When I read Matt Richtel's 'Hooked on Technology, and Paying a Price,' I was
immediately drawn in by the story he told of a family that was being negatively impacted by the
availability of technology. I related to the distance that was being incurred between members of
this family due to the overuse of technology. I cherish family time, and have noticed the quality
of time my family spends together has been diminishing over the past few years. Richtel
understands this is common problem occurring within society today. Using the aspects of kairos
and stasis theory he presents a successful argument, persuading the audience that the overuse of
technology is having a negative impact on brain capacity and social interaction.

Richtel told the story of the Campbell family, a normal, maybe even typical, middle class
family in the United States today. Mr. Campbell, the father, was described as being addicted to
technology. As a software creator and entrepreneur Mr. Campbell was constantly on his
computer and connected to the internet for work. He was always sifting through email, involved
in instant message chats, and just partaking in random surfing of the internet; normally, he was
doing all of these things at the same time. His excessive multitasking regularly impacted his
ability to focus on important tasks. Distractions caused him to make mistakes that cost his
company money; at one point overlooking an email almost cost him over one million dollars. He
would get lost for hours in his computer and not be able to account for what he did with his time.
Mr. Campbell would escape from work into other electronic devices such as video games. His
obsession not only cost him with work, but with his family. He regularly forgot dinner plans with
his wife, and was not engaging with his children. His obsession would even follow them on
vacation. When he did unplug, he was only counting down the time until he could plug back in.
The over use of technology trickled down to the children and started negatively affecting their
son's grades in school. Even Mrs. Campbell eventually became involved in Facebook and
learned how easy it was to get caught up in social media, and lose focus on the task at hand.

The way in which we communicate and retrieve information today is completely
different than it was a decade ago. Letters are almost never hand written, information isn't
commonly looked up in books, and trips are rarely planned using maps. We have email, text
messaging, GPS, and high speed internet now. With the invention of the smart phone and
wireless connectivity our internet access, and thus communication is limitless. People can always
be reached, either by email, text message, social media, or a phone call. Richtel realized all of
this and published his article in a manner that was very timely. This technique employed the
concept of kairos to draw in the attention of the audience. The timely publishing of his article in
2010, amidst the flood of communication outlets and devices, was key in capturing the attention
of readers. By this time most people, no matter their age, had observed or felt for themselves the
effects of the information era, whether by constant bombardment of emails at work or home,
constant attachment to smart phones, or with involvement in social media. Thus readers could
relate to the distractions that having continuous access to technology brings. They could also
potentially be feeling a negative impact from these distractions at work or with their family,
similar to what was occurring in the Campbell family.

Richtel's article was initially published in the New York Times, a media outlet that has
an audience of over one million readers consisting of mostly middle aged males who likely had
some form of higher education and were employed. He used the woes the Campbell family was
experiencing to show how the advances in the availability and abundance of technology are
affecting human interaction and brain capacity. Richtel's decision to use the story of a typical
middle class American family in the presentation of his argument demonstrates his awareness of
the audience and how he took advantage of the venue he was given to deliver his position. This
method of persuasion also connects to the readers using kairos.

Richtel's article leads his readers to question how much they are connected to a device
and if their use of technology is distracting them to the point where their performance at work or
their family is being negatively impacted. In this way I believe Richtel invoked a sense of
urgency in his readers, causing them to reflect on their personal situation and bring about any
limitations or changes in their habits if necessary.

The structure and arrangement of ideas in the article are the backbone of its success.
Using stasis theory, Richtel clearly presents the problem of individuals addiction to technology
and is able to effectively describe the two main areas of concern that are generated from this
problem, the effects on brain capacity and human interaction.

He tackles the more debatable topic of how brain capacity is being affected by
presenting both sides of the argument but still emphasizing the undeniable negative impacts.
Richtel informs readers that there is a scientific reason for feeling a pull to their device. The
stimulation the brain receives from bursts of information provokes excitement which releases a
'feel good' chemical from the brain. Researchers say this chemical release caused by stimulation
can be addictive. People feel fidgety if they are not being stimulated, and thus are always going
back for more. He also discusses the myth of multitasking by presenting a study which
compared individuals who were heavy technology users against those who were not. The heavy
technology users, who claimed to be good multitaskers, actually had a lower performance score
during the study than the non-multitaskers. This evidence supports the argument Richtel is
making, that the constant bombardment of information on the brain is affecting how we think,
and reducing our ability to focus. By presenting the audience with scientific facts and credible
research Richtel strengthens his position. While his main point is to persuade the audience that
the brain loses capacity to focus when it is overloaded with information, he also points out that
there are scientifically backed benefits. For example, he states fast pace videogame players have
improved attention to detail, and frequent internet users have increased brain activity which
stimulates neurological growth. Richtel does a good job explaining that there is an existing
debate between scientists on the overall effects of technology use, whether they're positive or
negative, and how significant they are on the human brain. By not having a one sided argument
and acknowledging the disagreements that exist, Richtel tells a more persuasive story, and is able
to draw the reader in further.

Throughout the article, using the story of the Campbell family, Richtel paints a picture of
how human interaction is suffering. By weaving the woes of the Campbell family between
segments that discuss more scientific and technical ideas, he brings the reader back to the
tangible aspect of the argument, placing the thought of how families and human interaction in
general is being harmed, in the forefront of their minds.

He ends his article by saying, 'The ultimate risk of heavy technology use is that it
diminishes empathy by limiting how much people engage with one another, even in the same
room'. He really pushes that while there is a debate about how brain capacity is
affected, there is no debate that technology's impact on social interaction has been harmful.
Because of the drastic change in communication and how information exchange has evolved
over the past decade, almost every reader can relate to this message. Richtel has a clear
understanding and awareness of how his audience is being impacted by this shift, and structured
his article accordingly. Throughout his article he effectively drew his readers in by using both
kairos and stasis theory, making his argument tremendously successful.

