1. By “Moral Panic”, Steven Pinker means that nowadays many people in the world are certain that technological innovations will spoil, or even damage society. They think that, especially technologies such as the World Wide Web, will lead to a society that is interested in achieving nothing, and loses its culture. Those assumptions are often proven by wrong by scientific experiments.
2. Pinker offers some myths about the negative effects of new technologies, and the Web. For example, Pinker argues that many people accused video games of increasing violence among young people. However, during the 1990s, crime declined very much. In addition, Pinker adds that I.Q. scores roses during the last half of the 20th century, despite all of the new technological inventions. Pinker seems to be arguing that people do not think out their argument, and show scientific evidence to prove that they are right. Instead, Pinker argues that people react to basic emotions, such as fear and panic.
3. Some of the myths that Pinker exposes are that the internet completely re-wires the brain, and turns it into mush, and that science is suffering because of the internet. For example, in paragraph four, Pinker (2010) argues that science is actually blossoming, and that scientific discoveries are occurring more rapidly than ever. In addition, Pinker states that electronic media is having a positive effect on arts and culture as well, using the website Arts & Letters Daily as an example of electronic media’s cultural revolution (Pinker). Pinker makes a strong point. If, as many people say, the internet was negatively affecting scientific discoveries or cultural activities, increasing scientific discoveries would not be occurring. Also, if the internet had no cultural aspect, then there would not be websites such as Arts & Letters Daily.
4. Pinker states that science is on his side. He uses the example of how speed-reading does not change the way our brains our hard-wired to process information, as the people who invented the technique once claimed (Pinker). By using this example, Pinker advances his argument. Thus, he states that an experience does not change the underlying way something is experienced (Pinker). According to Pinker (2010), just because people use the internet does not mean that their brains will radically change – especially in a negative way. Thus, Pinker is arguing that the internet is a tool that will not change the way the brain fundamentally functions. Overall, these paragraphs support his argument by stating that scientific facts are strong evidence that people who fear new technology, such as the internet, are panicking about something that benefits society, something that society actually needs.
5. Pinker’s argument that the panic about the negative effects of the internet are very persuasive. He uses scientific facts to discredit the people who argue that the internet is causing people to be less intelligent, lazy, or is ruining society. His argument is rational, and makes sense. Also, he uses historical information about comic books, video games, and the printing press to discredit those who panicked then about such innovations that we now take for granted. Lastly, Pinker makes the point that it is not the technology itself that creates problems, but how we use it. For example, Pinker advises for people to limit their use of social media if it distracts them from work (Pinker). Thus, Pinker constructs a convincing and persuasive argument for which he uses scientific evidence to back up. Thus, his points are well-articulated, and do not rest on the premises of fear and panic.
Works Cited
Pinker, Steven. “Mind over Mass Media.” The New York Times. 10 Jun, 2010. Web. 20 Apr, 2016.
