In Isolated by the internet, Clifford Stoll made some valid points in the social interactions among people. The internet causes people to regress and shy away from interactions among other people. Stoll presented the good and the bad of the effects of people being isolated by the internet. Stoll did a good job with the supporting details to back up his opinion and the article was well written.
Clifford Stoll article called Isolated by the Internet was well written. Clifford not only stated his opinions but he stated the opposite opinions also. Stoll listed how “one friend tells how she found a support group for an obscure medical condition” (392). One soon-to-be-married couple writes how they met through posting to a Usenet new group (392-393). And one computer programmer confesses that although she’s extremely shy in person, in her electronic chat room, she becomes a feisty, enchanting contessa. (393). Meanwhile, wired families keep in touch via email, and new friendships blossom thanks to online special interest groups (393). A good writer can present both sides of an article. Stoll states, “the electronic virtual community is a positive social development “(393). A one sided article only appeals to one audience and may seems unfairly written. Stoll does a good job of bringing out both sides.
Stoll’s article was well written because he used psychologists to support his opinion. Some psychologists that was in the article that did studies for Stoll was Robert Krant and Vicki Lundmark from the Carnegie Mellon University (393). Krant and Lundmark studies brought out the serious negative long-term social effects ranging from depression to loneliness that the internet causes (393). Stoll used another psychologist Kimberly Young to show how people who are addicted to the internet are shy and awkward around people (396). The studies of the psychologists help support Stoll argument about how the internet causes degrading communications skills (397). By using known psychologists Stoll presented a professional side to his argument.
Stoll uses colleges and university reports to support his opinion about the internet. Stoll used UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles) loneliness Scale for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale to show that on average depression increase 1 percent for every hour a person is online per week (393). From the same study some more results was that loneliness increased as well (393). Online relationships study shows that the relationships was weak and usually don’t last (393-394). Also some study reports that people” lack of close social contact” (393) are often caused by the internet. Stoll use of reports shoes realistic examples of the effects of the internet.
In conclusion Stoll has made some interesting points throughout the article. As stated in the first paragraph a good author can present both sides of an argument and not just give one side. Also his studies were studied by psychologists. Another way that the article was well written was that his uses reports from colleges and university reports to support his opinion. The article was well written and showed the effects of the internet.
You don't call a researcher by his first name.
You've made a fair few mistakes with subject-verb agreement, possessives, a few spelling mistakes.
This whole area is bedeviled by the "causation" problem. You say "on average depression increased 1 percent for every hour a person is online per week". This could reflect that for each incremental 1 percent that a person becomes more depressed, they spend an extra hour online per week. Did Stoll mention this problem? You should mention whether Stoll addressed it or not.