does technology make us lazy essay

Is technology making us dumber or smarter? Yes

Professor of History, Texas A&M University

Disclosure statement

Jonathan Coopersmith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Texas A&M University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

The smartphone in your hand enables you to record a video, edit it and send it around the world. With your phone, you can navigate in cities, buy a car, track your vital signs and accomplish thousands of other tasks. And so?

Each of those activities used to demand learning specific skills and acquiring the necessary resources to do them. Making a film? First, get a movie camera and the supporting technologies (film, lights, editing equipment). Second, learn how to use them and hire a crew. Third, shoot the movie. Fourth, develop and edit the film. Fifth, make copies and distribute them.

Now all of those tasks are solved by technology. We need no longer learn the intricate details when the smartphone programmers have taken care of so much. But filmmakers are now freer to focus on their craft, and it is easier than ever to become a filmmaker. Historically, technology has made us individually dumber and individually smarter – and collectively smarter. Technology has made us able to do more while understanding less about what we are doing, and has increased our dependence on others.

These are not recent trends, but part of the history of technology since the first humans began to farm. In recent decades, three major changes have accelerated the process, starting with the increasing pace of humans specializing in particular skills. In addition, we outsource more skills to technological tools, like a movie-making app on a smartphone, that relieve us of the challenge of learning large amounts of technical knowledge. And many more people have access to technology than in the past, allowing them to use these tools much more readily.

Specialized knowledge

Specialization enables us to become very good at some activities, but that investment in learning – for example, how to be an ER nurse or computer coder – comes at the expense of other skills like how to grow your own food or build your own shelter.

As Adam Smith noted in his 1776 “Wealth of Nations,” specialization enables people to become more efficient and productive at one set of tasks, but with a trade-off of increased dependence on others for additional needs. In theory, everyone benefits.

Specialization has moral and pragmatic consequences. Skilled workers are more likely to be employed and earn more than their unskilled counterparts. One reason the United States won World War II was that draft boards kept some trained workers, engineers and scientists working on the home front instead of sending them to fight. A skilled machine tool operator or oil-rig roustabout contributed more to winning the war by staying at home and sticking to a specialized role than by heading to the front with a rifle. It also meant other men (and some women) donned uniforms and had a much greater chance of dying.

Making machines for the rest of us

Incorporating human skills into a machine – called “blackboxing” because it makes the operations invisible to the user – allows more people to, for example, take a blood pressure measurement without investing the time, resources and effort into learning the skills previously needed to use a blood pressure cuff. Putting the expertise in the machine lowers the barriers to entry for doing something because the person does not need to know as much. For example, contrast learning to drive a car with a manual versus an automatic transmission.

Mass production of blackboxed technologies enables their widespread use. Smartphones and automated blood pressure monitors would be far less effective if only thousands instead of tens of millions of people could use them. Less happily, producing tens of millions of automatic rifles like AK-47s means individuals can kill far more people far more easily compared with more primitive weapons like knives.

More practically, we depend on others to do what we cannot do at all or as well. City dwellers in particular depend on vast, mostly invisible structures to provide their power , remove their waste and ensure food and tens of thousands of other items are available.

Overreliance on technology is dangerous

A major downside of increased dependence on technologies is the increased consequences if those technologies break or disappear. Lewis Dartnell’s “The Knowledge” offers a delightful (and frightening) exploration of how survivors of a humanity-devastating apocaplyse could salvage and maintain 21st-century technologies.

Just one example of many is that the U.S. Naval Academy resumed training officers to navigate by sextants . Historically the only way to determine a ship’s location at sea, this technique is being taught again both as a backup in case cyberattackers interfere with GPS signals and to give navigators a better feel of what their computers are doing.

How do people survive and prosper in this world of increasing dependence and change? It’s impossible to be truly self-reliant, but it is possible to learn more about the technologies we use, to learn basic skills of repairing and fixing them (hint: always check the connections and read the manual) and to find people who know more about particular topics. In this way the Internet’s vast wealth of information can not only increase our dependence but also decrease it (of course, skepticism about online information is never a bad idea). Thinking about what happens if something goes wrong can be a useful exercise in planning or a descent into obsessive worrying.

Individually, we depend more on our technologies than ever before – but we can do more than ever before. Collectively, technology has made us smarter, more capable and more productive. What technology has not done is make us wiser.

Editor’s note: This article was part of a collaboration with Point Taken, a program from GBH that aired on PBS .

• Point Taken

Associate Professor, Psychology

Service Delivery Fleet Coordinator

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

September 11, 2018

Are Digital Devices Altering Our Brains?

Some say our gadgets and computers can help improve intelligence. Others say they make us stupid and violent. Which is it?

By Elena Pasquinelli

Do video games make people more aggressive, or are they beneficial—improving certain abilities, such as reaction time? Probably a bit of both, according to recent research, although any benefits are modest.

John Lund Getty Images

Ten years ago technology writer Nicholas Carr published an article in the Atlantic entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He strongly suspected the answer was “yes.” Himself less and less able to focus, remember things or absorb more than a few pages of text, he accused the Internet of radically changing people’s brains. And that is just one of the grievances leveled against the Internet and at the various devices we use to access it–including cell phones, tablets, game consoles and laptops. Often the complaints target video games that involve fighting or war, arguing that they cause players to become violent.

But digital devices also have fervent defenders—in particular the promoters of brain-training games, who claim that their offerings can help improve attention, memory and reflexes. Who, if anyone, is right?

The answer is less straightforward than you might think. Take Carr’s accusation. As evidence, he quoted findings of neuroscientists who showed that the brain is more plastic than previously understood. In other words, it has the ability to reprogram itself over time, which could account for the Internet’s effect on it. Yet in a 2010 opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, psychologists Christopher Chabris, then at Union College, and Daniel J. Simons of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rebutted Carr’s view: “There is simply no experimental evidence to show that living with new technologies fundamentally changes brain organization in a way that affects one’s ability to focus,” they wrote. And the debate goes on.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The Case for Stupidity

Where does the idea that we are becoming “stupid” come from? It derives in part from the knowledge that digital devices capture our attention. A message from a friend, an anecdote shared on social networks or a sales promotion on an online site can act like a treat for the human brain. The desire for such “treats” can draw us to our screens repeatedly and away from other things we should be concentrating on.

