Stasis Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Stasis essay ...

Description

1

America Armenta Westlake High School Mr. Smith English 1010 28 November 2018

Stasis Essay Today’s media show infamous acts of violence, another replica mass shooting , and another suicide because of a sinister game found online. In the article “Mass Over Media”, Steven Pinker has a plausible argument concerning criticisms on the effects new forms of media have on our mental capabilities and moral judgment. Pinker’s claim is that if media has brought harm to our society then the quality of life would be plummeting, though when in reality media technologies help our society to thrive. He claims that our intelligence is not in fact decreasing, but skyrocketing because of it. Although these many forms of media have pros to them what about the psychological impact they take on our brains? Today’s media might not intent to have negative or harmful content to youths, but that does not mean the data uploaded by others is not. New media have the ability to reach millions; therefore, things such as violence can be viewed and impact worldwide. People who view content such as violence on new media platforms can take a psychological toll on their brain; thus, causing behavioral and emotional changes.

Analyze and Summary

2 In his article “Mass Over Media” Pinker expresses the controversy having to do with digital media. He argues the idea that if media was harmful to our society then our premium way of living would be descending. Pinker gives a reality check on how new technology has helped us “manage, search and retrieve” to help better our way of living as a whole society. To support his claims Pinker uses logos, he states very generalized facts but not hard statistics. Pinker used as an example, “When comic books were accused of turning juveniles into delinquents in the 1950s, crime was falling to record lows, just as the denunciations of video games in the 1990s coincided with the great American crime decline”(Pinker 2008). He even goes as far to state that IQ’s were rising because of technology. By using facts as above, Pinker is able to back up his position against media being harmful. He carries an almost sarcastic tone throughout his article to accentuate how vacuous people would be to think otherwise. Pinker also applies scientific evidence to validate his claims; “...psychologists  Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons show in their new book “The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us,” the effects of experience are highly specific to the experiences themselves”(Pinker 2008). Experiences  do not affect anything but that experience itself. By using this evidence Pinker explains how the experience of the consumption of media does not affect your mental life. He states critics assume “...reading bullet points and Twitter postings turns your thoughts into bullet points and Twitter postings” (Pinker 2008). Pinker has good usage of Humorous appeal while arguing his thoughts. Pinker puts out the feeling of stupidity for whoever believes such things. Throughout the whole paper letting you know just how absurd the whole idea against his arguments are.

3 Although Pinker does not give specific and more scientific evidence, he sticks strongly grounded to his claim. He slowly ultimately gives his critics an exception “Yes, the constant arrival of information packets can be distracting or addictive, especially to people with attention deficit disorder.” While stating this fact Pinker does not give more substantial information like how harmful are the long term effects? What pinker does do is give a solution. “Turn off email or Twitter when you work, put away your Blackberry at dinner time, ask your spouse to call you to bed at a designated hour.” Pinker claims we must moderate our use of media and continues his advice by stating if we want to go on with intellectual depth we must participate in “analysis, criticism, and debate.” Overall Pinker ends his argument with a overlook of the issue stating “...Fortunately, the Internet and information technologies are helping us manage, search and retrieve our collective intellectual output at different scales, from Twitter and previews to e-books and online encyclopedias. Far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.” Pinker could be right about certain aspects but his argument lacks substantial quantitative evidence. In all, Pinker draws his audience in by appealing to them using generalized historical and scientific evidence, his persona/reputation, and relevant anecdotes.

Argument Steven Pinker argues an outdated claim in Mass Over Media written in 2008. Pinker states a very arguable claim that these new forms of media do not harm our moral judgment or mental capabilities. In other words, he believes media content have no real psychological effects on people besides distraction and andication. There is insufficient hard evidence used to back his claim. Also with time alone, more research, and better technology

4 shines a new light on the question “do new forms of media today affect humans psychologically?” Based on new research studies and my own experience, Today’s new forms of media are harmful in many psychological ways to humans. One of Pinkers most, to some degree, coherent supporting claims is the decline of criminal activity vs usage of video games. He argues that …”the  denunciations of video games in the 1990s coincided with the great American crime decline. ” However he fails to mention any  factual statistical evidence following his statement. There could be many other factors that play into the decline of American crime. In a cross sectional study done by the APA they give an example “...an increase in video game sales might correlate with a decrease in violent crime, but that doesn’t necessarily mean video games prevent violent crime”(S  chipani). Correlation is not causality. I find this to be more compelling than a simple statement with no hard evidence. His claim is based on a generalized fact. Pinker also mocks stating “Media critics write as if the brain takes on the qualities of whatever it consumes”. He continues on to claim the only real harm to this is distraction and addiction but the solution to this is moderating usage of media. He does not go into further depth and leaves us with the question; so, why must we moderate our usage of media if it is not harmful?  Moreover, several studies concerning media exposure and the cause of criminal activity state otherwise. In a 2012 cross sectional study done by Craig A. Anderson was concluded with “the amount of violent video games juvenile delinquents played correlated with how many violent acts they had committed over the past year. The violent acts included gang fighting, hitting a teacher, hitting a parent, hitting other students and attacking another person”(Schipani). Once again Pinker states an opinion with little to no facts following. It is quite hard to share his side with real contradicting evidence.

5 While I do feel that Pinker has failed to present conclusive evidence of the harmlessness of new forms of media through the points made, it is not a proper statement to claim that media is completely "harmful" either. These new forms of media have helped us with education and new discoveries in many ways. However, there are pros and cons to almost anything. Even though technology might be increasing our intelligence what is it doing to our mental state of mind? “The effects of exposure to media violence on criminally violent behavior have not been established.” But the authors clarify: “Saying that the effect has not been established is not the same as saying that the effect does not exist”(Schipni). It is difficult for doctors to exactly pin a cause and effects to situations. It would also be unethical to take young children, put them in a room, and expose them to pure violence for years.

Conclusion New forms of media continues to be a relevant controversy in our society today. The issue is being raised again seeing that current mass shooting and criminal activity are being committed by our younger generation. T  rump, Feb. 22: “We have to look at the Internet because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds, and their minds are being formed. And we have to do something about maybe what they’re seeing and how they’re seeing it. And also video games. I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts. And then you go the further step, and that’s the movies. You see these movies, they’re so violent”(Schipani). With newer research and discoveries made on the brain, it is almost impossible to think media and the effect of violence do not exist. Again though, the  research on the subject is complex. One of Pinkers conclusions

6 are “don’t rail at PowerPoint or Google”(Pinker). That is one thing I do agree on, you cannot hold responsible Google for the violent or harmful content to young brains that are being put on the internet. You cannot simply blame the messenger. What can be done is to ask for better awareness of uploaded content; therefore, they can be reported and taken down. Parents should also be encouraged to monitor content and limit exposure to media daily.

7

Works Cited Pinker, Steven. “Mind Over Mass Media.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 June 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11Pinker.html. Vanessa, Schipani, and FactCheck.org. “The Facts on Media Violence.” FactCheck.org , 10 Aug. 2018, www.factcheck.org/2018/03/facts-media-violence/....