Peer Review #1 Reflection

The specific feedback and comments I received on my first essay draft primarily integrated of weaving in elements of my own existential encounters, and introducing a richer tier of my own life journey and situations that resonate and connect to both Adrian Chen and Maria Konnikova’s eye-opening and thought-provoking essays. My peer collaborator who refined my work predominantly proposed that that I identify and engage more closely with the texts. Some of the comments she left were to “add comparisons on a deeper level with this certain text”, or “be more specific in this experience”, or “elaborate more on this belief you hold”.

As far as resolving these concerns, I infused in additional aspects of my own reality to illustrate my association with both Chen and Konnikova. By doing this, I addressed and delved further into the stance I took, which is that I believed that the connections one forms through social media are incomparable to the bonds we cultivate by being in direct presence with our peers. I then provided distinct and clear-cut examples to prove that in person relationships are the most effective to establish and maintain, due to the vast number of shared experiences between individuals. I then proceeded to mention that in recent time, my family visited for family weekend at UNE and took me off campus. We went out to eat and shop. I had not seen them in a while, and I realized I had taken it for granted when I was back home. The meal offered us a chance to catch up a little and see how they were doing, given that I had been away at college for a while. Through these actions, I was strengthening the sense of relatability between myself and Maria Konnikova’s essay, while simultaneously reiterating my main argument.