Joe Poirier 8/24/15

Professor Deyes

There are three different reasons to write an essay. Persuade, to inform, and to entertain. In
Social Media: How Does it Affect Our Mental Health it explains how social media affects
everything from self-esteem to self-image. People think that because they do not get a certain
amount of likes or retweets then they aren’t as important as someone who gets x-many times
more like for a similar picture, tweet or post. The article quotes Dr. Cross was quoted as saying
that “using Facebook may even go so far as to make us miserable”. This quote is important
because it is so true, if we see a picture that we posted that we thought was cool, cute, etc and
we see it only got a few likes and we expected a lot of friends to like it hurts our self-esteem
and self-image. I know from what I’ve felt in the past posting something on Instagram or face
book and only five people liked it, that hurts because you expected hundreds of people to like it
and only five like it it hurts your ego so bad. One example I have is I posted about a presidential
debate in 2012 and only 5 people liked it and I was hurt by it because I could see that atleast
thirty of my friends were on Facebook at that time. Dr. Cross is right Facebook can make us
miserable all because we long to be popular and be highly recognized on social media.

The second article society is dead, we have retreated into the iworld. An editorial by
Andrew an editorial on how a city’s feel changes because of the “iworld” by day most people
are glued to their smartphone screens and seeing what’s trending and what’s going on in the
world, or rocking out to the latest beats by the next great song artist. Andrew admitted that
he’s glued to his screen or “wrapped up in a white wire cocoon” as he calls it . Also a lot of truth
behind his points and statements. A lot of people are so involved in what their seeing on their
phone or listening too. I am guilty of this too being anti-social because I’d rather listen to my
music than talk to people. I am guilty of watching my screen more than where I was going . To
add a personal touch I agree with Andrew I see a lot of validity in his statements if people
would restrict how much they stream and listen to music they would be so much more in touch
with the people around them.

Me personally unless I am affected by the topic of discussion then I tend to go more

toward the factual side of the argument . in this case I see validity in both sides of the
argument. I am drawn to believe the first article where it cites specific studies done on the
subject versus an editorial opinion column. If I can see the facts then I can either dispute or agree
with the study. There are occasions that I do agree with the editorial because I cannot see the logic

behind the scientific study. One specific incident was a writing assignment similar to this one in middle

school. The study was comparing the people who study for a long period of time before a test versus

people who cram in last minute studying. The editorial seemed to me to be more logical than the

scientific survey of data. That was really the only instance in school that I can remember, but I would

read hear about a study done and then read an editorial by a third party. The third party would make so

much more sense than what I was hearing , seeing or reading.

Finally if I am personally affected by the topic of a discussion I go with what to me are “facts”,

weather or they are facts well that’s up to other people to say unless I know what is going on personally.

If I am personally affected by what the topic is or was personally affected then I go on what I know or

hear, more so than what outside sources say. However in my opinion I think most people would put

what other people are saying in lower standing versus what the experts say or what the editorials say

because their going through it. I will use a current and controversial topic, gun control. All the gun

control laws, saying no high capacity magazines (10 rounds or more), they want finger print locks, all

guns and ammo must be locked and secured and away from children. I get why their doing it but to

honest if somebody wants to do harm to others they will. Unless you take all the guns and ammo away

there will be no “gun control”. However I am biased because I am a legal law abiding gun owner. If there

were a study done and it listed ways on how to control guns I might see some validity but I’d still want

the privilege to take my gun out to the range and shoot legally.