This week’s symposium made the claim that no technology is neutral because technology has affordances, meaning certain technologies are more suited to perform certain tasks than others. Although there may not be a technology that is 100% neutral (at least not a technology that we are aware of… more info), I am inclined to agree with Jason, hypothesising the notion that there exists a sliding scale of neutrality. Although certain technologies may appear more suited to particular tasks, this is based on the individuals perception of the technology, anchored to their understanding of the cultural and social practices, associated with such a technology historically. For example, if a cave-man like person who had never seen a computer before was introduced to my Macbook Pro, then they may create associations between the shape of the laptop and a stone or rock. Meaning such a technology would be suitable for containing a cooking fire in this instance, given the cave-man’s preconceived understanding of such shapes and their uses. Therefore the affordances of any given technology are only as prominent as the users’ understanding of their existence. This shows that in some circumstances, technology can have a level of neutrality (defined as: not motivated or involved) and that the level of neutrality present in a technology comes down to a case by case analysis of the individual users’ historical preconception of such technology and therefore its level of motivation and involvement in their life.