Comments on: Why Sherry Turkle is so wrong

By: DinBomani

DinBomani — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:36:30 +0000

I found the book to be alittle mundane myself. Her stories were drawn out. To make the book from the outside seem as it would be a good read. There were a lot of repetitive notions and one sided arguments. As for the names of various technologies, a lot of the names I’ve never heard of. Growing up in the inner city we weren’t afforded the opportunity to have a vast variety of toys, gidgets, and gadgets. However, we knew a toy from a real person, but I could see where Turkle was trying to go with it. This book could’ve been have as many pages and still the message would’ve been clearer as to what she wanted to point out. Yes we are becoming more dependant on technology. However, I don’t believe that technology decreases an individuals desire for face to face communication…try i.e. skype..facebook video…tango…and my new favorite google hangout

By: Arthur

Arthur — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:09:38 +0000

Problem is here that Turkle is NOT a psychoanalyst. She is a licensed psychologist–but there is an ocean of difference between a psychologist and a psychoanalyst.

By: Les Enfants Terribles « Choicelessness

Les Enfants Terribles « Choicelessness — Mon, 30 May 2011 21:50:56 +0000

[...] construct public lives. Sherry Turkle’s call to “put technology in its place” is a little misguided. She suggests that technology works well in our private lives (when I’m alone) but hinders [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 17 May 2011 18:30:22 +0000

Tom, this is glorious. I also intend to pinch the “conspiracy theorists of the soul” line.

By: Hubert

Hubert — Thu, 05 May 2011 14:19:51 +0000

“Psychoanalysts are conspiracy theorists of the soul” is absolutely brilliant ! I herewith announce I am going to steal it from you and use it at every opportunity.

By: Josie

Josie — Sun, 01 May 2011 09:21:40 +0000

I didn’t know you had a knee-jerk dislike of psychoanalysts.

I’ve always felt quite affectionate towards them, largely because they are from the Germanic philosophical tradition that at least tries to get inside our minds and find meaning and reason and depth in there.

Even if they get some things wrong, I find it preferable to what appears to me to be the dominant paradigm – at least in the popular mind – where we are viewed as just some kind of input-output machine and the slogan appears to be “we don’t care what goes on inside there and we know without looking that it makes no sense anyway; you just have to learn to manipulate it” which I’m sure is related to neoliberalism and Utilitarianism and privatising the NHS and all things bad. But I’m a one song kinda girl, and hatred of positivism is my song.

Great review by the way. I won’t read the book, it sounds crap.

By: Alex Fradera

Alex Fradera — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:00:39 +0000

Nice. We have the internet to thank for knowing each other, and I’m grateful for that. I have a sense that I might be sympathetic to Turkle’s position, although tone and approach is all, and I’m hearing from you that it’s off in this case.

I especially hear you that third-hand story doesn’t remotely substitute for personal testimony, or direct witnessing for another’s experience. I think that could grate for me.

By: Alec

Alec — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:55:28 +0000

Absolutely brilliant. As you know, you’d devalue this blog if you brought a smackdown every week, but sometimes, you gotta let the Hulk loose.