Both Wallis’s essay, “The Multitasking Generation,” and Turkle’s essay, “The Flight from Conversation,” discuss the harmful effects that modern technology have on human social interaction. Wallis, however, takes her argument one step further, as she also contends that multi-tasking is an adverse component to plugging-in. In spite of the additions of Wallis and the main premise put forth by Wallis and Turkle, a thorough analysis of both essays indicates that though there is an argument for the negative effects of technology on the youth of today, there are still too many holes in their arguments to agree for certain.

Both authors use emotional appeals to illustrate a reality that asserts that the more individuals plug in to technology, the more they tune out the world – to their own detriment and to the detriment of society (Turkle, paragraphs 2-3; Wallis, paragraph 1). Wallis attempts to place her argument in context, citing that parents now know where their children are, clarifying this statement with “well, their bodies at least,” implying that teenagers today may be here physically, but thy may as well be on the other side of the world due to the constant use of technologies (Wallas, 385). Turkle takes a less subtle approach, stating that “the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only what we do, but also who we are” (344). There are many similarities in their arguments, specifically in the examples each of them present to support their argument. Both of them also conclude by making similar recommendations for addressing what they see as an escalating problem. The one minor difference is Wallis’ use of more specific research data to support her dual thesis. Both Wallis and Turkle offer plenty of anecdotal evidence, based upon their own observations, to support their theses.

The observations themselves serve as transitions in and of themselves, working to further stress and allude to the research they were conducting, although despite their professional credentials, there is still some doubt that these observations are generalizable to the general population (Wallis, paragraphs 2, 6; Turkle, paragraphs 4, 15). Both authors discuss the ability of teens to utilize their electronic devices while attempting to maintain a presence, if not an actual connection, with those around them (Wallis, paragraph 2, 6; Turkle, paragraphs 1-2). The material presented leaves some doubt that their observations are truly examples of the norm as they seem somewhat extreme, as can be seen in a review of some of the examples presented within the texts.

Turkle describes a businessman who is distressed that he isn’t connecting with his colleagues even though he realizes it is because he prefers communicating via his cellphone and a teen-aged boy is wondering when he will learn to have a conversation (paragraphs 6-7). She also describes her observations of young people at work or in a college library who physically isolate themselves by wearing large headphones or psychologically isolate themselves by directing their attention to their devices: phones, laptops, tablets, etc. (Turkle, paragraphs 8-9). It is difficult to believe that all businessmen prefer their Blackberries, and all teen-age boys are incapable of carrying on a face-to-face conversation, but this is becoming the norm rather than the exception to the rule. Furthermore, in the locations she describes, the work places and the library, solitary work is normal (Turkle, paragraphs 8-9). It would be much more distressing if she were describing places of social gathering like a coffee house or an art exhibit. It is not just Turkle who offers up these disconcerting observations, though the ones Wallis describes are of a more personal nature.

Wallis describes the isolation of the family members that she is observing (paragraph 1). Most occupy different rooms so that they can direct their attention to their devices (Wallis, paragraph 1). The son is in his room multi-tasking on his computer, the daughter is in the living room on the phone while multi-tasking on her father’s laptop, and dad is in the kitchen on his cellphone (Wallis, paragraph 1). She does explain that she was observing a number of different families for her research, but the missing information is what calls her observation into question (Wallis, paragraph 2). What was this family like before the children were old enough to plug-in and did she observe any families that don’t plug-in to see if the teen-agers in those families were engaged with their parents or each other? These are just a few of the questions that Wallis chooses to ignore. She is not entirely lacking in her research, however, as other types of data are present.

Wallis includes some statistical and research data to support her arguments, but the data that she includes is only marginally related to their observations (paragraph 6). She spends a good deal of time explaining that people are not really multi-tasking and that when they do the outcomes of all their efforts are diminished and then suggests that this is the reason young people in college demand simple black and white examples (Wallis, paragraph 7). The ability to see gray is a consequence of maturity and experience; this phenomenon is not new to this generation. Neither is the phenomenon of young girls discussing inconsequential and mundane aspects of their life. The fact that today’s tweens use their phones to talk, text, and Facebook this minutiae of their lives is a use of technology, not a consequence of it, though the amount of time spent connected tends to increase, rather than decrease.

Both authors make the same recommendation, un-connected time must be allocated for general and psychological health, for youth and adults (Wallis, paragraphs 13-14; Turkle, paragraph 25). In both instances, the authors make some valid arguments for technological un-connected time to facilitate human connected time. Once again, the arguments appeal to one’s emotions, but at least here, they resonate. They are both effective in demonstrating that true connections between people cannot be made via Facebook or Twitter (Wallis, paragraphs 13-14; Turkle, paragraph 23, 25). These mediums are poor substitutes for finding a true connection “in unedited moments… in which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another” (Turkle, 337). Wallis also offers an equally profound observation on the results of extended time spent tethered to one’s devices; “it’s what you are not doing that’s going to rot your life” (Wallis, 396).

Both of these essays address an issue on the social, and by extension the emotional, consequences of replacing human connections with electronic connections. Both arguments were in favor of putting technology in its place – as valuable tools for work, school, and communication, but both were very concerned that technology was threatening our ability to communicate and interact on higher levels (Wallis, paragraphs 13-14; Turkle, paragraph 25). Both suggested that technology was replacing one’s ability to be alone and to be contemplative. Both provided anecdotal data from their own research and Wallis provided data from the research of others, but because these examples seemed somewhat extreme, it was difficult to believe that the problems are as serious as they claim. Furthermore, both of them made conclusions that could be attributed to other phenomena. This was a great disservice to their topic and to their research. It is highly likely that modern technology is negatively affecting our youth, our relationships, and our society, but these essays has so many gaps in their arguments, that nay-sayers would have no problem at all shredding them – and they would probably do it on Twitter.