Slashdot Mirror
LonelyNet
The Stanford study, prepared by the university's Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, found that 55% of Americans now have access to the Net. Of those, 36% said they were online at least five hours a week.
The study strongly challenged the assertions of Net advocates and enthusiasts (like me) who argue that the Net creates, communicates, promotes contact and is frequently used by people to connect, rather than disconnect with other humans.
According to Stanford researchers, Internet users are lonelier than other Americans, and are spending more time away from them. Interestingly (and, to me, dubiously), the survey defined loneliness in this way: whether you spend physical time with family and friends, whether you attend fewer social events, whether you spend less time reading newspapers and watching TV, shopping in stores, or are working more at home than before. In other words, the survey defines a radically new environment by nearly ancient measures of human contact.
The Stanford study didn't appear to consider e-mail or other virtual contact - gaming, communities, mailing lists, messaging systems, as contact with other humans. It suggested that the Net was invading the home with work and creating a pervasive new wave of social isolation.
Do online contacts - e-mail, communities like this, messaging systems, mailing lists - not count as connective, or as making contact with people? Are virtual friends friends? Is it more social to watch TV or read a paper than to be online, no matter what you do there?
I've met my closest friends online, and joined some of the most enduring communities of my adult life on the Net. From the first, I've seen it as a way for me to connect with other people, not get away from them.
But here's a chance to say for yourselves whether you consider the Net isolating or not, rather than to have studies or others describe that experience for you:
I watched the person who released the study and the leader of one of the major research groups on PBS (McNeil/Lehr Newshour).
They found that young people 16-22 were more likely to use the net socially and increase their social interaction and older people (read adults) were more likely to become isolated.
Generally this is because older people think in terms of mutually exclusive events.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Fight Spammers!
I know that the internet has actually *improved* communication between my friends and I. We can talk more often (via email or a IM service) than we would like to before (long-distance). It may not be face-to-face, but is really THAT important?
-brain
I'm not sure about other slashdotters, but I spend a LOT of time online, and I'm not lonely (usually). In fact, most of the time when I'm online, I am sending messages to friends and family. How could this make me more isolated????
JW
Snorp
My family lives about 3hrs away from me, so I don't get to see them often. Picking up a phone a dealing with long distance charges gets expensive. I talk with my family almost daily now, thanks to IM and email. We have more in depth conversations now than when I lived with them.
--
Donald Roeber
Donald Roeber
Generating 2048 Bits of Randomness...
Of course people you meet on the net are people. Yes, online friends are friends.
;)
If I talk to you over the phone and tell you my life story, did we talk? What kind of stupid question is that? Why should e-mail be any different? I've known people who break up over e-mail. Does that mean they're still going out? Geez.
And the Wired article is hilarious! Also in the news: people who have been living for longer tend to die sooner! Oh my god!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I would venture that while many people disagree with the statement "Using the internet makes you into a lonely person", many will agree with the statement "Lonely people are more likely to become Internet users".
Which is cause and which is effect?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
My name is Jimhotep and I'm addicted to the "net"
there, I'm half cured!
that was too easy
Whenever I do something, I don't do something else.
It's about opportunity cost. The hour I a day reading news pages, I could be talking to my family, studying, or doing half a billion things. But I don't want to. I want to rant on slashdot. Is that so frightening? The internet is an interesting place (and especially time-consuming if you're on a modem), and dogs take a large amount of attention and care. So you have to spend a few of your 24 allotted daily hours on them, if you're going to spend any at all. That's a few less hours you could spend doing other things. "Other things" include social interaction.
Big deal.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
Since I have articulation problems due to my physical disabilitites, it is hard to socialize in person. However, the chat BBS' and the boom of the Internet has changed my life. I am able to socialize and interact a lot more with people. What pisses me off is that people think I am an Internet addict. I use the Internet more than fun. I use it for work, socialize, news, etc.
:)
This article is irrelevant to my situation. Anyone feel the same way?
Thank you in advance for replies.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
But on Senior Net on AOL, the elderly are pouring onto the Net. In fact, older Americans are statistically the fastest growing group of people on the Net and Web. They check in with grandkids, mail their own children, connect with one another. This study is wacky to me...older people are prime example of a group that uses the Net to connect with other people.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Of course, I'm not one of them (isn't that always how it goes?). I spend less time with family and friends because of a cross-country move a couple of years ago. I have no really close friends that I've met on the net. Those I consider close are my friends 'back home' and a few of the folks I've met since moving.
I think I do spend more time online than I used to, but I think that's more a function of having fewer friends in close proximity and, therefore fewer options available.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I certainly hope my tax dollars did not get put towards a bunch of lunatics saying that I should rob Peter to pay Paul. God forbid that I should reduce the amount of time they (I) spend with family, friends and -- most of all -- the television. Hey everyone out there, you are too stupid to realize that spending 1 hour on the Internet per week reduces your capacity to watch television by 1 hour per week. You must read this Stanford study in order to really find out what a detriment that the Internet is having on your life. I definitely need to spend less time on the Internet now that I've read this article. Maybe I should get a dog...
DOH!
THis is an excerpt from David Weinberger's monthly zine. It's a paragraph in answer to his father in law, asking him why he spends at least 4 hours a day responding to email
>>
So, my father-in-law asks why I do this. What do I
get out of it? Clearly, I get stimulation. And maybe
someday one of these email strangers will remember
me and recommend my work to a reclusive billionaire
who will make me the sole beneficiary of his will
(well, so long as I can manage to off his cat). But
those aren't the real reasons. The world is growing
a new nervous system. The neurons are striving to
connect. I sense a spiritual mandate so deep that it
feels biological. We must find one another, rapidly.
We must grip every hand that we see. This is the new
evolution. We are building a world that only we can
build. We are building the real web, the one that
uses technology for connection the way our souls use
our bodies. It is joyous.
i have a house full of people who use my connection to talk to friends and relatives, we dont lose interaction, we gain it. it brings everyone together, sharing stories and setting up trips. however, i agree the already socially inept will use it more as they get their online girlfriends and boyfriends, who can not go out and talk to people. these people will become more engrossed with the online community, making the internet their only social interaction
It may never end, unless it begins...
Think of the ways in which people use the Net to connect:
kids to parents
kids to other kids
kids to grandparents
friends to friends
workers to colleagues
people with culture
Even business models like EBay and Deja.com require interaction between retailers and customer..e-mails, reviews, etc.
Everybody I know on the Net, at any age, connects with people online. I think the problem here is that the people doing this kind of study don't see this kind of contact as with humans.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
a big surfing habit, and a dog??? Am I doomed to hermitude??
Just wondering - Keith
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
I've recently cut down the amount of time I spend using the computer at home. I was spending a couple of hours on IRC, answering e-mail and reading various sites.
Overall, it looked like social interaction. But in reality, I lost touch with many people which live close to me. Instead, I conversed with semi-strangers on the other side of the continent.
This being said, I met my best friend about six years ago on a BBS. But imho, BBSes offered much more social interaction than anything I found on the internet.
So now that I have a couple of free hours a night, I can spend it any way I want - take a nap, read a book, go to a movie with my friends or keep up with my old hobbies.
The hardest part was noticing that I traded my life for the computer.
Cheers,
Bart
I saw this news item floating around a couple of days ago. The internet has changed my life over the past few years but I would not describe myself as lonely more lonlier than I was a few years ago. I watch very little television these days, probably less than 3 hours per week (which is a Good Thing). I get most of my news from the Internet, I stopped reading newspapers a couple of years ago and I never watch the local news broadcasts. I do catch local news from various radio programs that I listen to during the work day.
I still spend a lot of time with my friends, in fact we talk much more now than we dis a couple of years ago. It's just easier to communicate via e-mail than it is to try and get someone on the phone. As far as "face to face" contact, i still hang out with my friends every weekend- as much as we did in the "pre-internet" days.
I've also met some new friends, as I am sure that you all have, via the internet, some of whom live here in Memphis and have become "real" friends.
I think that some people are just not wanting to accept that the world is changing. I suspect that the lonliest internet users are the same folks that used to spend all of their free time holed up in their apartment watching television. Now they spend their free time holed up in their apartment surfing the internet. Not much of a change.
If it is as a primary method of communication then there could be social isolation occuring.
If it is used as I use it as an aid to communication and interaction then I would say that the net is actively increasing my social intereaction.
I think one of the biggest problems is that people see the net becoming a primary social interaction device rather than as a tool to enhance,rather than replace traditional communications.
Also it would be interesting to see the study to see how it defines online use and online interaction.
I would hypothesise that if you broke down the results into categories based around what people mainly use the net for then you would ge tmore interesting and more informative results.
Firstly I would say that people who primarily use e-mail would probably use it as a communication enhancer to catch up with people and arrange face to face meetings.
People who primarily surf or use IRC and talkers maybe the ones who are less inclined to use it for enhancing IRL experience.
Although it would be a less attention grabbing headline
Working for the (other) man
I personally believe the antisocial geek hermit phase something that teenagers go thru, and is just a phase. I remember articles in the newspaper about internet addiction - and I say, so what? it was a great lerning experience. It was also a good opportunity to be intraspective. Maybe in adults its longer lasting and more damaging, but for teens and young adults, a year or two long addiction to the net, and a drop in social activity may not be such a bad thing. :)
- Dogs never require electricity, only a steady supply of food.
- Dogs never require a reinstall. The first setup and they're good for life.
- Dogs never require an upgrade (unless you want a BeoWOOF cluster of them).
- Dogs are much softer than the internet.
- Dogs are always the right temperature. They require no more cooling fans than you do.
- Dogs never require overclocking. If they're not running at the right speed, simply work on the leash a bit more.
- Dogs never need backing up. Their flash memory is good for life.
- Dogs never need a password. Using newfangled biometrics, dogs will always know who you are.
- Dogs will give you exercise. The internet will not.
- Dogs are also much better to look at than the internet. The skin they have is good enough.
That's why I'd rather spend my day with a dog than on the internetIta erat quando hic adveni.
Some people at Carnegie Mellon University are also investigating the social consequences of net usage ( check out the HomeNet project here). They have also concluded that Internet usage leads to less interpersonal physical contact. They also observed that interpersonal communication is a stronger driver for internet usage than than entertainment or information searching.
The phone takes people away from f2f contact as well..does that not count as human interaction? And what about the time ON the phone, as pb suggests?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
It was twenty threads ago today,
AC's began throwing flames his way
They've been flaming Jon and his style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile.
So may I introduce to you
The flame you've known for all these years,
Jon Katz's Lonely Hearts Club thread.
