Dan, Miranda, Jace

April 18, 2016

Dr. Probst- Martin
English 1101
Gopniks, How the Internet Gets Inside Us
Adam Gopnik published an article, How the Internet Gets Inside Us in the New York
Times in order to show people how our current society has developed around technology and the
different ways people react to the internet. He describes people as Better-Nevers, Never- Betters,
and Ever- Wasers. He uses these descriptions in order to explain how people feel about the
internet. The Never-Betters think the internet will create a new utopia and the development can
only benefit people. The Better-Nevers believe that the internet should have never happened and
that the development could lead to dangerous things. The Ever-Wasers tend to lean toward the
controversial side of the internet. They think that the development can be thrilling but terrifying
in the wrong hands. Throughout the article, Gopnik references these three types of people in
order to argue the point that the world has lived through a technological revolution before, like
when the television was invented. Gopnik explains that the development of every technological
thing leads to a monumental change in people socially. Adam Gopnik successfully uses pathos
throughout How the Internet Gets Inside Us, but his ethos and logos lack effectiveness.
If ethos and logos are defective throughout the whole article, the article will have
improper evidence, no credibility, and devalued sources. When pathos becomes the main focus, it
becomes a distraction from the credibility of the author and his sources. When Gopnik quotes the
argument of Andy Clarks, Surprising the Ming and in Robert K Logans, The Sixth

Language He states the credible source but de credits the source by overusing pathos to appeal
to the audience. Gopnik is agreeing with his source by telling personal experiences in attempting
to support the sources claim; but does not provide enough evidence relating back to the source.
He states Our machines, in this way, become our substitute spouses and plug- in companions
and spontaneously mentions Jerry Seinfeld talking about libraries becoming everyones pathetic
friend. This shows Gopnik appealing more towards pathos, which is distracting from Clarks and
Logans credibility. In the end its becomes just his opinion how do you know he is reliable
without actual proof that machines are our substitute spouses Gopnik may provide the source,
but he insufficently supports his sources by not providing enough evidence. The sources
provided by Gopnik appeal to the audience; but doesnt support his argument. He is then just
quoting someone so he sounds more credible than he actually is. On the other hand, Gopnik
will use sources that are not credible, while providing a lot of support towards pathos. When
discussing John Brockmans collection the internet and the mind illustrates is that when people
struggle to describe the state Gopnik runs on the sentence and doesnt use evidence from his
source nor does he use a quote from Brockmans article to further support his argument. Making
himself and Brockman unreliable sources. Validating that Gopnik lacks factual evidence when
using ethos. He effectively gave evidence but supported it poorly. Using the evidence incorrectly
and causing his ethos to be incredibly weak.
At some points Gopnik does not provide a source at all, when he is discussing the Ever-Wasers.
He is trying to pursue the audience the internet is making society shallow. When writing a
persuasive article one you can trust, the author needs to have personal credibility; Gopnik does
opposite while trying to appeal to his audience through pathos. Emotion and personal
experiences completely veer away in supporting his so called sources. A sense of vertiginous

overload is the central experience of modernity, they say; at every moment, machines make new
circuits for connection and circulation... He supports this statement by saying our new
confusion is just the same old confusion. Which provides no support to why machines are
confusing; thus using Logos and Ethos incorrectly by overusing pathos causing his evidence to
be weak. He claims They say; who says? without providing a source to his evidence he is
Forcing ethos in the article to be unreliable, and an untrustworthy structure. We cannot trust a
source without its credibility.
Adam Gopnik did not use the most credible sources thus leading to his lack in logic
throughout the article. Gopnik is arguing how the development of technology ultimately leads to
the development of people socially. When Gopnik is discussing cognitive entanglement, he gives
no actual definition but rather a false analogy to describe the meaning, Our machines, in this
way, become our substitute spouses and plug-in companions. He gives his opinion excessively
throughout the article and it causes him to refrain from logic. Gopnik also uses a quote from
Nicholas Carr, The medium does matter As a technology, a book focuses our attention A
networked computer does exactly the opposite. It is designed to scatter our attention. This could
have been a strong example if he had explained more in depth what it meant. This quote goes
with his argument perfectly because he later describes how more people hide behind a screen
instead of talking directly to each other which is what the current generation is known for. If he
would have included examples of how this quote connected to his argument, that could have
been an excellent connection. A false analogy that Gopnik did use well was when he was
comparing a hammer and a machine, If all you have is a hammer, the saying goes, everything
looks like a nail; and, if you think the world is broken, machine looks like the hammer that broke
it. This is a perfect connection to his thesis because he is trying to convey how people see a new

invention and immediately become enthralled or wary. These reactions ultimately cause a social
shift and people blame the new invention for that instead of themselves; even though, they are
the ones developing the technology and continue to improve, and use it, beyond its means. This
was the most effective quote Gopnik uses, but it also could have used more explanation.
Adam Gopnick did a fantastic job adapting to his audience
throughouthisarticlebyputtinghisownquirkyspinonhisapproachtot
hetopic.Hepepperedthisessaywithsnottycommentsandlittlejabsat
others.ShirkysandToobysversionofNeverbetterismhasitsexcitements,
butthehistoryitusesseemstohavetakenfromthebackofacereal
box.Adaminthispartisusingthisjokeasasetuptoengagether
eaderbeforeheattemptsgettothepointofhisargument.Cognitiveentan
glement,afterall,istheruleoflife.Mymemoriesandmywifesinterintan
glement.WhenIcantrecallanameoradate,Idontlookitup;Ij
ustaskher.Ourmachinesinthisway,becomeoursubstitutionspousesan
dplugincompanions.Adamtalkingabouthiswifehumanizedhimandg
avehimanaveragejoepersonawhichmakesthereaderfeelcomfortable
withhim.WhichmakesAdamsfollowingargumentabouthowtheinternet
issubstitutingforourspouseslessoutlandish.

When relating to a subject one is not familiar with the argument becomes one sided and
biased. As Gopnik provides information of the Never- Betters, BetterNevers, and the Ever-

Wasers. He makes it obvious he is a Never- Better by giving persistent pathos throughout the
article towards the nostalgia of paper and Christmas memories. While he supports a personal
experience he causes his sources to seem unreliable; and untrustworthy. When describing the
evolution of our machine based history, and how society evolves with the machine. It supports
his own opinion in what he believes. Turning the article to be one sided. He appeals to the
audience with heartwarming stories, but it over whelms the article with emotion, and detracts
from his ethos and logos. Insufficient use of ethos, logos, and pathos causes the article to lack
effectiveness towards the audience.