People may feel overwhelmed by the constant input, but some believe they have become multitaskers: they imagine they can continually toggle back and forth between Twitter and work, even while driving, without losing an ounce of efficiency. But a body of research confirms that this impression is an illusion. When individuals try to do two or more things at once that require their attention, their performance suffers. Moreover, in 2013 Stéphane Amato, then at Aix-Marseille University in France, and his colleagues showed that surfing Web pages makes people susceptible to a form of cognitive bias known as the primacy effect: they weight the first few pieces of information they see more heavily than the rest.

Training does not improve the ability to multitask. In 2009 Eyal Ophir, then at Stanford University, and his colleagues discovered that multitasking on the Internet paradoxically makes users less effective at switching from one task to another. They are less able to allocate their attention and are too vulnerable to distractions. Consequently, even members of the “digital native” generation are unlikely to develop the cognitive control needed to divide their time between several tasks or to instantly switch from one activity to another. In other words, digital multitasking does little more than produce a dangerous illusion of competence.

The good news is that you do not need to rewire your brain to preserve your attention span. You can help yourself by thinking about what distracts you most and by developing strategies to immunize yourself against those distractions. And you will need to exercise some self-control. Can’t resist Facebook notifications? Turn them off while you’re working. Tempted to play a little video game? Don’t leave your device where you can see it or within easy reach.

Evidence for Aggression

What about the charge that video games increase aggression? Multiple reports support this view. In a 2015 review of published studies, the American Psychological Association concluded that playing violent video games accentuates aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior while diminishing empathy for victims. The conclusion comes both from laboratory research and from tracking populations of online gamers. In the case of the gamers, the more they played violent games, the more aggressive their behavior was.

The aggression research suffers from several limitations, however. For example, lab studies measure aggressiveness by offering participants the chance to inflict a punishment, such as a dose of very hot sauce to swallow—actions that are hardly representative of real life. Outside the lab, participants would probably give more consideration to the harmful nature of their actions. And studies of gamers struggle to make sense of causality: Do video games make people more violent, or do people with a fundamentally aggressive temperament tend to play video games?

Thus, more research is needed, and it will require a combination of different methods. Although the findings so far are preliminary, researchers tend to agree that some caution is in order, beginning with moderation and variety: an hour here and there spent playing fighting games is unlikely to turn you into a brainless psychopath, but it makes sense to avoid spending entire days at it.

Gaming for Better Brains?

On the benefit side of the equation, a number of studies claim that video games can improve reaction time, attention span and working memory. Action games, which are dynamic and engaging, may be particularly effective: immersed in a captivating environment, players learn to react quickly, focus on relevant information and remember. In 2014, for example, Kara Blacker of Johns Hopkins University and her colleagues studied the impact games in the Call of Duty series—in which players control soldiers—on visual working memory (short-term memory). The researchers found that 30 hours of playing improved this capacity.

The assessment consisted of asking participants a number of times whether a group of four to six colored squares was identical to another group, presented two minutes earlier. Once again, however, this situation is far from real life. Moreover, the extent to which players “transfer” their learning to everyday activities is debatable.

This issue of skill transfer is also a major challenge for the brain-training industry, which has been growing since the 2000s. These companies are generally very good at promoting themselves and assert that engaging in various exercises and computer games for a few minutes a day can improve memory, attention span and reaction time.

Posit Science, which offers the BrainHQ series of brain training and assessment, is one such company. Its tools include UFOV (for “useful field of view). In one version of a UFOV-based game, a car and a road sign appear on a screen. Then another car appears. The player clicks on the original car and also clicks on where the road sign appeared. By having groups of objects scroll faster and faster, the activity is supposed to improve reaction time.

The company’s Web site touts user testimonials and says its customers report that BrainHQ “has done everything from improving their bowling game, to enabling them to get a job, to reviving their creativity, to making them feel more confident about their future.” Findings from research, however, are less clear-cut. On one hand, Posit Science cites the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Elderly (ACTIVE) Study to claim that UFOV training can improve overall reaction time in elderly players and reduce the risk that they will cause car crashes by almost 50 percent. But in a 2016 analysis of research on brain-training programs, Simons and his colleagues are far less laudatory. The paper, which includes an in-depth analysis of the ACTIVE study, says that the overall risk of having an accident—the most relevant criterion—decreased very little. Several reviews of the scientific literature come to much the same conclusion: brain-training products enhance performance on tasks that are trained directly, but the transfer is often weak.

Dr. Kawashima’s Brain Traininggame, released by Nintendo in the mid-2000s, provides another example of contrary results. In addition to attention and memory exercises, this game has a player do calculations. Does the program improve overall arithmetic skills? No, according to work done in 2012 by Siné McDougall and Becky House, both at Bournemouth University in England on a group of seniors. A year earlier, though, Scottish psychologists David Miller and Derek Robertson found that the game did increase how fast children could calculate.

Overall then, the results from studies are mixed. The benefits need to be evaluated better, and many questions need answering, such as how long an intervention should last and at what ages might it be effective. The answers may depend on the specific interventions being considered.

No Explosive Growth in Capacity

Any cognitive improvements from brain-training games probably will be marginal rather than an “explosion” of human mental capacities. Indeed, the measured benefits are much weaker and ephemeral than the benefits obtained through traditional techniques. For remembering things, for example, rather than training your recall with abstract tasks that have little bearing on reality, try testing your memory regularly and making the information as meaningful to your own life as possible: If you memorize a shopping list, ask yourself what recipe you are buying the ingredients for and for which day’s dinner. Unlike brain-training games, this kind of approach involves taking some initiative and makes you think about what you know.

Exercising our cognitive capacities is important to combating another modern hazard: the proliferation of fake news on social networks. In the same way that digital devices accentuate our tendency to become distracted, fake news exploits our natural inclination to believe what suits us. The solution to both challenges is education: more than ever, young people must be taught to develop their concentration, self-control and critical-thinking skills.

Elena Pasquinelli is a project manager at La Main à la Pâte Foundation, which works to improve science instruction in higher education, and an associate member of the Jean Nicod Institute, a cognitive science laboratory in Paris.

