Philosophy 101 Unit 1

Fall 2008

One-bud friends, paroll officer texts, and online therapy

with 3 comments

This post will focus on some of the ways the technology has affcted man in his interpersonal behavioral and his personal psychological health, which I have given aribtrary, funny names.

The Constant Accountability Effect: Dan got me thinking about this when he pointed out texting during class.  Cell phones are one piece of technology that has completely changed all interpersonal relationships by creating constant accountability.  Whether you are in class, on the toilet, asleep, volunteering, or eating, there is no excuse for not flipping open a buzzing phone to return a text.  Failure to do so results in the inevitable conversation the next time you see the person (or worse, the facebook wall post version): “I sent you a text last night, but I guess you didn’t get it…?”  Cell phones have allowed children to hold onto their mother’s apron stings from hundreds of miles away, allow suspicious girlfriends to act as paroll officers by keeping constant “what’s up?” texting-tabs on their boyfriends, the list goes on.

One-bud-out Friends: A new way to classify friends has been established with the advent of the iPod.  Personally I don’t wear my iPod when I’m walking around campus between classes, but it seems like everyone else does.  My buds-out friends will remove both ear buds to have a brief conversation with me when I run into them on the quad (the are the kids who make your Top Friends list).  My one-bud-out friends do the quick pull-it-out-say-”hey”-and-stick-it-back-in, but that’s better than nothing.  The last group of head-nodders feels no need to join me in the auditory world.  They do however grace me with a quick nod, an affirmation that they did, in fact, see me, and did not think I was a random creeper waving and smiling at them.

The Dunce Cap Effect: There’s always one kid in class who gets 100% on the test that everyone else fails, then looks around confused when the papers are handed back, and says “Really?  But it was so easy!”  You know, the kid who got beat up on the playground?  I’m talking about that kid.  Well, he’s finally been one-upped.  Computers can do things that no human can do, sometimes making people feel stupid or unimportant.  (As a side note, this also caused a new compliment to be formed: given to an outstanding human by a lesser human in awe:  “He’s a machine!”)  People don’t generally like to feel stupid or unimportant, we much prefer defense mechanisms to protect our fragile self-esteem.  This is why I believe people grow increasingly hostile towards machines that look human.  Our good looks and charm are one of the only things that humans still have a monopoly on, and we hate to see machines that have the potential to steal that property out from under us.  Most people are afraid of AI (ex - 2001 A Space Oddessy), even if they don’t like to admit it, but the possibility of housing AI in a human-looking vessel gives us the visual imagery that’s too intense for us to handle.  Humans looking their possible replacements in the face is far more difficult than looking it in the screen, so to speak.  The screen, at least, is a barrior to protect us from the possibility that we’ve been completely outdone.  I know that I’ve written about this point to a lesser extent before, but I can’t help but feel that this is logically where humans will psychologically end up when AI becomes mroe prominant in daily life.

The Computerized Shrink: Technology has even permiated the feild of clinical psychology.  Essentially the client has a session per week for ten weeks with a computer program as opposted to a therapist.    Check out the computer shrink here. Do you think that a computer program could be as effective as a therapist?  According to the UCLA research posted on their official website, the answer is yes.  I think that those human qualities, like the need for empathy, would be addressed much better with a human therapist, but a computer program has some perks too.  A patient might have an easier time telling his embarassing problems to a machine as opposed to an actual person, in the same way that it’s easier to write an angry email than it is to shout at someone’s face.

These are just some of the ways that technology has changed our interpersonal relationships and behaviors.  Now, I don’t mean to be hard on technology, I’m certainly greatful for all the ways it can help us.  I recognize that the flip side of the Constant Accountability Effect is that anyone can be reached immediately in cases of emergency.  The One-bud-out observations can serve as an indicator for who is too busy for me and who cares enough to chat.

There are certainly other ways in which technology permiates our relationships.  Feel free to list, discuss, and debate them in the comments.

Written by Rebecca Spizzirri

October 26th, 2008 at 11:57 am

3 Responses to 'One-bud friends, paroll officer texts, and online therapy'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'One-bud friends, paroll officer texts, and online therapy'.

  1. The concept of the computerized shrink? Completely anathema to the purpose of therapy. Does Jan go to her counselor to fix her relationship with her computer? Hells no. A computer has never had to make friends, never had a significant other, never had to make an interpersonal choice.

    Addressing this business of “it’s easier” to tell secrets to a machine? Okay, sure, but is the point of clinical therapy to make things “easy”? Wellness isn’t about easiness.

    But then again, one wouldn’t go to a computer when one needed to fix one’s computer. One seeks out a human. So maybe this can work vice versa? A human has a better view of computer’s problems, so can a computer hold a birds’ eye view of the human condition?

    No. That’s utterly ridiculous.

    Calli Leventis

    27 Oct 08 at 3:40 pm

  2. The argument that could be made in favor of the computerized shrink is the same that can be made in favor of artificial intelligence matching our own - human thought as an arbitrary number of stimuli that produce a response. If the computer is able to take in the stimuli we tell it we experienced, it could use some algorithm to figure out what else we need to produce a given response. You could think of it as an equation:

    (Anger) + (X) = (Serial Killing)

    Obviously, (X) has several possibilities; the computer would ask a series of questions to narrow down the possibilities and eventually come to a result.

    The immediate counter to this argument is that it isn’t this easy - the reason we go to shrinks is because we can’t look at our behavior and intuit the errors in such a simple way. Specifically, the computer will struggle when it comes to personality differences between people - it’s easy to generalize situations and associate only a limited number of conditions with a given result, but there are a lot of random variables that a computer could have great difficulty taking into account.

    The idea that “it’s easier” to divulge our darkest secrets to a machine than to a human is the only potentially valid point I find in the idea of a digital shrink. The counter to the prior idea works just as well for this one, though; if the computer can’t correctly interpret the data, who cares if it knows a little more about you?

    Luke Kaiser

    27 Oct 08 at 7:26 pm

  3. As a psychology major, I couldn’t agree more that the interpersonal relationship forged between a therapist and a client is incredibly valuable, but I’ll play devils advocate for the sake of stirring up debate:

    @ Calli: Therapy has two main goals: 1. short term relief of distress and 2. long term effective handling of life’s troubles (a more lasting effect). A therapist can empathize with their client, but until a trusting relationship is forged after a number of weekly sessions, that client may not feel comfortable discussing his most troubling issues. This is how a computer could be helpful; the short term goal of alleviating distress by tackling those troubling issues first could help a client to overcome those issues more quickly.

    @ Luke: Unfortunately we haven’t discussed serial killing yet in my abnormal psych class, so I’m going to have to use a different example to get to the same point. In depression, the fastest and most effective forms of treatment are 1. antidepressants and 2. cognitive-behavioral therapy. Neither of these treatments requires the therapist to know the cause of the depression — which is what I think you were using X for. Anti-depressants are distributed regardless of cause. Cognitive-behavioral therapy corrects the negative, distorted thoughts of depressed persons to change their behavior. For example, the distorted thought of “I think I’m fat” which makes the person feel depressed is critically analyzed and corrected in the therapy, creating the new thought of “my body is pretty average” alleviating those depressed feelings. In these treatments, anger and the X other cause of serial killing are not important, because serial killing is treated the same way regardless of its cause.

    Although, a therapist with more long term goals in mind might want to discuss those causes during the myriad of sessions, to help the client find peace of mind or to help identify and avoid the triggers of serial killing.

    Rebecca Spizzirri

    27 Oct 08 at 9:04 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.