Prompt: Another aspect of our being enmeshed in technological devices and interfaces involves are attention and ability to focus it. Reflect on your ability to focus in relation to social media and the like.

Social media has revolutionized the way we give our time and attention to those around us. For most of mankind’s history, interactions were primarily engaged in person or by letter. What distinguishes these two means of communication from modern technology, such as social media, is the attention each person is given. When exchanging information and ideas with someone, there is an underlying assumption that attention needs to be given to one another for the conversation to have any meaning and progress in any manner. If I am dialoguing with my classmate and “tune out” for even a few seconds, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, for me to comprehend and engage with the information and thereby contribute to the conversation. As such, we have—through in-person communication—consistently trained ourselves to focus on the individual and/or object in front of us. Similar things can be said when it comes to written communication, such as a letter. Unlike a text, picture, blog post, and the like, a letter, once sent, cannot be edited or altered in any fashion. There is a “permanence” to the letter; it says what it says whether you like the content therein or not. Moreover, like a conversation, if there is to be any meaningful communication, focus on the letter itself must be given. If one attempts to skim through the letter, it is almost guaranteed that valuable information will be missed and/or not understood properly. 

A commonality between a conversation and a letter is a healthy pace. This pace is not always realized, but there is a natural pace and degree to which one engages in the conversation as ideas and information are exchanged. Social media utterly disrupts this with an ever-changing environment, fast-paced conversations, overwhelming amounts of choices, and at times, ridiculous amounts of information. Digital platforms, such as social media, “constantly tweak their interfaces and rules to attract and retain as many users as possible.”¹ Unlike an in-person conversation or a letter, social media is something that we can access as we please; we are “the master.” Reels have made this very apparent: if a piece of content doesn’t capture one’s attention within the first few seconds, they dismiss the person and anything they have to say. This may seem irrelevant but given the excessive amount of time that people spend on social media,² it becomes apparent that our ability to focus on a single person or task is diminished. There is an untold number of accounts, posts, videos, communities, and threads that people have the option to access or choose from. It is virtually impossible to have a singular focus on such a platform when several other options are demanding your attention. Notifications illustrate this “demand” perfectly, but more will be said on that later.

When it comes to conversing with others on social media, we are bestowed with a power that is not present in the other two modes of communication: “swiping” and “blocking.” Built within social media platforms (such as TikTok) is the swiping (also referred to as “doom scrolling”) mechanism. Effectively, you are the arbiter as to what kind of content you watch, from whom, the amount you watch, and when it’s time to stop. By one swipe of our finger, we quickly dismiss a person and what they have to say; this leads us to view people as less than human. In other words, people become pieces of content to consume or reject as they desire. If one is severely dissatisfied, they can block someone. Effectively, you erase that person from your life and prevent them from communicating with you; the other party cannot override this decision. Social media puts us at the center of a conversation; we can be surrounded by people who echo what we want to hear, and those who do not conform will be “excommunicated.” 

It is precisely because of the self-centeredness of social media that we are seeking gratification from it. Because of this desire, we want to focus on the object (namely, social media) that will give us pleasure. Yet, in this desire for consistent gratification, we are overloaded with the endless amount of stimulation that social media offers. Now, it must be noted that social media does have a great deal of benefits, education being one of them. However, this does not mean that there is not an improper use of it. Based on my own experience, we all ought to spend less time on social media; this will improve our physical and mental health. 

The author does not consistently use social media, but this was not always the case; a four-hour TikTok session comes to mind, as do many other hours that were wasted staring at a screen. When spending excess time on social media, I noticed that during actual conversations (conversations on social media do not count) my eyes would dart from one thing to another, as if I could not keep my eyes on the person (or “target”) in front of me. Moreover, I had less stamina for extended conversations that required depth in my replies and intentional listening. Social media provides an unorthodox and unnatural approach to communication as a whole, a far cry from the traditional and (I’d argue) proper way of conversing with one another. The amount of attention that our generation can give to a singular task at a given time is concerning, considering social media use isn’t decreasing. As previously mentioned, social media is not limited to the active usage of the app itself. Notifications open up access to the user in their everyday lives. Some people are eagerly waiting for the next notification to appear to justify their repeated use of social media. This anticipation draws focus away from the real world and the people in front of them. 