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Technology Makes Us Lazy

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Technology Makes Us Lazy. (2016, Mar 30). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/technology-makes-us-lazy-essay

"Technology Makes Us Lazy." StudyMoose , 30 Mar 2016, https://studymoose.com/technology-makes-us-lazy-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Technology Makes Us Lazy . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/technology-makes-us-lazy-essay [Accessed: 16 Aug. 2024]

"Technology Makes Us Lazy." StudyMoose, Mar 30, 2016. Accessed August 16, 2024. https://studymoose.com/technology-makes-us-lazy-essay

"Technology Makes Us Lazy," StudyMoose , 30-Mar-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/technology-makes-us-lazy-essay. [Accessed: 16-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Technology Makes Us Lazy . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/technology-makes-us-lazy-essay [Accessed: 16-Aug-2024]

• “Why Summer Makes Us Lazy”: Rhetorical Analysis Pages: 4 (937 words)
• Technology Has Made Us Lazy Pages: 4 (1005 words)
• The Phenomenon of Lazy Students: Causes and Effects in School Environments Pages: 2 (397 words)
• Lazy Student: The Nature Of Students' Motivation And Productivity Pages: 3 (824 words)
• Technology Makes Education Convenient Pages: 8 (2160 words)
• Modern Technology Makes Life More Convenient Pages: 3 (877 words)
• Technology Does Makes Life More Convenient Pages: 3 (810 words)
• Technology Makes Us Lonely Essay Pages: 3 (859 words)
• Technology Makes Life Easier For Students Pages: 3 (680 words)
• Technology Makes Our Lives Easier Pages: 5 (1303 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

The Enlightened Mindset

Exploring the World of Knowledge and Understanding

Welcome to the world's first fully AI generated website!

Exploring How Technology Makes Us Lazy: An In-Depth Analysis

By Happy Sharer

Introduction

Technology is defined as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry” (Oxford Dictionary). On the other hand, laziness is defined as “an unwillingness to work or use energy” (Cambridge Dictionary). With the advancement of technology, it has made humans increasingly reliant on machines, and this has led to an increase in laziness. This article will explore how technology has made us lazy by examining its impact on human laziness, such as increased dependency on machines, reduced physical activity and decreased motivation.

Examining the Impact of Technology on Human Laziness

The rise of technology has had a major impact on human laziness. From automated machines to voice recognition technology, many aspects of our lives have become easier and more convenient. However, this convenience comes with a cost – it has made us increasingly dependent on machines, leading to a decrease in physical activity and motivation.

Increased Dependency on Machines

One of the most significant effects of technology on human laziness is the increased dependency on machines. With the advent of modern technology, many tasks that used to require manual effort can now be done by machines. From washing machines and dishwashers to robotic vacuum cleaners and self-driving cars, technology has enabled us to do things faster and with less effort. As a result, we have become increasingly dependent on machines to do even the most basic tasks.

Reduced Physical Activity

Another way in which technology has made us lazy is by reducing physical activity. The availability of technology means that people no longer need to expend energy doing simple tasks. For example, instead of walking to the store, people can now order groceries online and have them delivered directly to their doorstep. Similarly, instead of cleaning the house manually, people can now use robotic vacuum cleaners. This reduction in physical activity has had a detrimental effect on people’s health, as it leads to a sedentary lifestyle.

Decreased Motivation

Finally, technology has made us lazy by decreasing our motivation. While technology can make life easier and more convenient, it can also lead to a sense of complacency. When people are able to rely on machines to do tasks for them, they become less motivated to do things themselves. Furthermore, since there is no reward for using technology, people may not feel satisfied with their accomplishments.

Exploring How Technology Has Increased Our Dependency on Machines

As previously mentioned, technology has made us increasingly dependent on machines. Examples of technology that can replace human effort include robots, automated machines and voice recognition software. These technologies are designed to make tasks easier and more efficient, allowing people to do more with less effort.

There are several reasons why people rely on technology. One of the main reasons is convenience. Technology enables people to do things quickly and easily, without having to put in much effort. Additionally, technology can save time, as it can automate tasks that would otherwise take a long time to complete. Finally, technology can provide accuracy and precision, which can be beneficial for certain tasks.

Assessing the Adverse Effects of Technology on Physical Activity

While technology can be beneficial in many ways, it can also have adverse effects on physical activity. Since technology enables people to do things faster and with less effort, it can lead to a decrease in physical activity. Furthermore, the availability of technology has encouraged people to adopt a sedentary lifestyle, as they no longer need to expend energy doing tasks. This can have serious consequences on people’s health, as it can lead to weight gain, fatigue and an increased risk of developing certain diseases.

Analysing the Role of Technology in Making People Less Motivated

In addition to reducing physical activity, technology can also make people less motivated. As mentioned earlier, when people are able to rely on machines to do tasks for them, they become less motivated to do things themselves. Furthermore, since there is no reward for using technology, people may not feel satisfied with their accomplishments. This can lead to a feeling of complacency and a lack of motivation to do anything.

Investigating the Relationship Between Technology and a Lack of Creativity

Another way in which technology can make us lazy is by limiting our creativity. Technology can make it easier to do certain tasks, but it can also limit our ability to think outside the box. For example, when writing an essay, a student might rely heavily on spellcheck and grammar check software, which can limit their creativity. Similarly, when designing a website, a designer might rely heavily on web design software, which can prevent them from coming up with creative solutions.

Looking at How Technology Has Altered Our Expectations of Convenience

Finally, technology has altered our expectations of convenience. As technology has made our lives easier and more convenient, we have come to expect instant gratification. We want things done quickly and without any effort, and technology has enabled us to do just that. While this can be beneficial in some ways, it can also lead to a sense of entitlement and a lack of patience, which can make us lazy.

In conclusion, technology has made us increasingly dependent on machines, decreased our physical activity and decreased our motivation. It has also limited our creativity and altered our expectations of convenience. To overcome technology-induced laziness, it is important to find a balance between technology use and manual effort. For example, instead of relying on machines to do tasks for you, try to do them yourself. This can help to increase your motivation and reduce your reliance on technology.

(Note: Is this article not meeting your expectations? Do you have knowledge or insights to share? Unlock new opportunities and expand your reach by joining our authors team. Click Registration to join us and share your expertise with our readers.)

Hi, I'm Happy Sharer and I love sharing interesting and useful knowledge with others. I have a passion for learning and enjoy explaining complex concepts in a simple way.

Related Post

Efficiency at your fingertips: enhancing workflows with servicenow integration, global ruby on rails dev outsourcing: leveraging expertise, trading crypto in bull and bear markets: a comprehensive examination of the differences, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Expert Guide: Removing Gel Nail Polish at Home Safely

Making croatia travel arrangements, make their day extra special: celebrate with a customized cake.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us?

