Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other [Kindle Edition]

That was one of my thoughts as I read Sherry Turkle's Alone Together: no matter what robots learn to do, they will never learn to write a book as thoughtful, informative, and intense as Alone Together. They would not know how to pose the questions, let alone use such discernment in addressing them.

It is interesting that Turkle chose to discuss robots in the first part of the book and the Internet in the second part. By presenting the "strange" part first, she gives us a sense of how strange our everyday lives actually are, how far we have moved away from enjoying each other's presence.

Turkle quotes children and adults who hesitate to use the phone because it seems awkward and intrusive; it is much easier, they say, to dash off a text or email. At the same time, Turkle points out, because of this very convenience, people expect quick responses. She describes the anxiety of teenagers when they do not get an immediate reply to their text messages. One girl talks about needing her cell phone for "emergencies"; it turns out that what she means by "emergency" is having a feeling without being able to share it.

Turkle shows how our Internet communications mix the deliberate with the unconsidered. On the one hand, people put great effort even into short email messages. On the other, they "test" ideas and expressions in formation to see how others react. Some create fake online profiles just to try out different sides of their personality. The problem with such experimentation is that it is conditioned almost entirely by online reactions, often reactions of strangers. There is little room to form thoughts independently.

Throughout the book, Turkle brings up the question of solitude. What happens to our solitude when we are able to get responses to anything and are expected to provide responses in turn? What happens to our sense of dissent when everything we say and do online bears a trace? She points out how important privacy is to dissent, for if we have no place where we can think and act unseen, we end up policing ourselves and censoring our own thoughts. We tame and restrain ourselves, knowing that anything we do and say may end up "out there" forever. "But sometimes a citizenry should not simply 'be good,'" Turkle writes. "You have to leave space for dissent, real dissent."

Also, Turkle points out, when we have no privacy we lose the ability to privilege some thoughts and actions over others. She quotes Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, who says that "if you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Like many others, he ignores the possibility that there might be privacy without shame or crime. We might want to keep things to ourselves for any number of reasons; when we "put everything out there," that "everything" is somehow trivialized. Turkle quotes a girl who claims there's nothing much to know about her; "I'm kind of boring." Will the loss of privacy lead more people to dismiss themselves as boring?

One of Turkle's most powerful points is that we have come "to take the performance of emotion as emotion enough." Who cares, some might say, if the robot cannot feel? It behaves as though it feels, and that's enough. But is it? I see similar assumptions in education, where test scores are equated with learning, and students' visible activity in class is equated with "engagement." How do you go about defending something that is not tangible, visible, or measurable? It is difficult, but Turkle does it.

Because this book is so informative, because Turkle understands the complexities of technologies, she can make bold statements. She insists that we have the capacity and obligation to question the principles behind new inventions. She suggests that the touch of a human hand is indeed different from a robot's, that a handwritten letter is different from a text, that thinking and remembering have value even when it seems there's no more time for them. I won't give away the ending, but it left me with a surprising sadness, as though in a movie theater, when it's over and the place is dark, and you sit there for a few minutes, stunned, before getting up and walking out into the blink-provoking street.

What I love about this book is that a whole person wrote it. Turkle includes both original research and her everyday experiences as a mother and a friend.

Unlike many books about technology, this book does not try to tell a simple story about it being good or bad. Its goal seems to be to help us live a better life in partnership with technology. Do we really want to give up privacy online? Do we really want to text during family dinners? Do we really want our companionship to be replaced by robotic companionship?

Instead of pretending you must take a side for or against technology, "Alone Together" asks us to look out for ourselves and what is good for us. My favorite idea is that the point is not to get rid of technology but that each individual must stop and think where it fits in his or her life.

"Alone Together" is a great read. The language is sometimes poetic and sometimes funny, but always compelling. Its ideas and questions are powerful and are long-lasting.

Highly recommended for everyone.

There is much insight to be gained about our relationship with digital technology in reading Alone Together...but it's equally informative to consider some of what's not covered in Turkle's book. When viewed through a broader perspective, perhaps we needn't be as alarmed as one might think after finishing AT.

Sherry Turkle's research indicates a loop. People design digital machines that make demands on us, their users. But people program digital technology such as robots and games to appeal to vulnerabilities. Turkle is most concerned with demands digital makes on our vulnerabilities, to the extent that some people are so attracted to the digital world that they run the risk of not being able to differentiate between reality 101 and digital illusions.

Even for someone who researches and analyzes the information technology such as myself, there are many eye-opening findings in AT. But the book is limited in scope, despite the fact that it is the cumulation of 30 years work by Turkle. For starters, Turkle's Freudian approach to psychology leads her to focus on the pathological. Zeroing in on the pathological can be informative if it is the start of a path that is linked to more socially integrated behavior. In other words, examination of the pathological mind can yield insights into better integrated minds.

From some of the reactions here, I think there is a pitfall in translating Turkle's findings directly to society at large, without taking into account how better integrated minds react to digital technology. And, I don't fault readers. It's a reasonable reaction and reflects a weakness in the book. "What's wrong with the new and artistic world of computer games? Nothing is wrong with them. But looking to games for amusement is one thing. Looking to them for a life is another," Turkle says on p.226. In other words, the digital world is what each of us collectively make of it. In that regard, it's much like all phenomena.

Turkle's diagnosis of the pathologies of the digital age seem right on. But I think that the illusory relationship with technology is transcended in individuals more integrated in a social setting. In other words, those who are not well integrated into their social settings, are vulnerable to the gravitational pull of the convenient and unambiguous digital world. Those who are better integrated will tend to view digital games as games. That's certainly what I see in my teenage children (who seemingly are anatomically connected to their mobile phones yet somehow achieve leadership in their social activities), in their friends, in my work researching the business side of digital technology, and in those with whom I mix socially.

The fly in AT's ointment is that Turkle's findings are overly dependent on projecting the pathological directly onto the socially integrated. With children, she makes no allowance that they might outgrow their seemingly alarming relationship with digital toys. As pointed out in another review here, she doesn't consider the many beneficial effects of digital technology, nor how well integrated people view the digital world.

I did think of Marshall McLuhan while reading AT, and his assertion that electronic media is controlled to a large degree by the user, in contrast to print, which is controlled by the press owner. AT illustrates that to a degree we are using our control over digital technology to address vulnerabilities. Some are confusing the illusions they perceive while using digital technologies to create alternative worlds that zaps their motivation for living in the real world. I'm sure some are. But I also question how many?

Another shortcoming of AT is the lack of prescriptive remedies. I suspect that the reaction of many is to deny access to the digital, just as many well-intended parents severely limit, or deny TV. It seems to me there are much more effective alternatives.

Turkle's book is worth a read, but bring your skepticism along. Not only are you reading the findings of a Freudian, but one who projects a relatively narrow perspective onto a large canvas.