The inhumanness of technology

Mar 17, 2011 By Lori Kozlowski

Ever get the feeling that a thumbs-up on Facebook just isn't the same as seeing a friend? Ever feel like you want more than 140 characters from someone?

Author-social scientist Sherry Turkle, in her newest book, "Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less From Each Other," explores our growing tendency to rely on technology above .

The first part of the book focuses on robots - why we would use them, and how it could be dangerous to allow robots to replace human interaction. The second focuses on our most prominent social networks: and Twitter. For that, she interviewed hundreds of adolescents and adults about their experiences with the sites - and learned of the rising anxiety many have over not posting enough, or not posting the "right" things that make them look the way they want to be perceived.

Turkle, a professor at MIT, says she loves technology, but wrote the book as a conversation starter about how we are using it and why, and about being more selective about how we spend our time. She recently sat down with the Los Angeles Times to talk about her research.

Q: Why is there a danger in companions?

A: One thing that makes us so vulnerable is if a robot asks for you to take care of it. As human beings, the way we're wired is that we nurture what we love, but we also love what we nurture.

If you take care of something, you begin to love it - which makes us very vulnerable. By pushing your Darwinian button, if a roboticist can get you to take care of the robot, you will attach to it. Once that happens, even if you tell a person, "It's programmed. Here's how it makes eye contact, it's looking for the color red," it doesn't matter - because these things are so strong.

We are tempted to use robots as companions, and I think there are two situations where it is really inappropriate: with children and the elderly.

In Japan, there's this giant push for robots for the elderly. They argue there aren't enough people to take care of the elderly. There's a second vulnerability at work, as well: The guy who visits his mother and says, "If I leave her staring at a wall when I leave the nursing home, I feel terrible; if I leave her staring at the television, I feel not so terrible; if I leave her playing with a robot, I feel OK." It makes us feel better as children to see the interaction. But not all interaction is equal.

To me, having an elderly woman talk about the death of a child, the loss of a spouse, fear about the end of life, to something that doesn't understand what a life is, what a child is, what death is, what it means to face the end of life - this is not an appropriate companion.

Q: What are the greatest dangers of always being "on" or connected?

A: It's the psychology of needing constant validation for every thought. It's the psychology of the transition from "I have a feeling, I want to make a call," which is healthy, to "I want to have a feeling, I need to send a text" - where the sending of a text becomes part of the constitution of an emotion. So that's the first thing.

My second greatest concern is using other people as validation. If you are always looking around for someone to support and validate you, that very quickly gets into you not really apprehending them as a whole person. You start only looking for what you need.

The third thing is, if you never teach your children to be alone, they can only be lonely. This is one of the biggest dangers in the generation that's growing up: an incapacity for the solitude that refreshes and restores.

Q: What's your take on and getting to know others through status updates and tweets?

A: There's something I thought was a danger for the future, but I see it has arrived. I've been asked: "What's wrong with getting you in little 140-character status updates? Doesn't it sort of add up to the whole person? Why do I need to get the whole person? What's the value of being with each other physically?"

I think that we need to be more fully present to each other.

We're human animals. I feel that, sitting next to you, looking at how your face moves, looking at your eyes, the inflection of your voice, how you look, how you dress. I feel that you have taken me in, and I have taken you in, in ways that really matter. That we've revealed each other to each other.

People have a fantasy that we don't need to be with each other. So, what am I afraid of? That we will lose something very precious about our humanity.

Q: What can we do to step back?

A: We're not going back. I'm not a Luddite, and I don't believe that this is an addiction. This is the technology of our lives - we're not going to give it up. We're not supposed to get off it. We're just supposed to turn it to our human purposes.

Explore further: Google to test cars without a driver

4 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Robotic pets may be bad medicine for melancholy

Nov 30, 2006

In the face of techno-doomsday punditry, Sherry Turkle has long been a proponent of the positive. In her books, "The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit" and "Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet," ...

S.Korea schools get robot English teachers

Dec 28, 2010

Almost 30 robots have started teaching English to youngsters in a South Korean city, education officials said Tuesday, in a pilot project designed to nurture the nascent robot industry.

Human-like robot smiles, scolds in Japan classroom

Mar 11, 2009

(AP) -- Japan's robot teacher calls roll, smiles and scolds, drawing laughter from students with her eerily lifelike face. But the developer says it's not about to replace human instructors.

Futuristic robots, friend or foe?

Apr 22, 2008

A leading robotics expert will outline some of the ethical pitfalls of near-future robots to a Parliamentary group today at the House of Commons. Professor Noel Sharkey from the University of Sheffield will explain that robots ...

Recommended for you

Google to test cars without a driver

15 hours ago

Google plans to begin testing its new prototype of a self-driving car - which, unlike earlier models, doesn't require a back-up driver - at NASA's Ames Research Center, just a few miles from the tech company's ...

Self-driving cars now need a permit in California

17 hours ago

Computer-driven cars have been testing their skills on California roads for more than four years—but until now, the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't sure just how many were rolling around.

Index ranks Japan Asia's most efficient innovator (Update)

Sep 12, 2014

A new index ranks Japan as the most efficient among Asian countries in turning the building blocks of creativity into tangible innovations that benefit their economies and people while Myanmar, Pakistan and Cambodia are least ...

Making travel quick, safe for cars, bikes, walkers

Sep 10, 2014

Cellphones that warn drivers when people are crossing in front of them. Bicycles and cars that communicate with traffic lights. Sensors in cars that quickly alert other drivers to black ice, potholes or other ...

Tech giants bet on 'smart home' revolution

Sep 10, 2014

It's long been the stuff of science fiction, but tech giants hope the "smart home", where gadgets talk to each other and the fridge orders the milk, will soon become reality.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Beard
not rated yet Mar 18, 2011
Nice closing statement.
frajo
not rated yet Mar 19, 2011
Facebook and Twitter are not representative for the internet. An unconnected robot is not representative for technology.

The technology of the internet does not - except in pathological cases - separate humans from humans. It rather helps to create human-human connections where none were available before the new age of the internet.

I'm not the only one who had noone but the books to "talk" with about my topics of interest in the pre-internet decades. But now there's no shortage of humans to discuss with.

Internet technology is a blessing, not a curse.