Everyone’s worried about smartphones. Headlines like “ Have smartphones destroyed a generation? ” and “ Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain ” paint a bleak picture of our smartphone addiction and its long-term consequences. This isn’t a new lament—public opinion at the advent of the newspaper worried that people would forego the stimulating pleasures of early-morning conversation in favor of reading the daily .

Is the story of technology really that bad? Certainly there’s some reason to worry. Smartphone use has been linked to serious issues, such as dwindling attention spans , crippling depression , and even increased incidence of brain cancer . Ultimately, though, the same concern comes up again and again: Smartphones can’t be good for us, because they’re replacing the real human connection of the good old days.

Everyone’s heard how today’s teens just sit together in a room, texting, instead of actually talking to each other. But could those teenagers actually be getting something meaningful and real out of all that texting?

The science of connection

A quick glance at the research on technology-mediated interaction reveals an ambivalent literature. Some studies show that time spent socializing online can decrease loneliness , increase well-being , and help the socially anxious learn how to connect to others. Other studies suggest that time spent socializing online can cause loneliness , decrease well-being , and foster a crippling dependence on technology-mediated interaction to the point that users prefer it to face-to-face conversation.

It’s tempting to say that some of these studies must be right and others wrong, but the body of evidence on both sides is a little too robust to be swept under the rug. Instead, the impact of social technology is more complicated. Sometimes, superficially similar behaviors have fundamentally different consequences. Sometimes online socialization is good for you, sometimes it’s bad, and the devil is entirely in the details.

This isn’t a novel proposition; after all, conflicting results started appearing within the first few studies into the internet’s social implications, back in the 1990s. Many people have suggested that to understand the consequences of online socialization, we need to dig deeper into situational factors and circumstances. But what we still have to do is move beyond recognition of the problem to provide an answer: When, how, and why are some online interactions great, while others are dangerous?

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework

As a scientist of close relationships, I can’t help but see online interactions differently from thinkers in other fields. People build relationships by demonstrating their understanding of each other’s needs and perspectives, a cyclical process that brings them closer together. If I tell you my secrets, and you respond supportively, I’m much more likely to confide in you again—and you, in turn, are much more likely to confide in me.

This means that every time two people talk to each other, an opportunity for relationship growth is unfolding. Many times, that opportunity isn’t taken; we aren’t about to have an in-depth conversation with the barista who asks for our order. But connection is always theoretically possible, and that’s true whether we’re interacting online or face-to-face.

Close relationships are the bread and butter of happiness—and even health. Being socially isolated is a stronger predictor of mortality than is smoking multiple cigarettes a day . If we want to understand the role technology plays in our well-being, we need to start with the role it plays in our relationships.

And it turns out that the kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships. Spending your time online by scheduling interactions with people you see day in and day out seems to pay dividends in increased social integration . Using the internet to compensate for being lonely just makes you lonelier; using the internet to actively seek out connection has the opposite effect .

“The kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships”

On the other hand, technology-mediated interactions that don’t really address our close relationships don’t seem to do us any good—and might, in fact, do us harm. Passively scrolling through your Facebook feed without interacting with people has been linked to decreased well-being and increased depression post-Facebook use.

That kind of passive usage is a good example of “ social snacking .” Like eating junk food, social snacking can temporarily satisfy you, but it’s lacking in nutritional content. Looking at your friends’ posts without ever responding might make you feel more connected to them, but it doesn’t build intimacy.

Passive engagement has a second downside, as well: social comparison . When we compare our messy lived experiences to others’ curated self-presentations, we are likely to suffer from lowered self-esteem , happiness, and well-being. This effect is only exacerbated when we consume people’s digital lives without interacting with them, making it all too easy to miss the less photogenic moments of their lives.

Moving forward

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework doesn’t explain everything that might influence our well-being after spending time on social media. The internet poses plenty of other dangers—for two examples, the sense of wasting time or emotional contagion from negative news. However, a focus on meaningful social interaction can help explain decades of contradictory findings. And even if the framework itself is challenged by future work, its central concept is bound to be upheld: We have to study the details of how people are spending their time online if we want to understand its likely effects.

In the meantime, this framework has some practical implications for those worried about their own online time. If you make sure you’re using social media for genuinely social purposes, with conscious thought about how it can improve your life and your relationships, you’ll be far more likely to enjoy your digital existence.

This article was originally published on the Behavioral Scientist . Read the original article .

About the Author

Jenna Clark

Jenna Clark, Ph.D. , is a senior behavioral researcher at Duke University's Center for Advanced Hindsight, where she works to help people make healthy decisions in spite of themselves. She's also interested in how technology contributes to our well-being through its effect on our close personal relationships.

You May Also Enjoy

How to Stop Your Smartphone From Hurting Your Health

How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation

Are Smartphones Bad for Teen Mental Health?

Does Technology Cut Us Off from Other People?

Five Ways to Build Caring Community on Social Media

How to Keep Your Smartphone from Hurting Your Relationships

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Information Science and Technology Dependence on Technology

Technology Makes Students Lazy

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Computer Software
• Computer Science
• Effects of Technology
• Technology in Education
• Net Neutrality

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Intelligence

Is technology making us stupid (and smarter), how the internet makes life more complex — by making complex things simple.

Posted May 7, 2013 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

Imagine a day without your smartphone: You would probably be unable to recall your to-do list, find where you need to go, and keep yourself entertained. Now remember how much you overspent on music, travel, movies, and food 10 years ago, and how limited our knowledge of anything was before Google and Wikipedia.

On the one hand, our life is now more efficient, cheaper, simpler and faster thanks to the rise of apps and 24-7 connectivity. On the other hand, that also exposes the intellectual vulnerability of our offline lives — without internet access, even a 7-year-old may be smarter than us (so long as she has access to the web).

Life has become more complex, but we hardly ever notice it because technology has made complexity simpler than ever. Psychologists explain this dichotomy in terms of two distinct aspects of human intellect, namely fluid and crystallized intelligence (after Raymond Cattell's 1940s model of IQ). Fluid intelligence refers to the ability to acquire and process information. In computers, this would be the processing speed and RAM capacity — the more you have, the faster and more effortlessly you can multitask, and the higher the quantity and complexity of stuff you can handle. If you have ever visited Japan, then think of the Tokyo subway. (There's a lot going on, but to daily commuters that is the standard level of data to process). Evidence suggests that — in humans — fluid intelligence has been increasing for decades (what psychologists refer to as the Flynn effect). The average child from 1950 would be handicapped by today's standard IQ tests, and the average child today would be gifted by 1950s standards — but just in terms of their fluid intelligence or ability to process complex information quickly and effectively.