The repeated use of social media on a cellular device also engrains the habit of being on one’s phone. Such mindless scrolling lacks any focus, goal, or end in sight; in other words, it’s meaningless. And, if it’s meaningless, why pay attention to it? Yet, this is not the conclusion we come to when we are talking with others or engaging with material they have written. We understand that we are not at the center and that there are things and people beyond us. We must give them our time and attention to understand and interact with them. 

In asking ChatGPT, “Is our attention span positively impacted by using social media?” It responded by acknowledging that there are benefits concerning our attention but conceded that social media “tends to hinder deep, sustained attention needed for tasks requiring longer focus.”³ Moreover, it also concedes that while individual experiences may vary, “[t]he idea that social media objectively hinders focus and attention span is supported by much research.”⁴ This statement by ChatGPT led me to seek a scholarly article in support of that claim. One peer-reviewed study notes that “attention dysregulation predicts [problematic social media use], mediated by impulsive social media use.”⁵ As is the habit of many, we impulsively access social media without any particular reason for doing so. These sessions may be brief or extended, but they accumulate over time. By habitually disregarding our focus on a given activity, our ability to actively focus will be “unfit.” 

Following this, I asked ChatGPT to generate an image that captures the effect social media has on our ability to focus; I have attached the picture⁶ to this project below. The picture itself is overwhelming to even look at, which goes to show the damage we are doing to ourselves by actively engaging on social media. The solution is simple: use social media less. Personally, it has positively impacted my life to distance myself from the various platforms that compete for my attention. The “self” is obscured and sometimes forgotten when using social media because we play our identity in what people see, not in who we are. Breaking these shackles allows us to be human and recognize our shortcomings. 

This project has aimed to illuminate a simple yet consistent issue that’s been grafted into our lives. Hopefully, this project and my experience will resonate with the reader and set them on a path of freedom, where one’s identity is not found within a profile picture or the number of views one’s TikTok gets. 

1. William Davies, “William Davies, the Politics of Recognition in the Age of Social Media, NLR 128, March–April 2021,” New Left Review, April 30, 2021, https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii128/articles/william-davies-the-politics-of-recognition-in-the-age-of-social-media. 
   ↩︎
2. See David Caelum Arness and Theodora Ollis, “A Mixed-Methods Study of Problematic Social Media Use, Attention Dysregulation, and Social Media Use Motives” (Fredericksburg, August 8, 2022), 1 
   ↩︎
3. “Chatgpt,” ChatGPT, accessed October 16, 2024, https://chatgpt.com/share/671057ed-de50-800b-853b-22af14d7820a. 
   ↩︎
4. “Chatgpt,” ChatGPT 
   ↩︎
5. David Caelum Arness and Theodora Ollis, “A Mixed-Methods Study of Problematic Social Media Use, Attention Dysregulation, and Social Media Use Motives,” 9
   ↩︎
6. “Chatgpt,” ChatGPT ↩︎

Bibliography

Arness, David Caelum, and Theodora Ollis. “A Mixed-Methods Study of Problematic Social Media Use, Attention Dysregulation, and Social Media Use Motives.” Fredericksburg, August 8, 2022. 

“Chatgpt.” ChatGPT. Accessed October 16, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/share/671057ed-de50-800b-853b-22af14d7820a. 

Davies, William. “William Davies, the Politics of Recognition in the Age of Social Media, NLR 128, March–April 2021.” New Left Review, April 30, 2021. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii128/articles/william-davies-the-politics-of-recognition-in-the-age-of-social-media. 

Prompt: Over the last 3 weeks, our discussion has moved from identity in relation to AI, big data, and social media to thinking about technological change and our identities in our jobs. What does technology have to do with our identities in relation to our jobs? Or, does technology simply make any job choice we make more precarious?

If people define themselves by what they do, then technology can be seen as stripping them of their identity. Saying “I am a lawyer” as the fundamental identifying marker is a grave error. When one’s occupation is stripped away, the question they are left with is, “What am I? I was a lawyer, but now I’m not. What’s left of me? I built my entire life around being a lawyer, and that’s been taken away from me.” Technology can make almost any job precarious. The question is whether we, as a society, will come to that point. Concerning technology, what limits will be established for jobs that humans have traditionally held? 

In reflecting upon the ever-increasing technological efficiency, John Keynes (1930) envisions that “[w]e may be on the eve of improvements in the efficiency of food production as great as those which have already taken place in mining, manufacture, and transport. In quite a few years—in our own lifetimes I mean—we may be able to perform all the operations of agriculture, mining, and manufacture with a quarter of the human effort to which we have been accustomed” (Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, 364). He then follows this thought by introducing the concept of “technological unemployment” (Keynes, 364). Essentially, unemployment will increase as technology is refined and eventually outpaces the rate at which “we can find new uses for labor” (Keynes, 364). Technology will only continue to get more efficient, and it seems inevitable that if we’ve continued to prioritize technological efficiency up to this point, why would we stop now? If technology can serve four times as many customers as a human can, why not implement an AI (or some other technology) that can fulfill that “need”? Our world is fast-paced, and we are consistently on “the go.” As such, all eyes gaze upon how a certain task can be accomplished more effectively and efficiently. Technology that eliminates human errors and operates at a fast pace will undoubtedly be the first pick when possible. 

The only withdrawal in this area is in areas of moral concern. For example, I do not envision an AI taking on the official role of a judge or a surgeon. Some situations cannot be reduced to a mere formula that AI can flawlessly respond to. Understandably, AI seems to be becoming more refined (as we’ve seen with the therapy AI), so there’s no telling what lengths people may be willing to go with AI. Currently, one does not need to worry about AI taking their job in the immediate future. However, there’s no telling as to how long this “security” will last. When deciding on a career, it’s important to keep in mind the possibility of AI fulfilling that role.

Sources

John Keynes, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, 1930. Accessed October 6, 2024. https://philtech2024.michaelreno.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/KeynesWhatExpectGrandChildren.pdf

Chosen Prompt: Begin an experiment involving quitting social media and reflect upon your reasons for doing so

.
Why do I rarely utilize social media? What benefits are there? To answer this, I’ll list three categories to warrant my cessation of using social media: God, others, and myself. First, reading literature related to my area of interest, namely, Christianity, takes time. When I pour my time into social media, it’s at the expense of another thing; naturally, one would ask: What is most important to you? My answer would be my faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If I have time to use as I please, should it not be for the most important person in my life, God Himself? There is a colossal amount of literature concerning Christianity, so much that even several lifetimes wouldn’t be enough to cover it, much less have an exhaustive knowledge of it. I want my life to be used for the glory of God, and if I’m ignorant about what I believe and don’t study (see 2 Timothy 2:15), how can I expect that to happen? How can I expect to serve God and those around me? Apart from Christ, it is impossible. Still, I need to actively choose to follow Christ, which includes devoting my time to studying the Bible. 

Second, I would rather pour time into my relationships than spend time on social media. Responsibilities are a reality that most people face; not everything we do will be what we want to, but rather because we need to. The time commitment one has towards these duties will vary from person to person, but, more often than not, it consumes a significant portion of it. In light of this, I propose to myself another question: Would I rather spend my precious time and pour into my family or myself (it can be argued that social media is damaging to us; if anything is “poured into” myself, it could very well be poisonous)? Truly, to what extent would one go to be on social media? At the expense of fostering relationships with the most important people in their life? Saying it audibly sounds preposterous, yet, whether I realized it or not, that was what I was doing. The hours I spent on social media were taking away time that would’ve been better spent on my family. 

Thirdly, the reality of social media is that it draws you away from not only other people but the natural world as well. Moreover, it reduces you from a state of motion and activity to a state of stillness as your mind succumbs to the endless stream of content that is at your fingertips. We were certainly made to move; the sedentary lifestyle is a rejection of that. Our bodies cannot adapt to such a way of life that we are not built for. Bent knecks, rolled shoulders, slouched backs, the constant bending of the knees, little to no muscular exertion—the postural implications alone ought to alarm us! It took longer than I wished for me to realize the dangers of such a lifestyle. Since disconnecting myself from social media, I’ve spent more time outside, whether it’s running in the backyard with my nephew or taking a walk on a cool autumn morning. By living in ways that contribute to my health, I can more effectively achieve the two aforementioned reasons and bring longevity to my life; this adds to one of the most precious resources of all: time.

Social media is often more than a tool for people; it’s an addiction, an escape. I can recall a time when I sat on my bed and scrolled on TikTok for four hours. Afterward, I felt a wave of emptiness and regret, void of any motivation to do anything. There are only twenty-four hours in a day; what do I want to spend my time on earth doing? I don’t want to look back on my time on earth and realize that I spent so much of my life staring at a screen instead of investing my time in the things that matter. When I utilize social media, my intent is almost always to learn. Currently, I’m rarely on social media, and it’s improved various aspects of my life since making that change. However, I still spend time on YouTube (I don’t consider it identical to things such as Instagram or Snapchat). My reasons for doing so are to educate myself on Christianity. Yet, if I’m not cautious, it’s easy to fall into “doom scrolling” as I would with other forms of social media. It may not be a four-hour session as it was once on TikTok; however, the small sessions of doom scrolling accumulate over a day, week, month, and year. Reflect on your reasons for being on social media and contrast it with what you’re losing; the way we spend our time affects ourselves and those around us.

Thank You For Reading, 

John 3:16–21

David Fitzpatrick

For this project, the following prompt will be addressed: “The standard definition of technology, Heidegger says is correct. But, it’s not true. Why not?” To demonstrate that Heidegger’s remark concerning the instrumentality of technology is sound, the author will discuss various things: First, defining the standard definition of technology; second, the shortcomings of such a definition; third, the proper understanding of instrumentality concerning technology; fourthly, the origins of the term “technology” and the connection between it’s traditional and modern conceptions; and lastly, I will examine how revealing occurs.  

Heidegger notes that “the merely correct is not yet the true” (Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt, 6). This may seem to be a claim that goes beyond the bounds of rational thinking. However, I will offer an analogy to illustrate Heidegger’s point. Christians would say that Muslims are correct in their monotheism, that there is one true God. However, they would label their monotheism as false because their God (Allah) isn’t the true God. Here, we have an example of something being correct but not true. Getting back to the question, we must define the standard definition of technology before bringing it under scrutiny. Technology is commonly described in two respects: “[T]he instrumental and anthropological” (Heidegger, 5). In other words, technology is both “a means and a human activity” (Heidegger, 5). Before one begins to disregard the aforementioned definitions, heed Heidegger’s words concerning it: “Who would ever deny that it is correct? It is in obvious conformity with what we are envisioning when we talk about technology [. . .] [it] is indeed so uncannily correct that it even holds for modern technology, of which, in other respects, we maintain with some justification that it is, in contrast to the older handwork technology, something completely different and therefore new” (Heidegger, 5). 

Rather, Heidegger retorts to skepticism concerning this definition by saying, “in order to be correct, this fixing by no means needs to uncover the thing in question in its essence. Only at the point where such an uncovering happens does the true come to pass” (Heidegger, 6). This is the difference; the ‘true’ is what allows us to uncover technology and peer into its essence. Yet, our instrumental and anthropological conception of what technology prevents us from reaching the point of uncovering. Why? It’s because “the essence of technology is by no means anything technological” (Heidegger, 4). Restricting our minds to the technological aspect of technology is precisely what creates this smokescreen in front of us as we attempt to gaze into the essence of it. 

Having defined the ‘correct’ definition of technology, it is now time to examine it and see why it is not ‘true’. Before proceeding, one might ask: What is the significance of instrumentality? Well, “[i]nstrumentality is considered to be the fundamental characteristic of technology. If we inquire, step by step, into what technology, represented as means, actually is, then we shall arrive at revealing” (Heidegger, 12). When attempting to learn what technology is, one cannot disregard its instrumentality; instead, we are to avoid reducing it as such. Again, “[t]echnology is therefore no mere [emphasis added] means” (Heidegger, 12). When we look beyond its instrumentality, “another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth” (Heidegger, 12). This “realm of revealing” cannot be entered into when utilizing technology as a “mere means” (Heidegger, 12). Although the instrumental definition is correct, it is not synonymous with the truth of technology’s essence. 

The term “technology” finds its origins in the Greek language; “Technikon means that which belongs to technē (Heidegger, 12). It does not refer “only [to] the activities and skills of craftsman, but also for the arts of the mind and the fine arts. Technē belongs to bringing-forth, to poiēsis; it is something poietic” (Heidegger, 13). Heidegger demonstrates that even at the essence of the word, technology is not a “mere means.” Some rebut this by saying that “modern technology is something incomparably different from all earlier technologies because it is based on modern physics as an exact science” (Heidegger, 14). As such, the Greek rendering of the word does not fit in contemporary discourse on technology (see Heidegger, 13). Heidegger acknowledges that there is a difference between them, but he stands firm in asserting that modern technology, like traditional technology, ”is a revealing” (Heidegger, 14). He utilizes an illustration of “a tract of land [which] is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit. The field that the peasant formerly cultivated and set in order [bestellte] appears differently than it did when to set in order still meant to take care of and to maintain” (Heidegger, 14–15). This is a notable difference compared to the “old windmill [. . .] [whose sails] are left entirely to the wind’s blowing” (Heidegger, 14). Although the two kinds of technology differ in their relationship to nature, both challenge it and bring forth that which is to be revealed; both forms of technology are indeed “a revealing” (Heidegger, 14). 

Heidegger notes that “[w]here and how does this revealing happen if it is no mere handiwork [emphasis added] of man? We need not look far” (Heidegger, 18). Stripping down the constructs that we have established and examining technology in an “unbiased” manner will be essential in revealing. Revealing does not stem from solely “human [acts]. Therefore we must take that challenging that sets upon man to order the real as standing-reserve in accordance with the way in which it shows itself. That challenging gathers man into ordering” (Heidegger, 19). The challenge claim that gets man to this point is called “[e]nframing” (Heidegger, 19). Heidegger defines it as “that way of revealing which holds sway in the essence of modern technology and which is itself nothing technological” (Heidegger, 20). It is in the question of how one gets to the essence of technology, where it then becomes apparent that the mere instrumentality of technology cannot lead to it; as Heidegger noted, “the essence of modern technology [. . .] is [. . .] nothing technological” (Heidegger, 19). What is evident here? It’s that despite the correctness of technology’s instrumentality, it is a far cry from the essence of technology; in other words, the truth of technology cannot be understood apart from technology’s instrumentality but simultaneously cannot be identified as a mere means. Heidegger is challenging us to not view the ‘correct’ as synonymous with the ‘true.’ 

The mere fact that we are inquiring into technology’s essence itself “bear[s] witness to the crisis that in our sheer preoccupation with technology we do not yet experience the coming to presence of technology, that in our sheer aesthetic mindedness we no longer guard and preserve the coming to presence of art. Yet the more questioningly we ponder the essence of technology, the more mysterious the essence of art becomes” (Heidegger, 35). If the ‘correct’ definition of technology sufficed, there would be no need to inquire in the first place! Evidently, “the merely correct is not yet the true” (Heidegger, 6). 

Reference List

Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology,” in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1977)