We're Jon Katz's Lonely Hearts Club Band,
We hope you will enjoy the post,
We're Jon Katz's Lonely Hearts Club Band,
Sit back and let the AC's go.
Jon Katz's lonely, Jon Katz's lonely,
Jon Katz's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
It's wonderful to post here,
It's certainly a thrill.
You're such a zealot audience,
We'd like to mod you up with us,
We'd love to mod you up.
I don't really want to stop the trolls,
But I thought that you might like to know,
That the author's going to post a troll,
And he wants you all to post along.
So let me introduce to you
The one and only non-geek here
Jon Katz's Lonely Hearts Club thread.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
But let me guess, unless it's in meat-space, it doesn't count? The "older" generation(s) will always have a problem with the "younger" ones - saying "it wasn't that way when *I* was a kid". Well, duh. And it never will be again. That's part of the unique condition that is part of life. When we're 40 years old people on slashdot will harken back to the good old days when processors were made out of silicon and we had a vast "internet". The kids of that day will laugh at us because they weren't around to see it - they'll have optical processors that interconnect to everything, and fiberoptic will be everywhere. Nanotech will be building factories that improve themselves, and we'll still be working 60 hour work-weeks while government proclaims us "Happiest Times Ever!"
It's culture-shock, and these researchers need to recognize that. Sure, according to their calculus we ARE spending less time interacting with people. But we're replacing that by interacting with people ONLINE and their IDEAS instead. Wouldja rather we go out dancing every evening and have ice cream socials?
Forgive me for posting to the main thread as my post will echo many sentiments already expressed. However, I couldn't respond to everyone.
WOW! A short Katz piece. Seriously, this study definitely assumes that while we're on the net we're not communicating with friends and family. I think many of the sites I go to with active messageboard systems (such as this one), promote friendship. You get to know the people who come and post on the sites you go to. I've had someone from Slashdot contact me about a post I made for a story, and it was amazing, someone that I could have started a dialogue with (I didn't, but I could've).
As far as family? I live in Colorado, and most of my mother's side of the family lives on the east coast. I'm not good at letters, and phone calls get too expensive. I can stay in good contact with my entire family, using the 'net. So what if I spend 30 hours a week on it? much of that time is spent cultivating new friendships, and adding fuel to old ones.
The sense of community people feel here at Slashdot and at other, similar sites is unique to our age, and I think it should be held up as an example of how telecommunications was MEANT to work. This is what people talk about when they say Global Village (a few spammers and flamers aside).
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
I find that I ignore the net more and more when I spend time with my family and my dog. How do you think the net feels about that. Doesn't the net have a heart too? Its a living breathing organism made up of millions of people struggling to get information out to me in the form of SPAM, chainletters, Warez, pr0n, or just to show me pictures of their little dog Chico. What about Chico? We need to balance our online family with our in the flesh family.
Hell... if it wasn't for the Internet I probably would never speak to my parents... email has saved that relationship. And they only live a half hour away.
Can't we all just get along?
Isn't the web just replacing TV as Amercia's favorite time waster? Or are most poeople wasting time on BOTH now? ^_^
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Anything that gets people to spend less time watching TV is a good thing. Check out this powerful anti-TV "essay".
I feel very sorry for a bunch of researcher who really don't understand what socialising is. Chatting with my friends online is very similar to chatting with them on the phone. I have travelled a lot, and have recently moved back to the US. If I were to rely on the telephone to talk to them, I'd go broke. If I sent mail by post, I would communicate less.
Then there's also the fact that I'm extremely busy. I have lots of work to do at my job. When people can e-mail me events instead of trying to get a hold of me on my busy phone, then I can schedule time to spend with them. I can plan my life and fit socialising in, without necessarily excluding work or other friends.
Yeah, I used to work with academians. Like people who hide in books and labs should tell us how real life functions.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Hey, Jon! Nice to see you down here in the trenches with the rest of us! Hopefully, getting more involved in the discussion forums will help your image problems here.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
If the 'net isolates people, then I must be a living anomaly. My ex-common-law husband (with whom I'm still a close friend) and I met on the 'net in 95. I just went all the way to marry my new love, whom I met online in 98. The first was in the same city, the second was in the US (I'm in Canada, but moving down there in a few weeks). Yes, my new hubby and I have met in person many many times and spent a lot of time together, but we first bonded as close friends online because we met in a newsgroup that interested us both.
So if the researchers are all worried that Internet communication lacks "warmth" and human closeness...well...ahem...let's just say my new hubby and I have proven that deliciously wrong. *grin*
The study is meaningless, IMHO. They took people without 'net connections and hooked them up, then asked them if they did other things less. Well duh. There are still only 24 hours in a day, and if you're spending time doing _anything_ more, you're doing the rest less. And plenty of studies show that, particularly with kids, what's being given up for 'net time is TV time (ie as cited in Growing Up Digital by Don Tapscott).
These studies only show a change in behaviour, and conclusions drawn from individual changes are spurious at best.
-- Kimberly "happy geek" Chapman
Being away at school, the internet is my primary means of staying in contact with friends and family who aren't attending my school. I can't afford $100+ phone bills, or try to visit everyone every weekend. It just isn't feasable.
I don't spend my time trying to meet a lot of new people online. I'm not into IRC, and just chatting with any random(joe). I prefer more private type instant messaging services like ICQ, (http://licq.wibble.net, licq is great) where I can require authorization for people to contact me. It keeps me in constant contact with anyone I choose. (And plus it isn't too hard for those not as interested in computers to use.) And then there is e-mail. Together they do a great job of keeping me in touch with people I wouldn't usually be in touch with.
Now for friends on campus, the internet is taken out of the equation, because the cost of staying in contact is far less.
$cents+=2;
This sig is false.
This was posted a day or two ago at kuro5hin.org (corrosion). To see some other insightful comments on this topic (and the ability to moderate your own story submissions) take a look at it.
http://www.kuro5h in.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000/2/16/95028/4003
--Robert
I have a big loveable German Shephard who slobers all over me, drags me through the woods around our house 3 times a day and keeps me company. I think I get outdoors much more often because of him, but yes it sometimes reduces my interaction with other people because sometimes I have to leave early from an event, or pass on something because I have to take care of my dog.
:)
But, to be honest my social interaction is the same now as it's always been. Probably less then most people but I don't find myself closing the world off and cocooning in my house because I have a dog and three cable networked machines running 24/7. I was as much an introvert at 17 as I am now. Nothing has changed because of dogs or the internet.
Cheers
-Paul
"I'm nobody suspicious... That makes me sound even more suspicious, doesn't it?" - Spike (Cowboy Bebop)
Ben: "I was once a troll the same as your brother." Luke: "My brother didn't troll. He was a Linux zealot."
Ben: "That's what Signal 11 told you. He didn't hold with your brother's ideals. He thought he should post insipid brain-dead staus quo material. Not gotten involved."
Luke: "I wish I had known him."
Ben: "He was a cunning troller, and the best flamebaiter on the Internet. I understand you've become quite a troll yourself. And he was a good friend. For over 3 years the trolls made Slashdot worth reading. Before the dark times. Before the moderation"
Luke: "How did my brother die?"
Ben: "A young troller named CmdrTaco, who turned to evil, helped Rob Malda moderate Slashdot. He permanently banned your father's IP Address. Taco was seduced by the Dark Side of the Karma."
Luke: "The Karma?" Ben: "Yes, the Karma is what gives a Karma-Whore his power. It's an energy field created by repeating pro-Linux FUD. It surrounds us. Penetrates us. Binds Slashdot together. Which reminds me. Your brother wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but Signal 11 wouldn't allow it. He thought you'd follow Anonymous Coward on a FIRST POST."
Luke: "What is it?"
Ben: "It a bowl of hot grits. The weapon of a troll. Not as random or clumsy as a petrified Natalie Portman or a Scooby Doo. An elegant topic for a more trollish First Post."
Any study like this one will have inconclusive results. Just because you use the Inet more than "average" doesn't mean you don't enjoy good times with friends at the local bar or occasional Linux Expo. I personally meet people on the Inet, with my goal being to meet them in person if I like them. I can communicate my thoughts in the written word better than I can verbally (I still don't know why that is, though), so it's easier for me to meet and discuss with people on IRC,
It's not that important to me. E-mail has been one of the best things for my relationship with my girlfriend. Face-to-face communication and even telephone calls can be hard to make sometimes with our schedules. When I'm free, she's busy and vise versa.
kwsNI
I believe that truth can be found in both perspectives.
On one hand, the Internet has drawn such an interest that there is an abundance of people to interact with online, and in many ways this had lead people to interact with people much more then ever before. These people marrying someone they met online obviously feel a real connection with that person, so while the Internet may seem "impersonal" to some, it obviously isn't to others.
On the other hand, I do think it is true that the Internet is causing people to be less social on a more personal level. For many, this may not be so, but I would wager that most people still value qualities that the Internet cannot offer. As communication has improved, the direct connection between the people communicating has lessend, historically. Wouldn't you consider a hand-written letter more personal than a typed one? How about an email? Wouldn't all of these pale in comparison with "live" communication?
Still, there are many situations that are vastly improved by the different levels of abstraction offered through the Internet. Some people are far more open online than in person. Does this mean that the Internet is causing people to feel socially inadequate? I tend to think it simply gives people with less confidence a chance to speak and be heard. That can't be so bad, can it?
Source code is a lot like a parachute; it needs to be open in order to function properly.
this statement may turn out to be more of a rant, and if so, i'm sorry, though i'm (hopefully) not the only person who's like this.
I for one used to be a very sociable person (still a computer geek, but sociable none the less). Granted, i would spend a great deal of time online, or whathaveyou, but myself and my friends would go out to clubs, parties, movies, whatever...
...then i got married. My wife is not nearly half as sociable as i, so what do i do, i turn to my computer. She gets pissed if i choose to go out somewhere with out her, but if i do ask her to come along, she'll say she dosen't want to go, and to go ahead and do my thing....so basically our relationship will result in us arguing and fighting. So i'll stay home, and sit in front of my computer growing fat and lazy, while she sits around and watches TV. However if it wasn't for the net, i would have so little human contact i would be pathetic (more so than it already is)...
This sucks, never mind...flame away
It's a win-win situation!
This is amazing! Did you know that when you do something, you're not doing something else?!?! Whoa! I mean, I was always under the impression that people just created time out of thin air! This study just floors me! Wow. Maybe I should get back to drinking in a bar somewhere, rather than working on my class assignments for Intro to AI. Clueless drips.