The second aspect of intellect — crystallized IQ — refers not to our ability to gather information but what we actually know. In simple terms, crystallized intelligence means knowledge. Unsurprisingly, with all the knowledge of the world now being outsourced, crowdsourced, and cloudsourced, the individual storage of information is minimal (at least in comparison). Humans today are like most smartphones and tablets — their ability to solve problems depends not on the knowledge they can store but on their capacity to connect to a place where they can retrieve the answer to find a solution. This is what some have labelled the "hyper-link" economy: The only knowledge we need to have is the knowledge of where to find stuff. Notice that the traditional meaning of crystallized IQ referred to knowledge stored "inside our head" (this probably peaked with Leonardo, Voltaire, and the encyclopaedists). Luckily, we have not yet seen evidence that we are becoming more stupid from a crystallised IQ perspective, but one wonders whether we really need to see the research.

What we can conclude with relative certainty is that the technological transformation or revolution we have experienced over the past 15 years must have clear educational implications. Consider the way kids and older students are assessed at school and university. They are still pretty much asked to memorise and repeat stuff. But that learning model is in conflict with the way we learn, think, and solve problems today. If the most important form of knowledge today is knowing where to find knowledge (and how to assess it), then schools and universities should teach and assess just that. It is hard to estimate what percentage of exams are internet-based, but the figure is surely a tiny fraction vis-a-vis the proportion of (real-life and formal) problems that are solved by accessing the web.

As for the way we define intelligence, it may be time to consider people's willingness to solve complex problems as a key ingredient of IQ. Consider the following: Technology will continue to evolve and the gap between what can be solved with and without it will only increase. That is, we will become more and more dependent on technology and the only intellectual disadvantage will be the inability (or unwillingness) to learn to use it. One could also imagine that this IT-overload may prove too much for some — Daniel Goleman's next book, Focus, will apparently discuss the benefits of being offline, but that is just utopian.

In short, people who are able to keep up with technology will outsmart those who don't (even more than they do now). Therefore, educators, parents and employers should try to foster an appetite for complexity, a curious and hungry mind, especially when it comes to paying attention to technological advances.

Want to take part in our latest personality study and get instant feedback on your profile? Click here .

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is the Chief Innovation Officer at ManpowerGroup, a professor of business psychology at University College London and at Columbia University, co-founder of deepersignals.com, and an associate at Harvard’s Entrepreneurial Finance Lab.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Intelligence Squared U.S.

Debate: is smart technology making us dumb.

Nicholas Carr, author of the acclaimed new book The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, and his partner Andrew Keen, an Internet entrepreneur and author of The Internet Is Not the Answer. Samuel LaHoz/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

Nicholas Carr, author of the acclaimed new book The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, and his partner Andrew Keen, an Internet entrepreneur and author of The Internet Is Not the Answer.

We've come a long way since 1975, when a newspaper in Midland, Texas, featured an advertisement about a personal pocket computer wizard that had the broad mathematical abilities of a slide rule: a Sharp calculator.

But, are we smarter now that technology has put a lot more than a slide rule into our pockets? Or are we so dependent on technology to do things for us that we are losing the ability to make our own magic, mentally, socially and politically?

Two teams faced off over these questions in the latest event from Intelligence Squared U.S., debating the motion: "Smart Technology is Making us Dumb." In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Before the debate, 37 percent of the audience at the Kaufman Music Center in New York voted in favor of the motion, while 33 percent were opposed and 30 percent were undecided. After the event, 47 percent agreed with the motion and 43 percent disagreed, and 10 percent were undecided, making it the first tied debate.

THOSE DEBATING

Genevieve Bell, an anthropologist and vice president at Intel Corp., with teammate David Weinberger, senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Samuel LaHoz/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

Genevieve Bell, an anthropologist and vice president at Intel Corp., with teammate David Weinberger, senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

For The Motion

Nicholas Carr writes about technology and culture. He is the author of the acclaimed new book The Glass Cage: Automation and Us (2014), which examines the personal and social consequences of our ever growing dependency on computers. His previous work, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2011), was a Pulitzer Prize finalist and a New York Times bestseller. A former columnist for the Guardian , Carr writes the popular blog Rough Type, and has written for The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Wired, Nature, MIT Technology Review and other periodicals. His essays, including "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and "The Great Forgetting," have been collected in several anthologies. Previously, Carr was executive editor of the Harvard Business Review , as well as a member of Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial board of advisers and the steering board of the World Economic Forum's cloud computing project.

Andrew Keen is an Internet entrepreneur and the author of three books: The Internet Is Not the Answer (2015), Digital Vertigo: How Today's Social Revolution Is Dividing, Diminishing and Disorienting Us (2012), and Cult of the Amateur: How The Internet Is Killing Our Culture (2007). In 1995, he founded Audiocafe.com and built it into a popular first-generation Internet company. Keen is currently the executive director of the Silicon Valley salon FutureCast, a senior fellow at CALinnovates, the host of the "Keen On" Techonomy chat show and a columnist for CNN.

Against The Motion

Genevieve Bell is an Intel fellow and vice president of the Corporate Strategy Office at Intel Corp. She leads a team of social scientists, interaction designers, human factors engineers and computer scientists focused on people's needs and desires to help shape new Intel products and technologies. An accomplished anthropologist, researcher and author, she has been granted a number of patents for consumer electronics innovations. Bell is a highly regarded industry expert and frequent commentator on the intersection of culture and technology, featured in Wired, Forbes, The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times . She was recognized as one of the "100 Most Creative People in Business" by Fast Company, inducted into the Women in Technology International Hall of Fame, and honored as the 2013 Woman of Vision for Leadership by the Anita Borg Institute. With Paul Dourish, she authored Divining a Digital Future (2011).

