 99% chance of being correct A.K.A the human being, not the spell check generator, which i’d like to think has more of a 10% rate of making clear sentences. And I can confidently say if these papers were handwritten, there would be no clarity issues, as their would be no room for digital technology intervention. This third part really shows the unconscious part of how technology is unknowingly causing uncertainty in the writing, therefore, creating conflict in the text itself. Confusing the reader, the writers and the people who the information is spread to, from word of mouth.

Not only is technology causing conflict, it’s conflicting to us as well. We are unsure on how to feel about it as a populous. It has its benefits, drawbacks, positives and negatives that all lead to the real thought of conflict. This is clearly evident in these 3 essays, But these parallels, are not just restricted to writing. You can see the conflict in the strain of our eyes, in the aches in our body’s, and the frowns on our faces. Technology and conflict will forever be intertwined, but its up to us are own individuals, with our own decisions, about just how much conflict technology will cause each of us.

Revised Final Draft:

Reflection below my final draft

Ian Grimm

Professor Miller

ENG 110

6 October 2023

At the root of human existence are decisions. They carry more weight than anything in our lives. They affect our future, present, and past all at once. These decisions are finite. They’re erasable. They give life thought, emotion, and meaning. Without the ability to think and decide for ourselves, we would be inanimate objects. Also, known as the decisions less. Also known as a pebble, a car, or your boat named Sue. We often form deep, sentimental relationships with these inanimate objects. We name them, we take care of them, and sometimes we hold emotional value to them. But at the end of the day, they’re not alive. They don’t have the luxury of asking themselves: Do I go for a salad, or do I eat the super mega large stuffed crust pizza? Do I scroll on social media for a minute or an hour? Do I go out to a party, or do I go to bed early? What do all these decisions have in common? Confliction. It’s inevitable. Inescapable. It’s a part of every single person’s life. It’s clear as a species, we face this idea of confliction when it comes to technology. Every single essay I read showed a conflicted view when it came to technology. Not a single person in our class was unequivocally for or against it. It’s clear this ample pattern of confliction, is more abundant than ever as it relates to technology. Where essays are usually one sided, the human conflict is so strong in technology it breaks that barrier for nearly everyone. Everyone is unilaterally conflicted, in their writing as it pertains to technology. This conflict is specifically highlighted in Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, where Carr explores how technology has altered our intellect for the worse. This conflict also comes up in Caden Colburn-Hilliker’s essay, on the many benefits of technology and Siobhan Smith’s essay where she explains how technology has taken over her life. These three essays support the idea that technology causes conflict as it creates uncertainty in our thoughts, writing, and interactions.

 

Technology leads to uncertainty in our thoughts. This is unanimously shown in both Nick Carr’s and Caden’s essays. This first caught my eye in Carr’s essay, where he explains how a part of digital technology has allowed him to flourish as a writer: “The web has been a godsend to me as a writer” (Carr 2).  This quote shows he has enveloped a sense of positivity as it relates to digital technology. He explains how the internet has been a “godsend” to him, meaning  it’s something he views to be helpful and valuable. This cites Carr’s positive outlook on a part of digital technology, which Colburn-Hilliker also shows in his essay. Now turning to Caden, where he views technology in a positive light, due to its many benefits. This specific quote alters from that course and highlights how he agrees with Carr’s view on how technology has negatively changed our intellect: “I agree with Nichloas Carr in a way where he thinks that people are to focus on their devices, that they are not really connected…” (Colburn-Hilliker). This quote states he shares the sentiment with Carr that our devices have negatively impacted our intellect. Both these quotes are interconnected, as they both have an outward, opposite look compared to the central claim in their essays. Carr’s positive view on the web is overshadowed by his underlying central theme, of his anxiety provoked skepticism of digital technology, while Caden’s agreement with Carr’s view on devices, directly goes against his claim of the many benefits of technology. Both essays show personal opinions for, and against the topic, showing they are not unilaterally sure if technology is helpful or hurtful. This highlights the uncertainty for both of them on the matter, supporting the idea that they have conflicted thoughts to various degrees when it comes to digital technology.

 

