Causal – chickendinner

Social media has made interpersonal interaction nearly effortless, enabling a generation of people to engage with a greater number of people more frequently than was ever possible for those who came before. At the same time, it has made our social bonds more shallow, tearing away nuance from human interaction and denying us face-to-face interaction necessary for a deeper understanding.

This entry was posted in Causal Argument FA21, chickendinner. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Causal – chickendinner

  1. davidbdale says:

    Since you haven’t posted a Definition Argument, ChickenDinner, and since I can’t imagine ever approving this particular hypothesis of yours, I’ll take this opportunity to declare that it’s nonsense.


    We certainly have unprecedented opportunity to interact with more people more often than ever. but the claim that our interactions AS A RESULT are shallow, or that our social interactions lack nuance AS A RESULT of social media is just a myth.

    So far the sources you’ve gathered for your White Paper aren’t conclusive, so if they represent the sum or your research, I’d recommend that you NOT try to prove this unprovable hypothesis. It’s a popular opinion that somehow the ability to communicate more easily and more broadly has diminished the quality of our communications. but ask yourself why that should be so.

    If I “like” the posts of 18 of my social media friends in ten minutes on a Monday morning, does that mean my social interactions are less valuable than they would have been before social media? How does that figure. Before social media, I would have had no interaction with those 18 casual acquaintances at all.

    Do I have fewer or shallower conversations with my friends in Seattle or Scotland or Saratoga? No. It used to cost me $9 a minute to place a long-distance voice call to those friends. Now I can chat with them ON VIDEO for free! We talk more than ever before!

    Anyway, I don’t need you to argue THE OPPOSITE of your Causal Hypothesis here, but I can’t support your wish to proceed with the one you’ve got. Read more broadly in your topic until you find something surprising to pursue. And VERY QUICKLY. You’re out of time to develop a valid hypothesis.

    I need you to respond, CD, to show your respect for the feedback process. Thanks!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s