More From The Debate

David Weinberger is a senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, where he previously served as co-director of the Library Innovation Lab and led its Interoperability Initiative. He is currently a fellow at the Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy. His most recent book, Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room (2014), won two international Best Book of the Year awards. He has been published by Wired, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American, The New York Times and elsewhere. Additionally, Weinberger advised three U.S. presidential campaigns on Internet issues and was a Franklin Fellow at the State Department. Called a "marketing guru" by The Wall Street Journal, he was previously a high-tech marketing VP and strategic marketing consultant, a dotcom entrepreneur, and now serves on the advisory boards of several tech companies.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

How Technology Makes Us Lazy Every Day

Technology has improved by leaps and bounds in the last few decades but has simultaneously had some negative effects. We’ve discussed, and continue to discuss different aspects it affects, and often mention not everything is clear-cut. To use this topic as an example, two people can wonder, “is technology making us lazy?” and “is technology relieving us of unnecessary chores?” and both would also conclude different things. We’ll showcase mostly negative effects but know not everything is black and white. With that said, let’s jump straight into how technology makes us lazy.

Table of Contents

How Technology Makes Us Lazy?

Technology makes us lazy by automating tasks that once required manual effort, reducing our physical activity and engagement. It also provides instant access to information, diminishing our need for deep research or critical thinking.

Furthermore, it encourages passive consumption of digital content. This can limit our creativity and problem-solving skills.

These are more ways technology makes us lazy:

1. Acquiring information

The founding of the Internet  and its subsequent development and expansion was the primary driving force behind this cause of laziness. Desktop and laptop computers were the primary tools at first. But, the accessibility of smartphones and tablets, which, in the first quarter of 2021, made up 55% of total Internet traffic, has made giant strides. Here are 2 examples of information technology at work:

We examined the effects of technology in education and were astounded. You can not only get a Bachelor’s, but also a Master’s and maybe even Doctor’s degree from your room, on your own dime and time, in your pajamas.

Additionally, when we analyzed technology benefits for teachers , we concluded that daily runs to libraries or bookstores or expensive educational or business trips are now obsolete. Moreover, automatization and bots can replace monotonous, repetitive tasks, eliminating a lot of work we did not so long ago.

When was the last time you purchased a physical newspaper? Even if you have, getting news via your Internet browser or dedicated news apps is a better alternative. Unfortunately, it eliminates the need for physical activities such as going to a newspaper stand or nearest gas station to stay up to date with local and global events.

2. Delivery

Delivery of goods provides another evidence technology makes us lazy:

Online shopping

To shop online, you have to visit a website, find a product, analyze its description, reviews, picture, and price, then add it to the cart. After the total gets deducted from a credit or debit card the ordered items arrive at your doorstep within 1-30 days.

When compared to the time, money, and effort spent on finding, comparing, analyzing, negotiating, and acquiring the same product without technology, you were irrefutably idle. Additionally, robots, AI, and machine learning are taking over the brunt of the workload humans performed in the past, including daily warehouse and shipping operations and system monitoring. 

Food is not only making humanity lazier but also more obese, and technology affects every link in the chain. Technological improvements have helped reduce the workload in growing food through agriculture and farming and preparing it for serving or selling in the market. Restaurants, fast-food joints, drive-through windows, and takeaway places also reduce the need to prepare the food before it’s served.

Simply put, there’s no need to run errands or finish daily chores. But at least the workers there work hard, day in and day out. Sadly, that too is about to change. We mentioned robot-arm chefs when we discussed ways technology is replacing jobs in the food industry ( Service headline).

3. Ride-sharing

Transportation technology made our lives easier but required some amount of work. For example, you had to get to the nearest bus station, check the train or airplane schedule, or find a corner with taxi vehicles. Nowadays, you can send a text a minute or two before leaving the house. Apps like Uber , Lyft , or Cabify will connect you to the nearest available driver in a vehicle that fits your group size, and GPS will provide locations both ways.

Furthermore, the introduction of autonomous vehicles, while keeping us safe in traffic and being good for the environment , are one of the most evident indicators technology makes us lazy. You can enter into the vehicle and gaze into the scenery up until you have to leave at the destination.

4. Entertainment

We don’t need to point out the influx of streaming services in recent years, do we? Watching movies on Netflix , HBO Max , Hulu , and using media streaming devices such as Apple TV or Chromecast has almost completely replaced theaters and cinemas. In doing so, it glued viewers to the TVs, computers, and mobile device screen at home.

This made the practice of “binge-watching” normal. And don’t get us started on the gaming industry. It lets us simulate a wide variety of experiences at home, including Virtual Reality (VR). Additionally, in-game winning gives us a sense of accomplishment, making us unmotivated to seek it in real life.

5. Smart homes

Want a clear sign technology makes us lazy? How about no longer having to get up to flick the light switch off? You can do it through your smart device or a remote thanks to smart outlets or smart bulbs. But it went further than that, and dramatically. Today, a variety of modern technology can be controlled remotely or operated without monitoring through the home system.

Some examples include home appliances, LED lights in bulbs and strips, blinds on windows, garage and house doors, audio distribution, and even video uplink for surveillance thousands of miles away. You can even issue voice commands to your home assistant or purchase a smart mirror that never fogs.

6. Social media and communication

While undoubtedly beneficial , direct unrestricted access to someone and his or her whereabouts can bring negative consequences. For example, you can see the location of other people via services such as Facebook Places or Google Latitude , and social media apps such as Snapchat .

Moreover, you can see what friends are listening to on Last.fm , Spotify , check their YouTube subscriptions, view favorite books on Goodreads , or check their plans on  Plancast . It’s not hard to see how you’d be lazy to strike up a conversation over text, audio, or video, let alone meeting in person. 

7. Marketing/Advertising

In the past, you had to spend thousands of dollars to hire a marketing firm. Or, if you’re the marketer yourself, go door to door or organize conventions or seminars to sell products. Furthermore, you needed a “hustle” mentality, charm, charisma, ability to handle rejection, and skills to recognize the target community.

Nowadays, you can spend a little time setting up an advertisement or pay someone to do it for you. Then, sponsor others or run online ads and have people flocking to you while you sleep.

How to overcome technology-induced laziness?

Although technology is a major contributor to our laziness, we often find ourselves simply giving in instead of actually making any significant changes. Why is that? Is it because technology has become an inseparable part of our lives, and we can’t make do without it? Well, studies show that technologies do have some severe impacts on our social lives. 

A recent survey done on Pakistani and Chinese society shows us that almost 69% of people have become lazier due to technological advancement. It also shows that at least 28% of people have some sort of decision-making impairment when it comes to technology. This sentiment is universal, as almost 73% of US citizens believe that while technology has increased their quality of life, it has also made them lazier. 

