"Technology" is one of those words where your bullshit detectors should perk up whenever you hear it.
It's so broad but is often used to talk about something really specific (mobile internet, or social media, or W3C standards, or a particular small group of struggling small businesses in southern california, or taxi services, or labor law evasion), so it's used to apply generalizations to large groups of things that have nothing in common except accidents of history.
I have never heard the word "technology" used in a meaningful way outside of social anthropology.
So, if somebody says something about "technology" that isn't applicable to hand-axes, ask yourself: what did that person actually intend to talk about, and what unrelated things could easily be confused for it that the statement would be false for?
(For instance, "technology kills social skills" is probably intended to mean social media but not labor law evasion or tax services.)
Very often, when somebody uses a broad word like that unthinkingly, what they're saying isn't actually meaningfully true in any possible specific reading! They said it that way because they haven't actually thought clearly about it.
(For instance, "technology kills social skills" can only be interpreted as true in very limited way: i.e., different means of communication produce different norms of behavior, and behavioral norms irrelevant to someone's life are forgotten or never learned.)
@shoutcacophony
A part of me realizes that, when somebody says "technology does X", they're not actually making a statement about the world but instead signalling that they're part of some social group.
That's fine, whatever.
We should be careful not to confuse the signalling with the statements. And, a lot of people do. Even powerful people who should know better (like Kevin Kelley and Sherry Turkle).
@shoutcacophony
(I've got issues with Sherry Turkle. She's treated as an expert, but she has shallow unconsidered takes. Sometimes this is the result of bad journalism or marketing, but I've met her & heard her give shallow unconsidered takes to my face in person.)
@enkiv2 the thing (to me) that's funny about "they should know better" is that they mostly don't, lol
it arguably goes deeper than just being an error, it's part of the way conventional (aka neurotypical) society is arranged
this doesn't mean that's it's useful, productive or peaceful, fwiw
but yes, they should, agreed. i'd go further and say that being able to culture-switch should be a part of social norms
@enkiv2 i'll take your word for it -- my usual assumption with mainstream pundits is that their collective weight in minerals is probably more useful than anything they're saying ;p
@shoutcacophony
Turkle had a couple big, bad, ice-cold takes.
1) Interacting with screens is bad for children's social skills because refrigerator mothers. (You know, that literally-debunked freudian explanation for autism.)
2) Look at these senior citizens treating robot babies like real babies! That's shocking and should be against the law! (Nevermind that they'd do the same with dolls, and lots of people without dementia do that too.)
@enkiv2 actually, forgive me, but i'm going to end this convo. best
@shoutcacophony
OK, no problem.
@shoutcacophony
She should know better because she literally wrote her PhD thesis on using MIT's Kismet robot to interact with autistic children.
@shoutcacophony
I'm not sure it's related to neurotypicality. Certainly, autistics aren't immune (just worse at it).
The way I think about it, academic rigor & hard experience tend to force people to make signal/ground distinctions within their field, with those skills often not remaining portable. A junior dev gets sweeped up in hype trains for shiny new tech because using the hype tech is a signal of hipness, while a senior dev has been bitten enough to do a dispassionate analysis.
@enkiv2 that's not exactly what some people mean by that -- although it's not necessarily a rational usage, either
more like "free-floating cultural symbol" or metonymy