Technology surrounds us. Everywhere we look, there is technology, no matter the form in which it presents itself, it is there. Thus, the question regarding technology is no longer ‘has technology affected us’ because that point is inarguable, it has. Rather the question now is, ‘how has this effect changed our human experience and what perspective do we as individuals have on this change’. Touching on this point is the writings of both Nicholas Carr and Sherry Turkle who wrote essays regarding technology and its consequent effects on human experience.  Carr, who wrote “Is Google Making Us Stupid” concentrates his writing primarily on technological changes to attention span and humans’ ability to think deeply, whereas Turkle writes of empathy and increasingly shallow relationships as a consequence of technology in her essay “The Empathy Diaries”. Regardless of the specifics that each author wrote of, both touched on the common idea of human experience, and how is has shifted as digital technology has increased. Regarding my own opinion, I have clearly seen the effects of technology on human experience, yet also offer the perspective that this shift in human experience may not be inherently bad, but rather just different. Consequently, it is apparently clear that digital technology has affected human experience, yet the specifics and perspectives on this effect differ between each author.  

Regarding the specifics of human experience, technology has changed concentration, that point is clear, yet the degree to which, and how this is affecting us is where some differences may occur. To Carr, this change in concentration is seen most clearly in terms of reading, stating that “Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, loose the thread, begin looking or something else to do. I feel as though I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle” (Carr, 1). It is Carrs belief that technology has had a direct effect on our ability to read, as it causes us to become distracted easier and loose concentration on the task at hand. This has resulted in an change in the human experiences and an inability to read deeply and thoroughly understand the subsequent content, as well as hold concentration on one task for a lengthened period of time. To reinforce this, Carr continues by writing of how this inability to concentrate and thus read deeply is causing a new type of reading, one that involves skimming rather than fully engaging and understanding texts, as this type of reading requires less concentration by the reader. Turkle also touches on the subject of concentration in her writing, focusing specially from the angle of boredom. According to Turkle, “we often find ourselves bored because we have become accustomed to a constant feed of connection, information, and entertainment. We are forever elsewhere.” and “we pay attention to what interests us and then when it doesn’t, we look to our devices to find something that does.” (Turkle, 344). By this, Turkle is arguing that due to an increased use of technology, our ability to concentrate has diminished. As a result, we quickly loose interest, and as a result have an increased feeling of boredom. This is very similar to the writing of Carr, as both authors bring up the idea of loosing concentration and interest in the tasks at hand, as well as looking for something else to do For me, my perspective both differs as well as aligns with that of Carr and Turkle. On one hand, I can agree with the apparent shift in concentration that has decreased along with the rise of technology, as I often find myself becoming distracted, loosing concentration, and being drawn towards my devices. However, I can also see benefits that have occurred due to said changes in concentration and attention. While I agree with what Carr wrote about a “new type of writing”, I see benefit in the ability to skim, rather than always read deeply. By skimming, we can pick out the pieces of information and are important and then if needed, read further on said information. This allow readers to save time, prevents them from getting burned out while reading, and focuses attention on what is truly important. Consequently, my opinion aligns with that of Carr and Turkle in that I too have seen a shift in concentration as technology has increased, yet it differs in my opinion on the negatively of this shift. Instead, I am of the belief that this shift in concentration is not to the detriment of society, but instead is simply a change in the human experience, making us not worse, but rather different than those of the past. 

         Furthermore, not only has the rise in technology changed our human experiences in terms of attention, but according to both Turkle and Carr, it has changed regarding how our brain functions and processes information. Specifically, these authors touch on the idea technology has caused a shift how our brain takes in, stores, and process information and how this is affecting people today. In Turkle’s writing, she touches on this idea in terms of empathy, stating that children are “not developing empathy in the way that years of teaching suggest they would” and that “technology is implicit in an assault on empathy”. Essentially, due to an increase of technology not only in the classroom, but in all aspects of day-to-day life, children are struggling the develop empathy in the way that they should. This is due technology changing the way in which we communicate and interact with each other, and thus consequently changing the way in which our brains are functioning, in this case regarding empathy and emotions. For Carr, he writes not on the idea of empathy specially but rather on the idea of technology changing our brain and shifting our intellect as a whole. Carr echoes the fears of Richard Forman in writing that “were becoming (or already are?) ‘Pancake people’ in contrast to the ‘cathedral-like’ people of ‘complex and inner density’” that we used to be. These “pancake people” that Carr writes of means people who are “flat”, “spread wide”, and “thin”, or in other words people that are unable to, or no longer need to, hold and know as much information within them. This is due to the widespread availability of information which we can access from the internet, and according to Carr has resulted in a loss of complex and thoughtful people. For me, the question regarding technology and intellect is a hard one to answer, as undoubtedly technology has changed intellect and thought, but I do not believe that this change is entirely negative. I am not here to argue against Carr’s belief that technology has decreased the amount of information which we hold within us, or Turkle’s belief that technology has resulted in a lack of empathy and emotions. Instead, I simply offer an alternative perspective, looking not towards what has been lost, but what has been gained. With the rise of technology our brains are now able to process and hold information different, in ways that are beneficial to our lives today, such as knowledge of technological devices, websites, and resources. So, to return to Carr’s statement, perhaps he is correct, we are not the cathedral like people of the past, but instead perhaps we are becoming the skyscraper people of the present, changing and growing to become something new and more suitable for the lives we lead today, rather than the lives of the past. 

Although both Carr and Turkle wrote of different experiences and specifics when discussing how aspects of life have changed because of technology, both writer’s arguments were centralized to a common idea. Said common idea is that our human experience has been changed because of increased digital technology, and both authors writings and opinions tied into this overarching idea. For Carr, this was emphasized by his opinions on reading and “pancake people” and for Turkle it was boredom and empathy. Yet despite this centralized idea that was perpetuated through each authors writings, there was still areas of individualized opinions. Although both authors touched upon the same central idea, their opinions and perspectives on specifics still differed, and this very well may be the biggest take away regarding human experience, as it showed that we can be united in our ideas but individualized in our opinions. The ability to find commonality and understanding in others works and relate that to your own and possibly differing opinions is an important thing, as it allows for the development of new, and possible better idea. Thus, although Carr, Turkle, and even my own opinions may differ, we can all find commonality in the knowledge that technology has changed our human experience, and from this we can begin to form an understanding of technology and how it is affecting the world we live in.