We have included here a few ways that can help you overcome tech-induced laziness. We have also attached a video that raises yet another important question: whether technology is making us dumb. Do watch it:

1. Make a schedule and stick to it

First, and most important of all, accept the fact that technology is here to stay and that you will most likely be using it on a daily basis. Since there is no escaping the inevitable, we have to manage our lives accordingly in hopes of achieving a healthy and sound lifestyle. Which is why scheduling is so important. 

In order to escape laziness, you can make a detailed schedule of your day and try to stick to it, giving appropriate time to both technology and other activities. 

2. Take a time off of social media

While we can argue about the merits and demerits of social media, it is a fact that it does make us a lot lazier. We often use it to communicate with our family members who are just down the hallway. Oftentimes, we use it to “check on” our friends instead of actually checking in on them. There have been studies about how social media is also fueling mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and isolation, so it is best that one takes a break from it.

3. Engage in physical activities

Another way to counter tech-induced laziness is to become more active. Yes, it sounds like a paradox, as in, if we could become active by will, we wouldn’t be lazy, right? But that is not the case. Technology has made everything convenient, even entertainment. 

Before, people used to go out for stuff like picnics, movies, or simply for a nice dinner, but now they have the option of binge-watching while ordering their favorite meal online, delivered to their doorsteps. So yes, by actually going out, we can be much less lazy.

What are the technologies that make us lazy and how?

In the article, we learn how technology makes us lazy and why. We have also covered what to do to escape this phenomenon. It is time we actually take a look at the technologies involved and learn exactly how they impact us to become lazy, and with the help of the following table, which has compiled the different technologies and their impact, we will be attempting to do so: 

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Listen to the essay, as read by Antero Garcia, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education.

As a professor of education and a former public school teacher, I’ve seen digital tools change lives in schools.

I’ve documented the ways mobile technology like phones can transform student engagement in my own classroom.

I’ve explored how digital tools might network powerful civic learning and dialogue for classrooms across the country – elements of education that are crucial for sustaining our democracy today.

And, like everyone, I’ve witnessed digital technologies make schooling safer in the midst of a global pandemic. Zoom and Google Classroom, for instance, allowed many students to attend classrooms virtually during a period when it was not feasible to meet in person.

So I want to tell you that I think technologies are changing education for the better and that we need to invest more in them – but I just can’t.

Given the substantial amount of scholarly time I’ve invested in documenting the life-changing possibilities of digital technologies, it gives me no pleasure to suggest that these tools might be slowly poisoning us. Despite their purported and transformational value, I’ve been wondering if our investment in educational technology might in fact be making our schools worse.

Let me explain.

When I was a classroom teacher, I loved relying on the latest tools to create impressive and immersive experiences for my students. We would utilize technology to create class films, produce social media profiles for the Janie Crawfords, the Holden Caulfields, and other literary characters we studied, and find playful ways to digitally share our understanding of the ideas we studied in our classrooms.

As a teacher, technology was a way to build on students’ interests in pop culture and the world around them. This was exciting to me.

But I’ve continued to understand that the aspects of technology I loved weren’t actually about technology at all – they were about creating authentic learning experiences with young people. At the heart of these digital explorations were my relationships with students and the trust we built together.

“Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them.”

I do see promise in the suite of digital tools that are available in classrooms today. But my research focus on platforms – digital spaces like Amazon, Netflix, and Google that reshape how users interact in online environments – suggests that when we focus on the trees of individual tools, we ignore the larger forest of social and cognitive challenges.

Most people encounter platforms every day in their online social lives. From the few online retail stores where we buy groceries to the small handful of sites that stream our favorite shows and media content, platforms have narrowed how we use the internet today to a small collection of Silicon Valley behemoths. Our social media activities, too, are limited to one or two sites where we check on the updates, photos, and looped videos of friends and loved ones.

These platforms restrict our online and offline lives to a relatively small number of companies and spaces – we communicate with a finite set of tools and consume a set of media that is often algorithmically suggested. This centralization of internet – a trend decades in the making – makes me very uneasy.

From willfully hiding the negative effects of social media use for vulnerable populations to creating tools that reinforce racial bias, today’s platforms are causing harm and sowing disinformation for young people and adults alike. The deluge of difficult ethical and pedagogical questions around these tools are not being broached in any meaningful way in schools – even adults aren’t sure how to manage their online lives.

You might ask, “What does this have to do with education?” Platforms are also a large part of how modern schools operate. From classroom management software to attendance tracking to the online tools that allowed students to meet safely during the pandemic, platforms guide nearly every student interaction in schools today. But districts are utilizing these tools without considering the wider spectrum of changes that they have incurred alongside them.

Antero Garcia, associate professor of education (Image credit: Courtesy Antero Garcia)

For example, it might seem helpful for a school to use a management tool like Classroom Dojo (a digital platform that can offer parents ways to interact with and receive updates from their family’s teacher) or software that tracks student reading and development like Accelerated Reader for day-to-day needs. However, these tools limit what assessment looks like and penalize students based on flawed interpretations of learning.

Another problem with platforms is that they, by necessity, amass large swaths of data. Myriad forms of educational technology exist – from virtual reality headsets to e-readers to the small sensors on student ID cards that can track when students enter schools. And all of this student data is being funneled out of schools and into the virtual black boxes of company databases.

Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them. Young people are not viewed as complete human beings but as boxes checked for attendance, for meeting academic progress metrics, or for confirming their location within a school building. Nearly every action that students perform in schools – whether it’s logging onto devices, accessing buildings, or sharing content through their private online lives – is noticed and recorded. Children in schools have become disembodied from their minds and their hearts. Thus, one of the greatest and implicit lessons that kids learn in schools today is that they must sacrifice their privacy in order to participate in conventional, civic society.

The pandemic has only made the situation worse. At its beginnings, some schools relied on software to track students’ eye movements, ostensibly ensuring that kids were paying attention to the tasks at hand. Similarly, many schools required students to keep their cameras on during class time for similar purposes. These might be seen as in the best interests of students and their academic growth, but such practices are part of a larger (and usually more invisible) process of normalizing surveillance in the lives of youth today.

I am not suggesting that we completely reject all of the tools at our disposal – but I am urging for more caution. Even the seemingly benign resources we might use in our classrooms today come with tradeoffs. Every Wi-Fi-connected, “smart” device utilized in schools is an investment in time, money, and expertise in technology over teachers and the teaching profession.

