These days, most people are what we say hooked on technology. We go from walking to
classes looking down texting to using tablets and laptops in meetings to keep along with the
discussion. The price we pay in tech use is best explained in Matt Richtel's 'Hooked on
Technology, and Paying a Price.' In his essay, Richtel argues that technology use in this era has
skyrocketed, not only does it affect our physical world, like family and job life, but our internal
world like our brain, our emotions, and how we process our world. His argument is an effective
one because of his use of kairos and stasis theory.

Richtel's effectiveness in his essay comes from a great use of kairos. Through his use of
kairos in his essay, he provides brief examples of how timely the use of technology is. He brings
us to reality that through decades, the increase of technology use has shifted our normal brain
function and brings in a scientist to explain the consequence of excessive tech use. He lets us
know that, 'For better or worse, the consumption of media, as varied as email and TV, has
exploded. In 2008, people consumed three times as much information each day as they did in
1960.' Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist from at USC San Francisco tells us, ''the nonstop
interactivity is one of the most significant shifts in the human environment' . 'We are exposing
our brains to an environment and asking them to do things we weren't necessarily evolved to
do''. This use of cause and effect by Richtel is not only brilliant but quite
effective. He lets his audience know that since the 60's, humans have consumed so much media
like email and TV that we have created a new environment for our brains. He brings in a scientist
to validate and inform his audience that we have had so much exposure to technology, which has
caused us to use bring our brain into an environment that we as humans are wired for
evolutionarily. This cause and effect tells me and others that if we don't prioritize our use of
technology that it can change the framework of our minds and ultimately who we are as humans.
It will cause us to have less empathy and the overall base as humans. Richtel also does well in
tying together the notion of urgency in his message. He does this by introducing someone who
has experienced heavy usage of technology and his consequences for his heavy use. He
introduces 'Kurd Campbell, 43, came of age with the personal computer, and he is a heavier user
of technology than most. But researchers say the habits and struggles of Mr. Campbell and his
family typify what many experience'and what many more will, if trends continue'.
Richtel's tie in with introducing Mr. Campbell is urgent because it brings in a dynamic of
a personal story that people can relate to. People, who can relate to a personal story, see that if
trends of heavy usage don't stop than technology will become addictive habit or drug. What he
also does is tie together his audience by saying we at some level experience the same habits as
Mr. Campbell and many more people will if we don't recognize our habits and work them out.

Also what Richtel does well in his essay in regards to kairos is his connections to various
places with technology use. Throughout his essay, Richtel brings up Mr. Campbell's family life
in the home, family vacation spots, Mr. Campbell's job, and his kids. Richtel's notion on Mr.
Campbell's family life in the home connects to his audience's lifestyles because some people
have families and have grown up through this era of technology and heavy use. Mr. Campbell
the head of the household can't get away from his work and his cellphone, then we he feels bad
he doesn't do what most people do to rid of stress. He goes to video games for an example. This
isolated activity that Mr. Campbell may not see also has engulfed his family members in their
household. His wife can't get through to him about his habits; his kids have all of this technology
at their hands from smartphones at very young ages to computers and TVs in their rooms that
require constant attention. This story about a family that is together but doesn't resemble the
classic American family is greatly used by Richtel to evaluate heavy tech usage. What I believe
Richtel has done was use a dynamic that is held as special to all families which is their home,
and uses Mr. Campbell's family members and their heavy usage as a bridge to a real problem for
other families that may struggle with this same problem.

Richtel also talks about another person in his essay about multitasking and the link
between multitasking and brain processing at the work place. He briefly describes Eyal Ophir, a
student-researcher who studied brain processing during multitasking experiences. Eyal Ophir
made his research personal because he spent seven years in Israeli intelligence after he was put
out of the air force for what he thought was' that he was not a great multitasker. What Richtel
is doing here by explaining Mr. Ophir's story is, bringing up the questions like! Are career jobs
asking much of their workers to get a single result? Are jobs perpetuating heavy use of
technology since people may lose their jobs because they are single-task oriented people? For an
audience to read this, they might find that these questions are true and that we may need to
reverse the trend of heavy tech use.

Richtel also uses some aspects of stasis theory to explain his argument. What Richtel
does in his essay to use stasis theory to explain his argument is recognize that there is always
going to be a debate over technological use and the practicality of that use of technology. He
understands the debate explains that technology and the use of technology whether a lot or a little
of it benefits users by making them more efficient in finding information and video game players
better visually acute. He briefly describes this debate by saying, 'Technology use can benefit the
brain in some ways, researchers say. Imaging studies show the brains of internet users become
more efficient at finding information. And players of some video games develop better visual
acuity'. He lets his audience know that technology is beneficial in these ways
and probably more than in his essay but it's not all bad. Yet he goes a step further by explaining
how the use of technology can be counterproductive in excess. He brings in Nora Volkow to
explain this counter productivity of tech use. She says, 'technology is rewiring our brains. She
and other researches compare the lure of digital stimulation less to that of drugs and alcohol than
to food and sex, which are essential but counterproductive in excess'. Richtel
structures one notion as a benefit or reason why we need technology to help us to the notion that
the benefit is essential to human nature like food and sex but like drugs and alcohol, heavy use
can be counterproductive and destructive.

Richtel furthermore, in regards to stasis theory uses implicit and explicit ideas and
questions to explain his argument. An implicit idea Richtel writes about is the idea of tech use
and the family dynamic. He further explains this by having Mr. Campbell say, 'even without
technology, he may work or play obsessively, just as his father immersed himself in crossword
puzzles. But he says this era is different because he can multitask anyplace, anytime. 'It's a
mixed blessing, he said.' If you're not careful, your marriage can fall apart or your kids can be
ready to play and you'll get distracted'. To his audience, Richtel asks the
following questions: should I fulfill my wants and desires by playing my games or immersing
myself into this tech driven world or focus on my family that I created because I wanted one?
The answer to the question isn't clear to his audience. There is a choice to be made on whether or
not his audience should do one or the other. Clifford Nass, a communications professor at
Stanford University addresses this question 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. 'The way we become more human is by paying attention to each other.' It shows
how much you care. That empathy is essential to the human condition'. Richtel
gets at the idea that heavy technology use at its core is destructive to our innate human function
of empathy and engagement with one another and fragments our core as humans from our
deepest emotions for one another.

Richtel's argument that heavy technology use is destructive is a well-drawn out
argument. His argument ties in family dynamics, job connections, and research data to validate
that heavy use is not good. To an audience Richtel has brought home the fact that even in 2014
humans can't survive without technology and have lost most touch with their basic human
functions such as empathy, communication, love, and etc. His argument is effective and deserves
to be well thought out by any audience that comes across this essay, for the reason that if we
continue to lose ourselves to this trend of usage, we will lose all touch to our core as humans and
become reliant on something that we didn't always need to survive decades and centuries ago.

