Analysis Of Sherry Turkle's TED Talk

1933 Words4 Pages

In this talk, Sherry Turkle’s arguments are shown to be very logical because she proves her points through the use of induction. Turkle first provides an example of an experience she has had with people as her “case”. From her experiences, she forms a rule or idea. An example of this is at 8:57 - Turkle says that she often hears people say, “I would rather text than talk.” From one simple statement, Turkle is able to draw from this that people are “used to getting by with less”. Moreover, Turkle provides an additional example on how lots of people have shared with her the wish of a more advanced version of Siri so that Siri will become more of a best friend figure - “someone who will listen when others won’t.” From these two statements combined, …show more content…

Overall Turkle adds, “the feeling that ‘no one is listening to me’ makes us want to spend time with machines that seem to care about us.” In terms of leaps in logic, I found that her talk is very easy to follow, and no sudden topics or points were introduced. Sherry Turkle connected and introduced her points effectively , and as a result, in my opinion, made her arguments much more understandable,

In Sherry Turkle’s TED Talk, it is evident that she relies heavily on emotional appeals. At 5:35, Turkle uses an analogy through Goldilocks to explain the connections and relationships among people. In the talk, Turkle refers to “the Goldilocks effect”, where she states, “across generations, I see that people can’t get enough of each other, if and only if …show more content…

At 7:32, Turkle gives a personal experience of when Stephen Colbert asked her a certain question that can be considered a counterargument to her own. She states that Colbert asked, “Don’t all those little tweets, don’t all those little sips of online communication, add up to one big gulp of real conversation?” She quickly refutes the idea by remarking, “my answer is no, they don’t add up” but concedes to the idea by adding, “connecting in sips may work for gathering discreet bits of information, they may work for saying “I’m thinking about you”, or even for saying “I love you” - I mean, look at how I felt when i got that text from my daughter”, however she effectively supports her refutation by stating how “communicating in sips don’t really work in terms of learning about the other person, or getting to know and understand each other.” She mentions how we use conversations with each other to learn how to have conversations with ourselves, and how it helps us self-reflect, which is an extremely valuable skill for children in terms of development. The question Colbert asked is a question I also used to ask myself. I have friends in elementary school who are like family to me. Today, we all go to different high schools and communicate with each other through text messaging and group chats. I too, would also think that sending messages to one another would be a good way of communication. However,

Open Document