Our focus on fixing or saving schools via digital tools assumes that the benefits and convenience that these invisible platforms offer are worth it.

But my ongoing exploration of how platforms reduce students to quantifiable data suggests that we are removing the innovation and imagination of students and teachers in the process.

Antero Garcia is associate professor of education in the Graduate School of Education .

In Their Own Words is a collaboration between the Stanford Public Humanities Initiative  and Stanford University Communications.

If you’re a Stanford faculty member (in any discipline or school) who is interested in writing an essay for this series, please reach out to Natalie Jabbar at [email protected] .

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

The Now  - Is Technology Making Us Lonely?

The now  -, is technology making us lonely, the now is technology making us lonely.

The Now: Is Technology Making Us Lonely?

Lesson 34: is technology making us lonely.

/en/thenow/what-is-a-virtual-private-network-vpn/content/

Is technology making us lonely?

Over the past few decades, technology like smartphones and social media, has forever changed the way we interact with one another. But during that same period, studies have found that people have grown more and more lonely, and which is having  negative effects on societies around the world. So, we can't help but wonder: Could technology be responsible?

The effects of loneliness

Everyone feels lonely sometimes. After all, loneliness is an unfulfilled need for meaningful personal connection , and that need can hit you whether you’re home alone, or in a crowded room. But if that feeling of loneliness persists, it can have dangerous effects on your physical, mental, and emotional health. 

Some experts believe loneliness is as physically dangerous as obesity or smoking fifteen cigarettes a day. Studies have shown that it lowers your brain’s neuron count, and alters some brain function. Loneliness has also been linked to heart disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and even early death. On top of all that, experts have also found that it affects people across all walks of life , regardless of gender, age, race, or social skills. 

Many nations have declared a loneliness epidemic , as it burdens their healthcare systems, lowers productivity, and diminishes overall quality of life. One study reported that 47 percent of Americans feel they don’t have any meaningful personal connections. The United Kingdom’s loneliness problem has become so prevalent, that they created the Ministry of Loneliness to handle the problem. Other nations like China and Japan are also dealing with widespread social isolation.  

How technology may be a problem

So what’s behind the spike in loneliness?  Although no one is exactly sure, the widespread use of digital screens likely has something to do with it.

Many experts believe that having constant access to technology, specifically smartphones, can prevent us from making personal connections. For many people, it’s become a habit to reach for a smartphone any time they have a free moment, and this behavior could be making our loneliness worse. A University of Arizona study supported this idea, finding that smartphone dependence predicted a higher rate of loneliness and depression in young adults. 

Experts also confirmed that too much social media usage can cause emotional harm. A 2017 study found that heavy social media users were three times more likely to feel socially isolated than casual users. Social media can also make people feel like they’re missing out on meaningful social events , leading to feelings of exclusion, stress, and insecurity. 

Social isolation can also lead some people down troublesome paths online. Individuals with extreme beliefs often seek out lonely people on social media and discussion forums to spread harmful worldviews. Extremism takes advantage of people’s loneliness and anger, giving them a sense of belonging and community while flooding them with hostile content.

How technology can be a solution

While no one should rely on technology to meet all of their social needs, it can be a great starting point that leads to more fulfilling connections. First of all, balanced social media usage can help combat loneliness, especially in populations that have a hard time meeting people face-to-face, such as the elderly. People can also use technology to meet up with a group that shares their interests, or find a romantic partner on a dating app. 

Speaking with someone can be the next best thing to meeting someone in person. For instance, if your good friend lives a thousand miles away, you can give them a call, or voice chat with them while playing a video game together online.

Try to maintain a healthy balance between technology and developing personal connections. No matter who you are or where you’re from, those connections can make a big difference.

/en/thenow/avoiding-coronavirus-scams/content/

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

What teachers told me about a.i. in school.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

Leila Wheless, a North Carolina teacher who has been an educator since 1991, tried to keep “an open heart” about using artificial intelligence in her middle school English and language arts classroom. She reviewed the guidance of her state’s generative A.I. “ recommendations and considerations ” for public schools. But the results of her students’ A.I. use were dispiriting.

“For one particular assignment related to the novel ‘Persepolis,’ I had students research prophets,” Wheless explained, because the main character fantasizes about being a prophet. But, she told me via email, internet searches that incorporated A.I.:

Gave students jewels such as “the Christian prophet Moses got chocolate stains out of T-shirts” — I guess rather than Moses got water out of a rock(?). And let me tell you, eighth graders wrote that down as their response. They did not come up to me and ask, “Is that correct? Moses is known for getting chocolate stains out of T-shirts?” They simply do not have the background knowledge or indeed the intellectual stamina to question unlikely responses.

After I wrote a series in the spring about tech use in K-12 classrooms , I asked teachers about their experiences with A.I. because its ubiquity is fairly new and educators are just starting to figure out how to grapple with it. I spoke with middle school, high school and college instructors, and my overall takeaway is that while there are a few real benefits to using A.I. in schools — it can be useful in speeding up rote tasks like adding citations to essays and doing basic coding — the drawbacks are significant.

The biggest issue isn’t just that students might use it to cheat — students have been trying to cheat forever — or that they might wind up with absurdly wrong answers, like confusing Moses with Mr. Clean. The thornier problem is that when students rely on a generative A.I. tool like ChatGPT to outsource brainstorming and writing, they may be losing the ability to think critically and to overcome frustration with tasks that don’t come easily to them.

Sarah Martin, who teaches high school English in California, wrote to me saying, “Cheating by copying from A.I. is rampant, particularly among my disaffected seniors who are just waiting until graduation.”

When I followed up with her over the phone, she said that it’s getting more and more difficult to catch A.I. use because a savvier user will recognize absurdities and hallucinations and go back over what a chatbot spits out to make it read more as if the user wrote it herself. But what troubles Martin more than some students’ shrewd academic dishonesty is “that there’s just no grit that’s instilled in them. There’s no sense of ‘Yes, you’re going to struggle, but you’re going to feel good at the end of it.’”

She said that the amount of time her students are inclined to work on something that challenges them has become much shorter over the seven years she’s been teaching. There was a time, she said, when a typical student would wrestle with a concept for days before getting it. But now, if that student doesn’t understand something within minutes, he’s more likely to give up on his own brain power and look for an alternative, whether it’s a chatbot or asking a friend for help.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .