According To Turkle, What Is The Difference Between Loneliness And Solitude Research Paper

Within the essays, “Our Cell Phones, Our Selves,” by Christine Rosen and “Disconnected Urbaism” by Paul Golderger, both authors expressed concern about the usages and the path our society is heading down. It is remarkable that within 30 years the cell phone went from a large mobile phone called the brick to what it is today. If we are not careful with the cell phone and our dependence on it, our social communication skills will be permanently damaged. Cell phones have inhibited the way we interact with each other and the way we communicate.

Why are T.V. and Internet a problem in these days? And how can they affect the ability to being alone?

Oftentimes, people confuse loneliness with the state of being alone. When looking at the overall big picture, it is easy to forget that loneliness is temporary. People are not alone because even back in primitive times, they bore a natural instinct to strive for companionship in order to survive. Human imagination creates companions in cases of extreme loneliness which contradicts the state of being alone. Due to societal and family standards, others in society make it practically impossible to be alone. Mankind often goes through life without realizing the overwhelming amount of human contact and support. People are never alone, they are just simply

Social capital is the is the social connections that allow for social interactions in which an individual has opportunities to build bonds, help others out, and affect change for the better. When the social engagement is reciprocated, it can produce benefits for the multiple individuals engaged in the activity and so further the circumstance of the society.

The first commonality that is mentioned by Putnam is that there is a massive decline in participation in social capital in every category. From 1960 to 1996, there was a decline of 13.9 of Americans that voted at the polls (2000). Small groups or group membership has also become more individual based with the form of mailing lists and online activity. You can see that with this shift in the way groups are formed, there may be an increase in members but activity has gone down from

Social capital is defined as the capacity of social institutions, such as families, churches, schools, or other community organizations to make an investment of attention and advice, support and concerned interest in other community members according to reformer L.J. Hanifan. As a dependent of the community social capital is applied to my everyday life. It helps me to obtain resources for my education such as scholarships, teaches me how to work together with my peers, becoming a positive role model to youth, and build trusting relationships with others in the community. Social capital is seen as a support group from leaders in the community.

According to research scientist Helen Lee Lin, writing in Scientific American, the report "suggests that cell phones may serve as a reminder of the wider network to which we could connect, inhibiting our ability to connect with the people right next to us." (http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/study-finds-cell-phones-may-damage-relationships.html)

Within the essays, “Our Cell Phones, Our Selves,” by Christine Rosen and “Disconnected Urbaism” by Paul Golderger, both authors expressed concern about the usages and the path our society is heading down. It is remarkable that within 30 years the cell phone went from a large mobile phone called the brick to what it is today. If we are not careful with the cell phone and our dependence on it, our social communication skills will be permanently damaged. Cell phones have inhibited the way we interact with each other and the way we communicate.

In the article "Our Cell Phones, Ourselves," by Christine Rosen, she explains the dependency on cell phone use while highlighting unforeseen consequences that may occur with cellular device use. From allowing parents to track down their children, to having a casual conversation with a friend, cell phones offer people an unparalleled level of convenience. Furthermore, cell phone owners feel much safer knowing that in an emergency, help is just a phone call away. This convenience, however, does not come without any negative effects. Many cell phone owners become too engrossed in their phones and therefore ignore the physical world, an idea that Rosen refers to as "absent presence.” Also, people may use their phones as a way to prove they are

Mainly, the million dollar question is what does cell phones do to intimate relationships and general conversation with the opposite gender. Research from the University of San Diego shows that there is an estimated 2.3 trillion minutes spent using wireless devices of the last year (Galvan, Golley & Vessal, 2013, pg. 1). This source continues on to say that “[people feel] personal connections towards cell phones” (Galvan, Golley & Vessal, 2013, pg. 1). A question to be considered in this situation is how people even get into relationships anymore and that is driven by the amount of online dating site and technological

Today, he says the two spend more evenings staring at their phones than they do at each other.” (Morris). The article provides information that families are affected by technology and can not keep conversations or continue relationships. Similar to Montag and his wife being so intrigued in their technology they forget about each other and the bond they could have if they had conversations after work or at the end of the night rather than making their devices seem more important to them. “If one partner in the relationship disengages from a face-to-face interaction while engaging in technology...the other person may experience a sense of threat to their need to feel attached and in control in that relationship.” (Morris). The lack of communication in a relationship due to technology seems to push away others in the friendship or relationship, the article proves that when others are more interested in their phone or other devices other party/parties feel distant and pushed away and do not want to continue the relationship.People can start building stronger relationships by putting down their pieces of technology and making time to have a real conversations with the people they

This relates to Putnam because he theorizes that mobility and sprawl of people can contribute to social capital's decline. However, people that are a minority (not stereotypically middle-class and white) may choose to stay within where they feel they belong. In fact, civic disengagement is liable to happen not only by moving too much, but by its exact opposite, by staying at a place way too long. It seems that any extreme of mobility or remaining can have both detrimental effects to social capital. Also, there was mention of two people of two different races, where a white person donated a kidney to a black person in Putnam's book. Residential segregation could conceivably have not made such an intimate connection between two races possible and so Putnam may need to consider the various reasons people stay with their own kind aside from a patriotic feeling so that he can come up with solutions to our waning civic engagement.

When discussing why societies are better with deep social capital, Putnam writes “dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants' sense of self, developing the "I" into the "we” (Putnam, 1995, pp. 2-3). To me, this means that when people are not concerned with only themselves but also with others, things like peace building and community involvement occur. In terms of peace building, if social capital was dense and I had a high social capital level, when something intrigued me and drove me to advocate for peace such as ending violence, it wouldn’t be a fight that I was starting alone but instead the “we” would help fight this battle. For me, this means that if I really want to make a difference in this world, I need to be more involved and increase my social capital. By doing so, I can impact others to do the same and the chances of building peace as a community would be greater. Furthermore, the piece in the article where he ties the whole concept of social capital and its decline to bowling really hit home for me. When it is put in perspective in such a way that Putnam did to describe how even bowling has decreased in profits because people prefer now to bowl alone rather than a s a group or in a league, it really forced one to reflect upon their own involvement. (Putnam, 2010). If as a society and even myself we continue to not fully engage with others but rather masked by technology and our own life circumstances, peace will never be built. As someone who believes in social justice, I know that peace is something I want to help build and thus need to change my social capital

Alejandro Portes discuss the controversy surrounding the actual meaning and effects of social capital. Confusion arises due its applications to manifold topics as well as its uses on different group of people. He provided the concept by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman which centered on the benefits of social capital on an individual or a small group. He argued that Coleman focused on the advantages yielded to individual and then expand them to the whole community with subtlety. This transition is not well-defined and thus put social capital at risk of becoming synonymous with all positive things in

Define social capital. How does Putnam understand this concept and briefly explain his argument in regards to social decapitalization?