Technology breeds uncertainty in writing.  In no way is this a predicament on the author’s writing ability. This has to do with the connection of technology and how the subject of it, paved the way for uncertainty in the writing itself.  This is first highlighted in Smith’s essay, where she explains how a majority of the things we do in our life are digital:  “Majority of work and teaching takes place through screens and with online interactive tools. (Smith)”. This sentence lacks clarity due to one word in particular, “Majority”. If this word was changed from “Majority” to “The or A, Majority” the sentence would be clear and coherent, fixing the issue. A similar predicament comes up in Caden’s essay where he highlights a few real-life benefits of technology: “For example, internet, connections with people, address and mapping and learning” (Colburn-Hilliker). The extra conjunction, “and” hurts the flow of the sentence here. These quotes are similar as they lack clarity and cohesiveness. But this is not on the writer, it’s on the technology. Think about it in terms of texting on your phone. Often the UI, unknowingly and unwantedly auto corrects messages, to something that doesn’t make sense. That’s exactly what happened here. Both these writers know how to make coherent, clear sentences.  But just like texting, technology often comes in and messes it all up. In similar terms to texting it’s clear these errors in each sentence are due to incompetent, computer programs also known as spell check generators. Out of the hundreds of sentences in each essay, only 2 lacked cohesiveness. Meaning these mistakes were likely not based off poor human ingenuity, but rather poor spell-check ingenuity. Meaning if I were a betting man, I would bet the side that has a 99 % chance of being correct A.K.A the human being, not the spell check generator, which I’d like to think has more of a 10% rate of making clear sentences. And I can confidently say if these papers were handwritten, there would be no clarity issues, as there would be no room for digital technology intervention. This shows the unconscious part of how technology is unknowingly causing uncertainty in the writing, creating conflict in the text itself. 

 

Technology creates uncertainty in our interactions. This is supported in both Smith’s, and Carr’s essay’s that highlight multiple examples, of uncertainty in our interactions being the prime causation of technology. This is first shown in Smith’s essay where she talks about a relationship with a friend: “My best friend and I had a falling out a few years ago because she thought I was talking about her based on what she heard on social media” (Smith). This quote highlights that not only was there uncertainty in the friends’ interactions, due to digital technology, it created uncertainty in the relationship itself. Now turning to Carr, where he highlights how digital technology has altered his relationship with reading: “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy … That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after 2 or 3 pages” (Carr). This quote highlights uncertainty in his interaction’s, when it comes to reading. He doesn’t have the certainty that he can confidently read a chapter in a book, without his concentration starting to go awry. While these quotes differ in the sense that one interaction is with an entity that is alive, and the other is not, the similarity of uncertainty in each interaction is stated. The same correlation, causation factor is there too, with the correlation of the uncertainty, being due to digital technology. This is identified in the quotes as social media caused uncertainty between the interactions of Smith and a friend, while the web created uncertainty in Carr’s interactions when it came to reading. This uncertainty ultimately lead to conflict in both relationships, which adds further evidence to the claim that technology causes conflict.

 

Not only is technology causing conflict, it’s conflicting to us as well. We are unsure on how to feel about it as a populous. Technology has its benefits, drawbacks, positives and negatives that all lead to the real thought of conflict. This is evident in these three essays, but these parallels are not just restricted to writing. You can see the conflict in the strain of our eyes, in the aches in our bodies, and the frowns on our faces. Technology and conflict will forever be intertwined, but it’s up to us as our own individuals, with our own decisions, about just how much conflict technology will cause each of us.

 

Works Cited:  

Smith, Siobhan. “Essay 1 Part 1” UNE portfolio, https://ssmith105.uneportfolio.org. Accessed 26 September 2023.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 11 Feb. 2022, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/. Accessed 26 September 2023.

Caden, Colburn-Hilliker. “Essay 1 Part 1”) UNE portfolio https://ccolburnhilliker.uneportfolio.org/essay-1-part-1/ Accessed 26 September 2023.

  Reflection: After first reading the prompt for this essay, I knew I wanted to write about something that interested me. The first idea that popped into my head, was to carry the sentiment that I wrote about in my first essay, about how we are too dependent on digital Technolgy. But after thinking it through, I came to the realization that I wanted to do something different. I had already proved my point and was happy with the final product of the essay, and wanted to branch out and explore a different aspect of technology influence on human’s. After reading through my classmate’s essay’s, something caught my attention. Ervey single essay had a conflicted view on the matter. This was a common thread I hadn’t really seen in a essay before and in turn, I became very intrigued. A few moments later I was settled on this topic, after figuring that this thread was show in Both Carr and Kelley’s essay. So heading into my first Draft my intent, was to show that Technolgy caused conflict. Throughout all my draft’s this main idea didn’t really change. I think this highlight’s how true the sentiment was, and support’s it’s strength as my thesis in my essay. While I didn’t state it outright, as I progressed through my draft’s I came to the realization that I wanted to incorporate the idea of human dependency to technology into my essay. But I wanted to make sure that I did this without straying from thesis, and without adding in writing that didn’t move the narrative forward, that Technolgy causes conflict, which in turn would create unnecessary real estate in the essay. I ultimately landed on the idea that I would do this in my conclusion. And while i didn’t do it directly, I ended my essay with this line, that offered a solution to the dependency: “Technology and conflict will forever be intertwined, but it’s up to us as our own individuals, with our own decisions, about just how much conflict technology will cause each of us”. What is the Solution? It’s the thing I talked about in my introduction to this essay, decisions. As human’s we have the remarkable ability to decide thing for ourselves, meaning we have the opportunity to decide to not be dependent on technology.