BBB
The more time you spend on the Net, the less time you spend with friends.
The more time you spend reading, the less time you spend with friends.
The more time you spend on contemplative walks in the woods, the less time you spend with friends.
Simply put, we have a finite amount of time to work with, and any time we choose a solitary activity, we also choose a more "lonely" life (Something I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would grasp immediately). This is not a bad thing -- solitude is something I value far more than social contact, and if I didn't spend time on the net, I'd be spending time curled up with a good book or out back in the smithy (alone) pounding iron or taking a leisurely hike up Acadia Mountain (again alone).
Why does anyone make a big deal out of this? Some people choose to be less social than others, and our activities reflect that. Time spent on the net is just another such activity...and I balance that time with my other interests, just like everyone else.
-- WhiskeyJack
The study also showed that online time took away mostly from TV time, next came newspaper time, and then came time spent on the phone with friends or time spent with family. I would say that much of what I've found online is more interesting and perhaps better for me that what I could watch on TV. I get my news online so there's a good reason why I would spend less time with the newspaper. And I send out far more e-mails with arguably better content than phone calls. I think the Internet is what's kept me in touch with many friends. If you spend time online that you should be spending with your family...that's your decision. It probably points to something deeper than being fascinated with Ask Jeeves.
Also, one of the most significant findings of this study was that the longer a person owned a computer, the more likely they were to use it. Duh! Although I guess that would be somewhat of an anomoly since I barely even touch my George Foreman grill anymore.
I think I'm just going to have to call this "Just another study" and move on with my life. After all, every precious second I'm spending typing this I could be out galavanting with friends (who would all be at work anyways).
Peace. Sway
icq 5202646
Peace. Sway
Peace. Sway
I believe it is important to make the distinction between quantitiy of communication and quality of communication. The issue is not whether or not we communicate more on the net, but whether we communicate better. Let me explain what I mean.
I believe that without question, the rise of the internet has given people an ability to communicate more often, and with less work. Compare letter writing of decades ago with the email that most of us exchange with friends. A letter would take weeks to turn around, while an email can take minutes.
But is more communication desirable? I'm not sure it is. I believe that the more we substitute things like ICQ and email for face-to-face contact, the more we dilute the message. To give an example, I have a couple of friends who are in Europe, while I am in Canada. I think it is much more meaningful and fulfilling to send them a long and well thought out letter once a year than it is to exchange typical and mundane pleasantries on ICQ every night. In fact, I would rather not talk to the person than have a typical ICQ exchange.
"Hey, what's up?"
"Not much, you?"
"Not much. Got an essay due tomorrow."
"That sucks."
"Yeah."
"So what's up?"
ETC.
So I believe that the net is making us more isolated. We are communicating more than ever before, but never has the message been more insignificant. IRC and ICQ promote sound-bite communication. Email has in many cases become a crutch, or more accurately a shield, for docile and cowardly people. It is not hard to see why there are so many flames. Yet I defy you to find a handful of people who would actually defend their opinions in person.
And an on-topic question, does anybody know what McLuhan thinks of the new media? I would be very interested to know.
--
Yours truly.
You all are like addicts. Thinking up all the excuses of why you are not an addict, and someone else is.
I will make the first move:
"I am an internet addict. It started out innocently enough. I took my first download back in 1986 from a Clarkson computer center machine. But after that first taste, I couldn't help myself. I bought a 1200 baud modem, but that wasn't enough. I mortgaged my VW to buy a 3600 baud modem, and my dog then left me. I really started going downhill fast in 1994 on a Windows 3.1 machine running Super TCP/IP, when the company that I work for installed a T1 line. Since then I have become more and more addicted, spending hours reading technology web sites, catching up with friends via email, and improving my job skills. I am so ashamed of myself that I have come to Web Addicts Anonymous (WAA!) for your support and help.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
It occurs to me that the people doing these studies have to be extroverts. (Extroverts are people who seem to gain energy from being around other people; introverts are people who gain energy from doing things -- including just resting -- without other people around. See http://keirsey.com/pumII/ei.html for more.)
This study is blatant in its disregard for introverts like me. Being around other people is often a physically and psychologically draining experience for me. This is because, for whatever reason, spontaneous conversation does not come easily. I find myself searching for a topic or something interesting to say. When I finally find something, the moment has passed, or (worse yet) I have to then edit it to make sure it doesn't sound self-absorbed and that I have formatted it correctly so that it is really understandable. This makes it very difficult to "mingle" at a party, and I end up having that "alone in a crowded room" feeling.
When I write something, however, the words flow more easily because I know that I can and will go back and edit later, before sending/publishing.
Because of this, the 'net has been an indispensible tool in my attempt to communicate and do so effectively. If I had to conduct all business conversation in person or on the phone I would be much less effective than I am using email.
The same is true for certain personal communications. Live, real-time conversation is difficult and draining. Therefore, I'm not as likely to do it. By using email to contact friends, I'm much more likely to actually stay in touch. Since email is so much quicker than the post, real conversations can happen without taking weeks to finish.
So, while the extroverts may look at folks using the internet and say, "Argh! They have no human contact," the introverts look at them and say, "Hey! They're finally able to talk to people."
--- but I don't want a "sig".
I've got to say, most of you all are pathetic. Katz is still the same illiterate, non-techie hanger-on, springboarding himself to success on your backs that he's always been, but he writes one article that panders to you and deigns to finally contirubte to the forums, and you're ready to give a big, wet, sloppy in the bus bathroom.
Dissociated Press - Dateline February 17, 2000. A study released today by the National Organization of Lettuce Investigation and Forensic Examination (NOLIFE) revealed a shocking connection between lettuce consumption and time spent with families. The study, which has been fully endorsed by both the ASPCA and PETA as not harmful to Alaskan sea horses, concluded that people who eat lettuce tend to spend more time with their families than surfing the net, watching tv, exercising, etc. Not surprisingly, family members who did not consume lettuce, that is, they didn't take the time to eat their salads, spent up to 30% less time at the table than their herbivorous relatives. This news, which comes as a stunning and bold response to the recent studies which claim that dogs and the internet are bad for friends and families, promises to bind Americans together at entirely new levels. The Lettuce Enthusiastists of America Foundation (LEAF) has expressed its complete support for the study and promises to launch a multimillion dollar ad campaign promoting their leafy vegetable friend. Unfortunately, some parties have expressed concern with the commercials, stating that time spent watching them on TV will take away from the family regained by eating lettuce in the first place. What the future of family relations will be after this startling salad toss study is uncertain. As for this reporter, I'll take a side of crutons with my family.
Jose Ensalada
1000 Island Boulevard
Caesar, Italy
Windows is going the way of phlogiston...
Can you really call any indirect form of communication socializing?
I don't care how many chat rooms you hang out in or how many people you've meet via ICQ. If the person can't reach out and touch/hug/grab/punch the other participant during the conversation, it's indirect. And being indirect you can't be picking all the cues a person gives off that really define social interaction. So how can you call it socializing?
It's very disturbing that people can substitute an internet chat room for human contact. This is why a great many people feel that this technology is dehumanizing. People fall out of practice being people when they never see another person.
Thanks! Results will be published the American Journal of Moderators (AJM).
But without the net, it would be much worse. I simply wouldn't be in touch with anyone. The net doesn't replace what I would have otherwise been doing, it creates something for me to do. I know this because at various points in my life without a computer, I would spend too much time watching TV or playing video games or what have you.
The study was done wrong. Those more likely to use the net are also more likely to be lonely in the first place. The study says that people who spend more time on line spend less time with friends. The reverse is what they really discovered. Those who spend more time with friends spend less time on the computer.
Does it matter?
I enjoy talking to them and they with me. We have lots of fun together on the net. These are people I never would've met in person as they are scattered about the globe, while I hate the hassle of airports and rental cars and travel.
Let's turn the question around: Are internet-phobic people with only local friends "isolated" because all their friends are from the same area, think alike, live alike, work together, etc., and therefore don't bring up any new points of view or help expand one's mind by exposing one another to radically different cultures and ideas? Having only local friends thus limits your world view. Now who is really isolated? I wonder.
I met my wife through the Internet several years ago. I have regular contact with my ordinary friends using IRC-type software. And I've had contact and made friends with people around the world thanks to the Internet -- people I never would have met otherwise.
Does engaging someone in a lengthy telephone conversation constitute interaction? If so, then what is the difference between sitting there with a handset pressed to the side of your face, and sitting at a computer with your fingers on the keyboard...or even using an Internet phone?
Ultimately, junk studies like this might serve an educational purpose: to remind people that something labelled a study does not necessarily constitute an irrefutable fact. That a study can have biases to support the agenda of the people behind them or the people who pay for them. That a single study means absolutely nothing until it is confirmed by independent researchers in an effort to duplicate the findings while eliminating confounding factors.
Other surveys have indicated a 59% increase in the number of men that look like Brad Pitt..
When I first got online many years ago (BBS's, not the net), I discovered that there was this huge proportion of deaf people online. It was actually pretty c00l - though when they came to real-time gatherings, most of the rest of us couldn't talk to them directly, but online, no interpreters were needed.
If I'm ICQing an aunt 50 miles away, one of my best friends 300 miles away, meeting new people thousands of miles away, I AM NOT BEING ISOLATED! You lovers of breathing the recycled air of mouth-breather, sharing the smell of flatulence and the ability to out-shout your opponent in an argument can go screw yourselves. There is very, very little benefit to face to face communication, ESPECIALLY in family situations. Nothing prevents you from being as expresive and sincere online besides the inability of most people to conceive of the medium (al the simple stuff adds up like no caps lock, use correct grammar when possible, etc).
And, to close, I'd like to say that houses isolate people more than the net. Before we had houses we had to sleep on our neighbors while they screwed! Now THAT was human closeness!
You all living in houses are antisocial hermits! You're probably going to shoot your classmates or something....
Urgh, I need a beer.
Esperandi
You seem to have shyness confused with introversion.
Being an INTP I know what I am talking about. Being introverted basically means you have a preference for internal rather than external stimulus. Being shy means you feel uncomfortable around people you don't know well. You can usually overcome shyness, but you will almost always stay an introvert.
I use my various net connections to keep in touch with friends during the day and plan social gatherings such as lunches, dinner plans, movie plans, and soforth. Without this connectivity to friends, I'd be at work, bouncing phone calls off of 5 or more people, trying to get lunch plans organized.
And because we don't watch TV that makes us lonely? The only times I resort to the mindless drivel that is TV today is when everyone's out of town and there's nothing to do...
People bicker and argue when they feel hemmed in. When they don't have those walls around them, there is a chance that they'll actually be a lot more pleasent to be around, and also that they will get more out of the interaction.
Personally, I'm going to wait until someone bothers to do a study on the stuff that matters, rather than on the numbers which don't.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Now, I'll admit that I'm a bit of an introvert. I feel, however, that my previous overuse of the computer/net has pushed me farther and farther towards an unhealthy level of introversion.
IMHO, moderation is important when discussing personality traits. You don't want to be too much of an introvert nor a sociopathic extrovert; it's far better to be just mildly in one or the other camp.
Like I've mentioned in another post in this thread, I know people for whom the net defines their social life -- talking with people on Everquest or a MUD is the only form of social interaction they get. I can't see how that could possibly be healthy -- it leads to a loss of basic social skills and tends to be accompanied by a lack of exercise and (sometimes extreme) weight gain. Some /.'ers might see themselves in this and/or might think that this is an okay way to live if you want to, but I can't imagine that shutting yourself off from society is the road to mental health.
Granted, I'm citing extreme examples here. It can be seen, however, in more mild cases in one form or another.
Let me wrap up by suggesting that people use the net to avoid person-to-person interaction. You can argue that emailing someone is just like talking to them at dinner, but it's a pale substitute. Net-based interactions are not just "safe", but they allow you to reduce the person you're interacting with to just an object, an abstraction.
There must be more to life than that.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
To think, the money I spend on my ISP could be money spent in a bar while listening to my RL friends drone on about work and bad relationships, all the while inhaling second-hand smoke and toxifying my liver!
I spend a lot of time in Real Life, and except for being a parent the rest of it is highly overrated. Unless you're much more fortunate than I am, daily life is tedious, the diversions are way too few and very far between. Responsibilities, for I'm a responsible Jack, don't allow for the sort of life-enriching experience I'm guessing the researchers at Stanford think we should have. There's no time for it.
And please, no argument about 'you'd have time if you weren't online.' As my online time is carved out of my work day, that isn't the case for me. Batch processes run, and Jack can slip into /. and it's ok because otherwise I'd be staring at a blank monitor. Kind of hard to work a trip to the Cote d'Azur into an eight hour day and be back in time to make dinner for the little one.
If that necessary RL interaction could be with my online friends, that would be great! But the Net is going to have to be a substitute for that.
Jack
We admitted we were powerless over Slashdot--that our lives had become unmanageable.
Came to believe that Karma greater than ours could restore us to sanity.
Made a decision to turn our will and our posts over to the care of Taco as we understood Him.
Made a searching and fearless moderation of our threads.
Admitted to AC, to ourselves and to the other 500, 000 Slashdotters the exact nature of our flames.
Were entirely ready to have Hemos remove all these negative karma hits.
Humbly asked Roblimo to remove all moderation.
Made a list of all persons we had flamed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Made amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure the karma rating.
Continued to take other posters inventory and when we were wrong promptly denied it.
Sought through trolls and flamebait to improve our off-topic contact with Slashdot, as we understood it, posting only for knowledge of nerd news and the stuff that matters.
Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Slashdotters, and to practice these principles in all our posts.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
While I'm certain you must be joking, I still can't help but respond.
;)
Your argument doesn't exactly hold up. It is ilogical to say someone is something simply because they deny it.
If I were to call you a VB programmer, you might deny it and respond with reasons you are not. However, that in no way implies that you are a VB programmer who hasn't come out of the closet. You might be, but you might not be--the truth can't be determined from the fact you deny it.
Or maybe I'm just an addict making more denials.
This sig is false.
The word lonely has two definitions. One corresponds roughly with the definition used in this study - physical solitude. While it is not difficult to imagine many Netizens as lonely in this sense, I really can't think of regular Net users who fit the second, more important definition: "Dejected by the awareness of being alone." (Definitions from the AH3.) The Internet does have interesting implications for personal psychology - as recent discussions about Internet addiction have shown - but by far, its ability to keep people connected and involved with other people outweighs this dubious loss of physical interaction. What's more, for people condemned to physical solitude by old age, ailing health or other conditions, the Internet can be a lifeline that lets them interact with more freedom than ever before.
What about the professors' other fear - that the Internet will alter our civil society beyond repair? Perhaps they fear we will all become soulless hermits, surrounded by our machines and isolated from other people, like in Asimov's Naked Sun . But is our civil order really threatened by something we choose to do, on our own, because it pleases us? The end of feudal communities, the flight to suburbia, the break-up of the nuclear family - these were all social trends which resulted in people farther apart from one another physically. Only because this latest trend - our ability to contact others anywhere, anytime, without leaving one location - involves technology are the Cassandras clucking. The important thing to remember is that, to the extent increasing Web use is a trend at all, it is caused by millions of individual people deciding for themselves what they want to do; that makes it a pleasant and unprecedented expression of our freedom.
And this leads to my final point: What do these professors think we need to change? Who do they think should make the decisions for us? Should a panel of professors make rules saying, "People should spend no more than X hours online each day"? Any time a new study comes out claiming to descry some evil trend technology encourages, we should eye it suspiciously. More often than not, such studies have sinister implications for our freedom to pursue happiness as we wish.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
I don't deal with social groups well in person. I am fine with small interactions, 2 or 3 people, and I can do public speaking and/or teaching, but it's really not my thang to be real outgoing in meat life. What I do know how to do is stuff I specifically learned to do and isn't the most comfortable thing in the world, as I'm basically a very introverted person.
LOTS of people, geeks or not, are very introverted people. Being online is a way to begin interacting with other people in an "introverted" way. Cause hey, you're at home alone focused on this machine in front of you, so you can take the time to explore internal landscapes before responding in a way that you can't do face-to-face.
Myself... there were several major advantages to online interaction beyond the fact that I got to connect in my prefered introverted mode. First off, in my very first chat I found several other Heinlein fans - more than I'd met offline in my entire life. Online was a place where I could sort by similar itnerests much more eaisly than real life, particularly for eclectic and unusual interests.
Secondly, online I could have a public conversaiton with a group and multiple private conversations simultaneously. You can't do this offline. Even sitting in the same physical room with the same people isn't as good, because you can't participate in many threads at once offline.
Third, while I can't type as fast as I can think, I can type a LOT faster than I can talk. Online communciation allows me to increase the quantity of my communicaiton tremendously.
Connecting with people online *IS* connecting with people. As many folks do, I have many acquaintances, but only a handful of very close friends. Of my 4 most intimate relationships, 3 of them I originally met online - 9, 7 and 3 years ago, respectively. Only one was originally met in meat life, and that was through one of my online friends who worked at the same company as him.
George
First, the most glaring one is the inclusion of television viewing. Television is probably the most intellectually worthless, un-social and passive activity one can engage in (that isn't to say one should never watch television; after all, the occasional ice cream is great fun even if it is nutritionally worthless, but too much ice cream leads to obesity). Just about any Internet activity is more social, more interactive, and more stimulating. There is good reason to believe that the Internet primarily displaces television viewing time, and that's altogether the best thing that can happen.
The Internet also displaces traditional newspaper reading. Good: newspapers have had a hold on the information business far too long. The Internet offers more variety of information and more ability for dialog than traditional newspapers.
Another issue, of course, is that the study does not appear to take into account social interactions over the Internet.
Even if the study had found that there is a negative correlation between time spent on personal social interaction and time spent on the Internet, that doesn't imply a causal relationship.
I think a study like this needs to be carried out with great caution and without bias. From what has been reported, the study does not appear to support the conclusions attributed to it. And based on its likening of non-social activities like television viewing and newspaper reading in the category of "social interaction", it seems like the authors of the study had definite biases.
The study basically just seems to be saying that the Internet is taking away time from the things that people used to do. Well, big surprise. If you spend a few hours on the Internet per day, that's bound to happen. As long as it's television and newspaper time, I think that's hardly a loss. And it seems pretty likely that the Internet causes people to read and write more than in the past, as well as exposing them to new ideas. And that's a big win from my point of view.
I cannot possibly imaginge how I could keep up with all my friends if it was not for the internet. In fact, I can't remember how I kept up with them before....probably the phone. I have a bunch of friendships that would be dead if they were not on e-mail life support. You know, all either of you do is send jokes back and forth to each other and occasionally attach a titbit of personal info.
The internet helps keep me rounded. I know some people that try to keep busy all the time. If a night comes along that they can't find anyone to go out with they have a breakdown. That's obviously not healthy. With the net, I can be with whoever I want and put the others off until later and they're not offended by it. Sometimes I just don't feel like replying to my mother's e-mail right away so I'll let it sit in the inbox. Did I mention how cool the internet is? :)
The time I spend downloading files and playing non-internet game is just personal time. Time I spend with just myself, which I find to be very relaxing and very much needed from time to time. Kind of like a de-stressing session. What is the difference between personal time spend on a computer, or playing with a dog, reading a book, or whatever floats your boat? Nothing. Why we choose to do what we do in our personal time is part of what defines who we are. I have no problem with these differences, but I suppose that some people will not be happy until we are all borg-like barbie clones.
Well, you are. The problem lies not in the fact that you're an addict, but that people don't seem to realize what an addict is.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, to addict oneself to something is "to surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively". An addict (the noun) is simply a "devotee".
People are addicted, in the strictest sense, to all kinds of things -- chocolate, the morning paper, stamp collecting, C programming.
The word, however, has a pernicious pejorative use as someone who devotes him/herself to something to the point of causing him/herself (or others) harm. This is convenient to people who are disturbed at what someone does -- they can label them an "addict" and suddenly that person loses the right to do what they are doing.
This mechanism is most evident in American attitudes toward drugs and drug addicts. (Many of whom do injure themselves and others for their addictions; many, however, do not.) However, the same thing is at work all over our society.
Some of the most effective members of society have been addicts -- some things can only be accomplished by obsessive devotion to a cause. Addiction, by definition. Ted Williams was addicted to hitting baseballs. Most of the people in public office -- heaven help us all -- are addicted to politics. (As opposed to fair government addicts, whom I would gladly elect.)
But it doesn't have to be an obsession. It can simply be a habit. I'm an email addict, by that definition; I check to see if there's something new all day, whenever I think about it. I'm not obsessed about it; it's just easy to check, and keeps me up-to-date on correspondence. So I've cultivated the habit. If I weren't addicted to email, a lot of people would be irritated that I didn't do something for them in a timely manner.
Next time someone calls you an "internet addict", ask them if they have a favorite TV show. Or if they enjoy their job. Or if they're married. Show me someone totally unaddicted to something, and I'll show you someone with no hobbies, no passionate attachments, no connections to anything -- someone, in short, with real problems.
phil
Friend of mine met someone in a newsgroup. Needed my help to get a chat set up. A few months later he took a vacation, met her. Not long after that they got married.
:-)
It was strange meeting her and saying, "You know I was the guy that showed your husband how to use newsgroups, and then how to use chat?"
BTW you are the only person that I have seen describe a past long-term live-in boyfriend as, "ex-common-law husband".
Cheers,
Ben
PS Good luck on your marriage. I would try to think of some good advice, but I remember how much that sort of thing irritated me a decade ago next Tuesday..and yes, there is a reason that I can name that date so easily...
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
"...a full 92 percent [of dog owners] go on the Internet specifically to interact with other dog owners."
But, Rob R. Barron, guy behind the parallelling dog study states, "So many people, just wasting their days, not interacting with their fellow human"
So, just who and what are these other dog owners?
[fwiw, I agree with H, it's amusing]
On a more serious note, this does raise some interesting points. As stated a few posts up, by Slashdot-Terminal, it seems to largely be those who are in the older age bracket (though not exclusively so... afterall, I'm here ;) But even within that bracket, you get isolationists. Now, I'm no statician, and haven't dealt with statistics since... I'd rather not admit how long ago HighSchool was :) ANYhow, what I have noticed, and what many of these studies seem to never delve into, is that those who grew up with and around computers seem to have an easier time using them for comminicative and solcial purposes. I, for instance, remember growing up with such beasts as the Sinclair, Zenith Heath, and TI-99. When modems became readily available in my area, those of us who had been the computer-weenies nearly suspended for hacking into school records from the computer lab (Ha! _I_ had 8088's and 386's in MY Highschool!) started forming BBS communities. Many of my longest lasting and most solid freindships were developed Back in the Day. Ah for the sound of my new, blazingly fast 2400baud... Dang, I keep digressing :) By contrast, the majority of our classmates throughout the state school system were NOT connected. To them, we would go home and hole ourselves up with our computers, never to be seen outside of school. Were we actually isolated? No, but to the non-geeks, we appeared so. :) :) from trying to enter a world they do not, and likely never will, fully grasp or understand (note: If you are one of these people who came in relatively late in the game, and did manage to find your niche, then kudos! That statement applies to you not), but keep them in the "real" world they know how to interact with and otherwise be a producing member of society.
And so I get to my point: Now, we have a wide range of generations who suddenly find themselves feeling as though the computer is being forced upon them; if they don't get a computer, don't get connected, somehow they'll be left out. Some manage to find out there IS community, IS interaction & whathaveyou out here in the digital realm, but many more never do. To the masses, the internet and the web are synonymous. Especially now with web-based e-mail interfaces, people do not realize just how limited port 80 is. Usenet, irc, online multiplayer games such as Diablo or Quake, MU*'s... all foreign concepts. Now their children, or at least it would seem a good many of them (again, I've done no formal study on this, so this is really all tounge-in-cheek), have at one point learned about these things, and communicate with peers through them. I can see where problems can arise from this, all with regards to internet censorship and "protecting our children" [protect from what?], but that's a whole other article
Anyway, back to my point; a lot of these studies seem to be run by the people who did NOT grow up with these mediums, do NOT understand how it could be a form of community and interaction, and thus are not qualified to properly study it's unique social structure at this time. Likewise, it may help steer those who otherwise WOULD end up mindless zombies (please be refraining from your luser=mindless zombie jokes, tempting as they are
So, do I agree with this study? No, it is incomplete, failing to take into account all aspects of net use. Do I think this is a useful study? Yes, but not for the reasons intended by the researchers.
I should go now, for I have rambled enough on company time :)
--
Xiphos
Especially the part about the researcher's last name.
"A shrubbery?"
Kudos on that!!
Take where I am from. A floating 26 sq. miles rock floating in the Atlantic where most people are so fixed into 'stereotypes' and conservative that if you dare act like, sounds like, look like 'different' prepared to be black balled..
The net has been a great export for the few here like me so don't fit the 'average joe' character here. I agree spend a great time on the net isn't healthy but it's better than turning insane in a society that cant accept you or you.
Later.
Were we lonely and isolated before getting on the net? I was. The net has helped.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I don't think that spending lots of time online causes people to spend less time with friends and family. Rather, people who tend to spend little time with friends & family are the ones who spend lots of time online. If the internet had been widely available when I was in middle school, I would have spent immeasureable time on it, because I had few friends or other interests. Even now in college, I spend a lot of time on the 'net simply because I have nothing else to do.
MoNsTeR
The net provides social contact that these people don't realize. just because I don't call up someone and talk to them doesn't mean that I isolate myself. I get on IRC nearly every day to talk with friends that I have made. The net makes it easy to meet people. for instance, I can get on IRC and go to a room where I know people have similar interests to the ones I do. I don't have to worry about things like how I look and such. The net gives the social advantage that people live on the net without any social stereotypes involved. The only thing that matters is intelligence and what you say. Your true colors show on the net where they wouldn't show otherwise. It isn't isolation, it's just a different form of being social.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
in that case email and talk are about the only way to have any meaningful and frequent interaction with family. bet they didn't take that into account, huh?
- mark (speaking from personal experience)
MODERATORS!!!, Off-topic yeah, but this is really funny, bump him up a little.
Thank you
it is my understanding that this study shows that people who use the internet are less likely to have lots of face to face contact with other people. this does not mean that the internet causes loneliness (as the media would like to spin it). i think there is probably less opportunity to interact with other people face to face if you're online, but so what??? so our society and human interaction is changing? i agree with the other threads that using the internet does not equate to loneliness. this is just another attempt by people who don't understand the technology to cast it in a bad light (a trend that is becoming all too common these days).
I've just finished writing an undergrad dissertation on the linguistics of one particular type of Internet chat (telnet talkers, to be precise), which involved doing a lot of background research on net communication in general, and I agree with every word FreshView said. This study frankly makes my blood boil because it's Just Wrong. If the Net contributes to social isolation, why are there 151 alt.support.* newsgroups and countless support groups, women's groups, fan organisations and so on based on the web? Why does chat- that's real-time interaction with real, live people, folks- make up a ludicrously large percentage of total bandwidth usage[1]? Why do the users on all the talkers and BBSs I use spontaneously organise RL meets?
And think about, say, a transvestite living in a small, provincial town. Sometimes the Net can be the only line of contact with people who won't censure or ostracise you for being different. I really think the Net can be a gateway to finding a group where you belong, as well as the best way to stay in touch; I've even seen people learning how to socialise effectively through experiences on the net. (Hey, it helped me ;)
Archaea
[1] I can't remember the precise figure, 28-30% maybe, and I don't know how it was arrived at either, but I think it was cited in a book edited by Susan Herring called 'Computer-mediated Communication [blah blah long academic subtitle blah]', published in 96.
Consider: If you were going to blindside your s/o and dump them, what do you think would be the easiest way?
Remember, I didn't ask which you would do, just which would be easiest to do. I suspect that tied for the easiest would be the email and letter, followed by a phone call, with the "in person" method being the most difficult.Why? Well, from your perspective, each provides a barrier between you and the other person. In person, you have to see exactly how the dumping effect the other -- any pain, betrayal, tears or hurt are there for you to see, knowing that you've caused it. Over the phone, you can at least hear these things, even if you can't see their face or look them in the eye. Email and letters, however, provide the ultimate in abstraction. You don't have to see their immediate reaction or emotions; you might get a "You Bastard/Bitch" response, but that's far easier to deal with than immediate pain.
I'm not trying to dwell on breaking up -- this abstraction concept will apply for whatever emotion you consider -- happiness, love, etc. Would you talk to you s/o over the phone or over the dinner table?
I suspect that people use this advanced level of abstration to avoid socializing. Over email or IM, the other person is reduced to an object or an idea, often with no face to go along with it. That's why people can flame so terribly and say things they never would in real life -- it's not just because you're not afraid of getting a broken nose, but because that person is not fully a person to you.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Using the Internet rather than watching TV is not a bad thing. TV is passive, Internet has at least a minimal active element, and at most a completely active element in that you are involved in communicating with other people in real-time.
The number one internet activity is mail. Everybody uses it to
So many people I have known spend huge ammounts of time in front of a TV and that just can not be good for you.
I think that people should choose activities that lend balence to their lives. That they find rewarding. For some this is face to face interaction but for others it is coding.
Live your own life.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
kayaking
That said, there is certainly an addictive quality to web surfing. When I first got my cable modem, it was hard to get my wife off the computer! It's common knowledge that computer games, especially online ones like EverQuest, seem to be even more addictive. I know one person whose marriage was ruined by playing EverQuest everyday. But then there are plenty more marriages ruined by gambling habits. I know others who spend so much time playing online that they rarely go out anymore. It's pretty hard to make new friends and meet women unless you physically leave the house. Maybe that's not important to them. Or maybe it is, but it's just easier not to try as long as there's something really fun to do instead--like playing games on the computer.
I personally think that it is possible to spend TOO much time online (i.e. to the detriment of one's social "well-being"). However, I think that it usually only becomes a real problem for those with addictive personality types. For most people, I think the internet promotes social interaction. It has even brought back the lost art of letter writing, except now we send it by e-mail instead of by post. It's far easier (and cheaper) to keep in touch with friends and family now than ever before.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
Did it ever occur to you that this topic DOESN'T JUST CONCERN TECHIES? It pretty much concerns everyone who uses the Internet.
Anyway, ignore this lamer, Jon. It's nice to see you in the discussions with us.
I myself find myself constantly battling between taking care of LinuxPorts.Com. The OpenBook project and being the webmaster of the LDP.
Beyond that, I still have to find time to make a living and provide for a family. Not just financially but emotionally.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
Check this out... I fit the typical profile of a loser:
:(
Over 30 y/o, never kissed a girl....... check
Knows he'll never kiss a girl.......... check
Always at home (even work from home)... check
Fattass who eats junk food............. check
No friends, no life, lives alone....... check
Eats all meals in front of computer.... check
Netsex on IRC.......................... check
alt.binaries.pictures.dogsex........... check
Reads slashdot all fucking day......... check
Only knows 1 person by name (pizzaman). check
Member of slashdot troll consortium.... check
Ok, ok, so I exagerated a little. But this is still pretty close to the mark.
I will go shoot myself now.
What is supposed to be better about seeing friends and family in _real_ life? Is the fact fact you can see them, hear them etc.
- -------
In that case what about blind/deaf people!?
Sitting in front of the TV for a few hours every evening with family does NOT count as "quality time" (I hate that phrase)
But I would worry about the 'net decreasing proper socialising - nightclubs, down the pub with your mates etc. I suppose I would define proper socialising as where you meet NEW friends, wherever that is or no matter what the method of communication.
And a bit of fresh air and exercise wouldn't go amiss.
-----------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
The only reason I'm not around my friends as often
is the fact that we're busy, or their parents have interveined and do not wish them to leave their home.
The Internet doesn't limit me in my social life. In fact, it has probably enhanced it (although it took about 4 or 5 years, since I couldn't communicate with everyone on it before)
News Flash! New study concludes that University professors are more concerned with PUBLISHING a study, than with reaching worthwhile conclusions!!
So the net gives people something else to do besides socializing. So what? It's no different than television, or book for that matter...
"That there Guttenberg is polluting the children's minds, keeping them from fornicating in the corn fields..."
Perhaps another point of view is needed. These researches seem to presume, or at least imply, that net-people SHOULD spend lot's of time with other humans in meat-space. They seem to suggest that being a social butterfly is good and normal, while being an introverted thinker is somehow inferior.
I wonder at what coctail party they discovered this... Oh, wait, it was done late at night, poring over print-outs all alone, eyes blurry with statistical findings.
News Flash! New study finds that behavioral researchers are asocial introverts. They should be profiled and monitored, just in case they all turn into unabomber copycats. Remember, Ted Kaczynski had a PhD in math, and was an introvert.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
From my (introverted) point of view, the net (e-mail, chat, icq, etc.) makes a poor substitute for real human contact, there's something about being in the same room with friends, hard to describe it, but cannot be found anywhere.
:-)
Of course, the net hides my true identity, so I can't be judged and harmed by my peers (my introversion fear), of course I can get atacked (flamed, etc.) but seem easier to ignore beacuse ther isn't true human interaction because I always have the control, I can get in and out wherever I want whitouth really caring about the others (thats explain the agressivity, there's little responsability against the others).
Sorry about my english, i'm not a native speaker
I fear we're in a climate ripe for legislation to make it "illegal" to contact minors on the net without parental permission. Of course, the "but how can you know and what if kids lie about their age" issue will be doged by the wording of the law to make all net friends a risky venture.
I wish I had online friends. Even friends in general would be good. I try saying hello to people online, but usually I get no response.
This was a somewhat boneheaded study, but the knee-jerk reaction from the online evangelists is, as usual, equivalent to a 5 yr. old covering his ears with his hands a screaming becasue he doesn't want to hear what's being said.
Here's the awful truth: Face to face human interaction is, and always will be, far superior to virtual interaction. We are social creatures. We perform our best in social environments. Those activities which truly do benefit from being solitary, such as coding, are NOT the purpose of life. Technology is just a TOOL, whose purpose is (or at least should be) to advance what is really important; the meaningful interaction of people.
The internet can of course significantly advance this goal at times, but for a growing number of people it is instead being used to SUPPLANT the goal. This is bad. It is equivalent to how the original purpose of the automobile (make getting around easier=more free time) got perverted into the current state where we have become enslaved by it, much to the detriment of both our time and our wallets, not to mention all the other social and environmental ills spawned.
Sometimes I seriously fear that this is happening with the internet. Everbody seems to be aiming for virtual reality, when the proper goal should be AUGMENTED reality. We do not need to replace the world, we just need to improve it. Wouldn't it be far nicer to sit in a coffee shop with friends and discuss something that cought your eye on your unobtrusive heads-up display instead of sitting in your basement fragging these same friends accross town?
One final note that often goes unmentioned: An important part of life is encountering the unexpected, or even the undesirable. If your reality consists entirely of things you actively requested and sought out then you are not living, you are just existing. There is very little experience of the unexpected or undesirable when offensive or tangential information can easily be dispatched with a quick click. It's not a lot of fun to see some homeless guy slowly dying from alcoholism, but if you never leave the house you won't even know he exists. And that's truly shameful.
We all met through chatting on the internet, where we also talk with Americans, Scots, Aussies, New Zealanders, Brazillians, an Armenian and others.
I originally moved to Canada, because I came over to visit another friend who I met over the internet.
Me & my friends certainly know a lot more about the culture of other countries than I would have done without the Internet.
Ok...how many outcasts do we have out there?
Come on raise your hands you know you are *grin*
I don't think that surveys like this take into account that there are a lot of internet junkies that would not be doing anything else with thier time if they did not have the internet.
I know that for me it has actually helped build my self esteem and get me to talk to people in the 'real' world more. In my area I do not find many people that I can relate to. On the internet I really don't have to search that far. Ezines, message boards, ICQ....etc.
For younger people this is extremely important for building a good self image. Nerds, outcasts, goths, punks.....we all can find others like us.
Isn't that more valuable than sitting in front of the television with people that you love dearly, but will never be able to provide that peer acceptence that is so important to us as human beings?
For once in their lives the physical isolation of this beautiful section of British Columbia is not an issue for them. Now They can keep up to date with the happenings of their scattered family, make friends, talk to neighbors all without the difficultys that have plauged them all their lives.
As for myself I spend at least an hour or more a day IM, and a dozen or so emails each day talking with scattered family. This study's results are not something that (in my experiance at least) are true.
You're just like me ^^
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
AOL IM: jeanlucpikachu
[o]_O
I read a post like this and then look at the Stanford study and it's just disorienting..Don't they talk to people like rabitd? I hope a thousand people post stories like this here, and I'll be responsible for printing these posts out and delivering them to Stanford. This illustrates to me why places like this give people achance to tell their own stories and not be "described."
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...is the idea that old forms of culture -- newspapers, commercial TV -- are a means to judge human interaction. Is shopping at a mall more human than shopping online? I suspect this is, in fact, part of the now fairly long struggle of these institutions to ward off the effects of the Net, like villagers in Transylvania holding up crosses to keep Dracula away.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Ok... from what I've read this study is a rather paranoid discourse, but didn't you know people in college who justified it?
I know that there were a bunch of people who got to college and started spending all their time in the computer labs, sacrificing food, grades, RL friends for the title of "ISCA Queen". People who vanished into MUDs... You hear about them Freshman year ( that was 93-94 for me), and then I stopped hearing about them. I'm not sure if that's because they got better, or just dropped out of society.
People can choose to socialize in RL or on the 'net. But in RL the people around you eventually say "It's 1:30 in the morning. Leave me alone now." But there are always people on the 'net willing to waste time with you. And some people can't resist. Spend your *free* time however you want, but it is a problem if it interferes with your livelyhood.
The CBC ran a story about this saying that, on top of all the "antisocial" parts of the survey, that Internet users spent a whopping 59% less time watching TV.
I say, what?
I say again, what? A) When did watching TV become a social activity, B) when did watching TV become a useful way to spend time and C) what good reason could anybody have to want to "make up those TV-watching hours"?
ObligatoryTheOnionReference: Are your valuable TV-looking skills going unused?
I wonder when they'll survey people living alone to see how many of them spend Saturday night alone on the couch, in front of a TV, wasting those valuable "social hours".
--
Mike Hoye
That said, there are some sorts of social interaction that are better served in an electronic medium. Round-table discussions about a topic of interest, especially more intellectually intense and referentially rich ones, just work better in that medium. I have a tendency to get tongue-tied at times in person, especially in larger groups.
One sort of conversation that is possible in chat (I participate in private chat channels with bright, sophisticated and mature people, so YMMV) is the conversation-with-pasted-URLs - it isn't possible in real life to have that sort of real-time citing!
Make no mistake, I don't think that there's a replacement for F2F relationships when it comes to matters of personal growth and emotional health. Text doesn't convey the gestures of support and sympathy that are the basis of such relationships. But most social time isn't spent in that mode, anyway, and for the renaissance of the culture of the salon, the online world has a lot to take credit for.
ALONE ON THE NET Sounds more like a Rimjob report from TIME mag than something of a slashdot nature. Seems the more the net creeps into this petty paced world the more the nay sayers and shitmongers will seek to bring it down with thier slings and arrows of blandness. Of course Katz should take up this thread, It speaks to everything he has posted baout in the past. Here we have the loner( ie dangerous) computer using person versus the rest of normal (ie safe) society. Is it bad to be differnt? Is it wrong not to use and embrace the "normal" methods of communication between other beings? Of course it is. Being differnt is wrong. It is a slap in the face of the Warm Blanket of Societys calming, hence controling, forces and thus needs to be pounded down. A few years ago, when the net boom was just begining to crest, there were reportds about Net Addiction. "Normal" america could not fathom why a large chunk of the populace wasnt out line dancing, doing the mall walk, or sitting aournd waiting to be watch tv to find out how they should be feeling. Meet the new cause, same as the old cause. ITs more mortor shells raining down on our heads to pound us into some sort of compliance with the rest of society. Those of us who know this smile and laugh it off, those of us who are a little more prone to these atacks will fall into the Katz mode of thought and cry out with each faux attack. Coem on folks, this is 2000, get your heads out of the mass medias sphintcher and think for yourlseves.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
The internet is yet another layer of separation between humans. Yes, it is a wonderful tool. But it also makes it very easy to distance yourself from real life - especially for those who may lack well developed social skills. While email/chat/etc is nice, it's no substitution for face to face interaction. At least with the telephone you are interacting voice to voice - you can hear inflections that don't translate well to type (I don't care how many emoticons you use). But as I said, to truly to connect to someone, you have to be face to face.
The media loves to publish these here today gone tommorrow studies, on trinkets of human behavour. They are infamous for suggesting that correlation = casuation, even though anyone with some sense of science will know that to be false. Loneliness is a multi-faceted definiton, in this case they define it as not physically being w/ others. what about things like loneliness due to lack of intimacy? of course, getting into that requires you to have a quantifiable objective for poor intimacy, opening another can of worms. This study is like trying to predict what leaf falls first from a tree reliably, and it falls flat on its face.
It seems that performing nearly any of the activities that they use to decide that you're not socializing means that you're not doing any of the others. While I sometimes read the newspaper while listening to the TV (and watching when something catches my attention), I rarely
- watch TV and shop in stores (unless I'm shopping for a TV
:-)) - socializing with friends while I'm watching TV (that's rude)
- socializing with friends while reading the newspaper (that's really rude!)
Nearly all of these activities are mutually exclusive. If I say `yes' to one, I'm saying `no' to all the others. How does that affect their result, I wonder?If the author's of this study are watching this site, here's some reasons I do or don't engage in these ``social'' activities:
I looked at a few of the study's graphs and noticed that it appears that their conclusions would especially of interest to the phone companies. Horrible, horrible! People aren't talking to their friends and family on the telephone! Now neither my wife or I have seen a compelling need for a cellular phone yet (If I'd stayed in the consulting field I suppose that would change my mind) so the phone company thinks we're some sort of freaks of nature. Bet this study spurs the phone company to increase their advertising (and cold calls at dinner time). We'd much rather have high speed 'net access and do emails to friends and family instead of dropping everything and trying to carry on a converation while I'm frying bacon or giving the kids a bath (``Sorry I can't talk right now. Could you possibly call again at some other inconvenient time?''). Lately, it seems that no phone in the house, a high-speed internet connection (server in the basement), and an unlisted cellular phone would be the best choice for us. If we could only get affordable dedicated service in our area.
Finally, I saw one of the author's of the study on PBS and he was such a pompous #$%. Seemed to spend most of his time telling everyone that they were right and everyone else's studies were wrong. If you want to find out what's driving indicuduals away from their friends and families look to the ever increasing demands on our time made by businesses.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
That doesn't fly with me. You can have all the contacts in the world, but there is something to be said for physical interaction. The senses of touch, sight, smell, hearing - none of these are stimulated through the internet (no crude jokes - you know what I mean). As humans, we *need* that kind of interaction. Whether you agree or not is moot - this has been proven time and time again. Persionally, I would rather have a handful of friends that I physically interact with than hundreds that I will never *really* know in the real world.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
So, in the exact words of my parent post:
God knows I don't have a social life. But then again, I've never found the idea of getting wasted on a weekend night appealing. I've also found that
most people are simply so different from me that it is just not enjoyable to hang out with them. I don't spend time with my family since its so
dysfunctional. So I guess I'm a loner.
But without the net, it would be much worse. I simply wouldn't be in touch with anyone. The net doesn't replace what I would have otherwise been
doing, it creates something for me to do. I know this because at various points in my life without a computer, I would spend too much time
watching TV or playing video games or what have you.
The study was done wrong. Those more likely to use the net are also more likely to be lonely in the first place. The study says that people who
spend more time on line spend less time with friends. The reverse is what they really discovered. Those who spend more time with friends spend
less time on the computer.
I agree with your point, bit signal, your really showing some immaturity as well as your age. The /. community isn't made up entirely of zit faced college kids anymore. I'd say a good percentage of /.'s active community is made up of over 40 PHB's like myself, we're not geeks, but we are willing to learn. Seriously though, I agree with you on the whole culture shock, get used to it thought, but you really might try to broaden your view a little when it comes to both /. and life, I look back to the "good old days" when calculators cost 250 bucks, does this classify me as closed minded? no, just means that I'm older. So, lighten up a little.
I am an introvert - almost painfully shy. Yet I agree completely with the study. Online relationships are no substitute for the real thing.
...wondering if, just maybe, a prestigious institution like Stanford should be looking for better things to spend their money on? Surveys that point out the painfully obvious, however inaccurate, are a waste in any context.
Nonsense....
I KISS YOU!
howdy.
Quid rides? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. -Horace, Satirae
i have become so busy with my current (Internet/computer-related) job that ...
... who i had never actually seen in person
- i rarely have time to go to chat rooms
- i no longer idle on IRC
- i no longer get auto-op'ed in #unix
- my bot farm is severely depleted
- i broke up with my last girlfriend because she spent too much time chatting on ICQ with some guy in Canada
- i get email all the time from friends asking my why i no longer hang out at certain bbs's
- my parents call and ask why i never email them any more
- the last serious relationship i had involved a girl in France
- i frequently find myself "chatting" on internal work-related mailing lists and forums
- i have not had cybersex in years
-- ken williams
They include a third category: "Ambivert." At the time (this may have changed) they categorized these people, like me, as being people who are equally happy both in social environments and by themselves. They don't hand this classification out easily; I had to take different versions of the same exam three times before they gave me a marking just barely over the center line, leaning towards "Introvert."
What I like about your comment...
Cool. You know, I feel I've learned something about myself today. And by the way, I think the rest of your comments are dead on the money as well. Being an introvert IS NOT A SHAMEFUL THING!!! Introverts unite (but, ehrm, only ideologically, let's not actually get in the same physical place, yeah?)... :)
This is no different than when Radio or TV became a hit. Each in turn reduced the amount of time a family spent interacting with each other. This should have been expected. However, is it bad? Has the TV generation suffered from watching TV instead of interacting with family? This is a good subject for deabte, but not here.
I strongly beleive social skills and conversation CAN be learned and you CAN become comfortable with such things.
Its just a people interaction thing, and YES I think you need a degree of human interaction in your day. Or you lose touch with some important emotions.
Can you see me crying as I write this? Can you look into my eyes and hear my tone of voice and see how difficult something is to talk about to me?
Nope. Not unless you are a very eloquent and expressive writer and even then. A simple look on my face can convey more meaning than a well written paragraph. I like my time on the net as much as anyone else because I enjoy reading but it CANNOT and WILL not replace the fact that humans need personal interaction with other humans. Sure im interacting and I am making you think but I find it truly hard to beleive that you can find total personal fulfillment over the internet.
New study! Reading books replaces social interaction! People are spending more and more time "reading" -- that is, sitting in a chair or lying in bed and staring balefully at pieces of paper with ink markings on them. Frighteningly, the more time a person spends reading, the more time they will tend to spend in this deeply antisocial addiction.
Even more disturbingly, "readers" have been organizing themselves into "book-space" gangs called "colleges" and "unversities". The typical "student" can spend literally entire days in unhealthy print absorbed monomania.
Fortunately, a new goverment agency has been organized to combat this menace -- it is my great honor to introduce to you... Guy Montag.
Quid rides? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. -Horace, Satirae
For me, being on line is almost exclusively a social activity. I post to Slashdot, Usenet and several mailing lists. I am carrying on a correspondence with lots of people. In fact, I suspect that a subtle part of the appeal of the Free Software community is the desire to talk to people like ourselves. We aren't all socially inept just because we're nerds. We're intense and passionate about our interests, and they don't happen to be the same as those of the guys watching the game at the sports bar down the street.
I've talked about this before. The Net has made possible communities without location. Slashdot is an excellent example of that. We have quite a range of personalities here. We have a few shared interests about which our interest ranges from serious to passionate. But we speak the same language. I dug up an article,The Outsiders, last year about the difficulties that highly intelligent people ave socially. It debunks the theory that it is due primarily to social ineptitude. Instead, the author theorizes, with studies to back him up, that the problem is one of gradual alienation because of differing rates of development in childhood and different interests.
I have thought for years that most self-selecting non-mainstream interests tend to attract groups with an average intelligence higher than that of society as a whole. I emphatically do not mean that any given member of such a group is exceptional by association. But there are two reasons corresponding to the low and high ends of the spectrum. At the low end, there is a question of ability and opportunity. The self-selection process tends to weed out the least able. At the high end, the article that I cited above points out that the highly intelligent tend to have many interests, often too many for the time that they can devote to them. Thus, through both ability, and desire, they are more likely to participat in many interests.
One important fact to consider is that most human characteristics that can be measured quantitatively fall on a bell curve statistically. There are fewer individuals at the high and low ends of the curve. If the article (The Outsiders) is correct and there is actually a communication gap between people of radically differing intelligence, then finding people to talk to requires a larger population for people at the extremes. The Net does exactly that. Not only are there a huge number of people easily accessible here, but it is easy to find communities for nearly any interest.
Far from being a lonely place, the Net is perhaps the medium of choice for forming communities out of widely scattered people with unusual interests.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
So...
owning a computer makes one a hermit.
owning a dog makes one a hermit.
I have an Aibo. I'm doomed.
On the other hand, someone hooked you all up with some pretty good AI, so I'll keep coming back.
In April, my best friend (in person) and I are travelling from Florida to Tennessee to meet IRL with other gamers for a LAN gaming competition that will include Battlezone and Unreal Tournament. I would never have taken such a trip if it wasn't for online relationships.
This study sounds like just another way to hype the scarier potential aspects of the Internet (e.g. watch out or the next generation will be reclusive and socially retarded due to lack of social interaction.) BS.
In reality, nothing has changed except for the medium.
--Michael Maxwell
Now on the rural vs. urban topic it is true that urban dwellers (100k+ towns) will be enabled less, but they will be enabled. I know I have been. Communcation is alot easier for me now. True rural people will be helped the most, but this is not to say that the other 75% urban dwellers aren't going to be helped to it's just not going to make as much of an impact on their lives.
The point I was trying to make is that there is very little data to support the conclusions that this study implies: that the net has in some how negatively impacted interpersonal communication. Instead it seems that there is a large amount of contrary anecdotal evidence to suggest that were there a different methodology, different questions asked (perhaps less (net==evil & net communication != real communication)) then this study would arrive at conclusion's that more closely reflect what people are themselves observing.
It gets so tedious listening to all you people prattle on about this Brave New World we're in.
So far to date we have a set of nifty little communications, data processing, and entertainment tools that have made some small changes in how we spend some of our time. This is not a revolution. This isn't even much of an evolution. The digital arrival has yet to cause any kind of significant change in how we view ourselves or the world.
Don't believe me? Let's see, currently we have rampant conservativeism and intolerant religious fundamentalists, not just in the US, but all over the world. China is still arresting and abusing peaceful protesters. Nazi sympathizers are in positions of power in Austria. Fringe Muslim groups get more militant every day ( I said "fringe". No flame, please). Peace in the mideast is still a joke. Peace in the Balkans is still a joke. Peace in sub-Saharan Africa is still a joke. N. Irish self-rule looks like it will be a joke, which will lead right back to more bombings. Children are starving to death everywhere. AIDS is ravishing millions. etc. etc.
Oh, but wait! I can now email grandma & tell her about my new shoes! BY GOD IT'S A REVOLUTION!!! WE"VE CHANGED THE WORLD!!!
whatever...
I agree that the Net has communities, and ways to connect to other people however I'm not sure that these take the place of "true contact" physically being with another person.
The problem is that you are taking one extreme and forcing it to the other. And there is a happy middle ground where people use the net, they interact on the net but they realize that people they come in contact with probably aren't same as they would be if they were met in the physical world.
People on the net say things that they wouldn't say in real life because who cares what Joe Bob in Timbuctoo thinks about it.
The net is great and it is very useful, and its fun to come into contact with people that you wouldn't otherwise meet, however it will be sad day when people start staying glued to their computer screens with no contact at all with the physical world. I think the trick is keeping the virtual world and the real world separate and not spend too much time in either one
The Anti-Blog
SIGNAL 11 IS A KARMA FARMAR
Do I spend less time off-net than I used to? Absolutely. I used to spend all my time off-net since there was no net to be on (or no access, which amounts to the same result.)
Now I spend some (a lot?) of my time on the 'net. This doesn't just mean I'm pulled away from from the local area. It also means I communicate with people who are not local but share interests.
In a Big City there may a few hundred or maybe just a dozen folks with similar interests on some obscure subject (no, I won't give an example, chances are everyone has somet interest too obscure for the neighbors to know even exists). The problem, even in the Big City, is finding them. Now what about out in the boondocks? The nearest similarly inclined person may be a few hundred miles away.
The 'net eases this problem. Looking for something? Try a web search. Look in the newsgroups and search on deja or similar. Maybe see if there's an IRC channel on some network about the subject.
The problem of being Truly Alone ("Am I the *only* one in the world?!") is gone. The problem of communication is eased, and once people know each other even exist, then they can get to serious discussion -- and even meet.
Do I spend less time talking on the phone? Yep. Less *need* to do so when family emails and there is fairly common meeting on IRC. And friends (all over the globe) also communicate by email & IRC.
Sure, I speak to folks eyeball to eyeball and I do use the phone. But the people I actually share interests with aren't local, but on-line. And we do make the effort to meet up, in person, when we can. Just like family. Yes, family is wide spread by several hundred miles too.
So what does this study really say? It says "Go out and socialize with folks you have no (or few) interests in common with and have a bigger phone bill to accomplish what is already handled." Sure, voice is nice -- at times and when needed. Hearing 'nothing new' for a few nights isn't worth the long distance price.
Reading a paper or watching TV hardly seems a social activity, at least not very good ones. At least on line I'm actively exchanging thoughts (is debatable? -- only as much as they would be in person), not just having whatever 'entertainment' wash over me.
--
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
The world's spinning out of control as it is. I rarely watch news channels anymore, just skim CNN.com for important things. Everyone's dying, everyone's killing each other, the LAST thing I want is to walk around the world wondering if I'm gonna be a chalk outline in the next instant. And yeah I agree with whomever said that they are closer to family and friends. Perfect example: I have 11 aunts and uncles and 20+ cousins. Most of us are online and I found place that lets us have a family website for free. Chat, pictures, news, programs to share, funny stories, family trees...I'd never see them ordinarily since they live in New Mexico, California... I love these schleps who start in with the Big Bad Internet Ripping Away Community. Come ON. These are people who hiss and spit when the weather frizzes their hair. The same kind of people who bitched to have children removed (bodily of necessary, and the peasants rejoice) from theaters by 6pm are now complaining and pissing about how kids don't go OUT enough and the Internet is to blame. We're a high tech society. Sure, we don't take as many hikes as we used to. But isn't that a lucky thing since we're "developing" all the beautiful land left anyway?
The most interesting statistic is that more than half the world population doesn't live in an urban area.
You might want to double check that. I don't believe it is true any longer, as most 3rd world countries are rapidly urbanizing.
As for the other, I agree that it was a dumb article (and stated such in another post). What concerns me, however, is that many people here consider online socializing to be better than the real thing, which is something that I absolutely can not accept as a general rule. Yeah, there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of the world I must advocate real interpersonal interaction over the virtual.
Y'think? Maybe introversion isn't a disease to be cured, but another way of looking at things, perhaps superior at times? Hmmm? Mebbe?
"KARMA FARMAR?" lol :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do crave interaction, but have never found it. In high school, I had no friends. I had no common interests with anyone, and lived 30 minutes from school, precluding hanging out on weekends. I joined the army after HS, for adventure and comraderie. I did form lasting friendships in the army, but eventually everybody got out, married, or drifted away. I left the army, and wandered around. Street people are bullys. Most claim to be free thinkers and tolerant, but there is a very narrow opinion that is tolerated. Most are stupid too. I went to college. Most college people can hold a conversation, are somewhat smart. Unfortunately (overt and subconscience) arrogance and selfishness seem to be the norm. Now I have a job. I do not talk to my coworkers other that work-related subjects. I do not talk to my neighbors. I do not talk to anyone. I am as happy as I ever have been.
Personally, it does the exact opposite for me. "On-line" interaction seems to be completely devoid of that certain spice which permeats RL communications. Maybe it's the fact that you can't see the person's face, you have no idea what they are REALLY feeling or REALLY thinking about. I've long since noticed that in RL, the vast majority of people can't really fib about what's going through their minds all that much; the soul is painted on the face and in the eyes (with the exception of good poker players).
Electronic communication, for me, is so impersonal and unpleasant because it just seems to lack the basic inherent and inescapable honesty of body language (I'm not one for talking on the phone either).
This is really stating the obvious, but.... Since when does watching TV make you less lonely? Please --- before the 'net, probably the number one activity for lonely people was watching crappy reruns on late-night TV. I don't own a TV, and my life is all the richer. Also, how the hell does it matter if I read the Mercury news online or in print? I can see it now: "the advent of the telephone has made people's lives more lonely... People are spending more time on the phone than in face-to-face contact.... how can you receive a warm hug over the telephone?" This study further justifies my rejection of Stanford for graduate school.
Society is why I avoid society. Society here at the State University of West Georgia mostly consists of morons. Every other person is an Abercrombie and Fitch poseur, is in a frat or sorority, or is just a complete moron. there are no real intelligent people here.
:) But only because I feel I honestly can. I think most of the more dedicated computer "addicts" are such due to similar reasons. Not that we're all eliteist bastards, but mebbe there's not much else out there that interests us. IMO, sitting in front of the computer beats the hell out of hanging out at the mall or partying and frying your brain - especially when one of your primary interests is computers (which almost kinda makes this look like a catch-22).
:)
The first thought that crossed my mind when i read that the average computer user spends 5 hours a week looking at their mon was "5 hours a week? how about 5 a day?" I probably spend at least 7 hours a day lookin at the computer, mostly because there isnt much else to do around here.
So yeah, I'm blaming it on society
If there were more intelligent people around here, maybe I would spend more time away from the computer. If there was actually something to do around here, I would spend more time away from the computer.
But there's not, so I won't
Vorro
---------------------------
A wise man speaks because he has something to say.
A foolish man speaks because he has to say something.
____________________________
What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
"Make me one with everything."
Now leave me alone.
I've written often..ad nauseum, in fact, about the outlet the Net has offered for people who are being driven nuts by values in schools and society, and who use computing to find people who are like them, thus learning that they are not alone, and remaining sane. It's a lot of the point I was trying to make in "geeks". Even if you're not floating out in the Atlantic, smart and different people often feel isolated where they are..Now they can find people to keep from "turning insane in a society that can't (or won't) accept you.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Maybe circumstances keep us from a social life. I am a college student enrolled in Electronic Engineering. I study hard and rarely have time to go out to the movies or many parties. I am always near my computer and can chat on it while I do my homework. When I am doing my homework I couldn't be out anyways so it's not really taking away from my social life. Aww who am I kidding. My car broke down and instead of getting it fixed I just bought an 18.2 gig scsi drive for my linux box. I eat ramen for a month to be able to afford the latest and greatest GeForce 256 (soon to be replaced with the Voodoo5 6000). I guess I'm just a nerd. Well at least I'm in the right place right?
I think, like most other people, I have patterns of net use. For instance, when I was recently widowed, I was on the net A LOT. It was my support. At the time, I lived in rural Vermont and who was I gonna call at 3 am when I couldn't sleep?
:)
Then, when I got more of an "analog life," my use of the net dropped dramatically. Thus, I think they're looking at the wrong end of the equation.
Seriously, I think a lot of "face-to-face" time is WAY overrated. If being on the net means I'm at singles night at the local pub less, isn't that a good thing?
I also think introverts are more likely to be really heavy net users and may find *increased* socialisation. One of the problems of these studies is that they tend to use extrovert norms. For a lot of people, accolades are worth as much "warm fuzzies" as a hug, if not more. And yes, you CAN get a warm voice over the internet. Evidently they haven't heard of voice-over-IP.
That said, I think some people are probably overdoing it and harming themselves in the long run.
_Deirdre
I quite like ice cream. Especially French Vanilla. (Not just because it's french, I'll have you know; some very fine "french" vanilla is produced locally to the best of my knowledge.) Although I will grant thsat the occasional scoop of choco can be delightful (and there the french DEFINITELY have an advantage). I'd say I like ice cream and ice cream likes me. Well, some buckets do. Other's curse at me, accusing me of looking at them "in an odd way". Well, I don't! People just think that I'm looking at them because of my lazy eye. Well just don't look at my lazy eye!! You think I like it when people stare!? I don't!! I don't like it at all!! Just stop looking at my lazy eye!!! STOP LOOKING AT ME!! EVERYBODY JUST STOP!!!!!!
My opinion is, the more balkanization, the better! When we're out there calling people freaks, losers, idiots and misfits, don't then complain when they huddle up and form exclusive little internet communities and act like we don't exist. They're doing it because they found a relief from our abuse - they found a support system and a shield against us. They aren't the intolerant ones - we are, we've bombarded them with this stupid propaganda that their pierced ears or japanese animation or computer game enthusiasm, etc., is sick and undesirable. We're the ones inflicting all the intolerance on these guys, who is anyone outside to be jawing about "electronic cleansing" when we're thinning the herd on the backs of nonconformists 24/7?
If we would instruct young kids on the concept of open mindedness and tolerance in kindergarten, maybe we wouldn't have kids growing up and forming their own little protective, exclusive internet communities. If we did this, maybe there wouldn't be exclusive ethnic neighborhoods or gated communities or white flight.
I'll tell ya the real solution: there's nothing you can do. There'll always be asian and hispanic neighborhoods, there'll always be white flight, there'll always be gated housing areas, and there'll always kids who see each other as Charlie Brown or Eric Cartman and who will hate each other for no reason and thus form exclusive social groups as a buffer against each other. This study only proves the Internet is an extension of that basic fact.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Shoulda read the link before posting. 45% urbanized as of 1999. My bad.
Still, this number will pass 50% before long.
It seems to me that the internet is good at promoting contacts and intellectual interaction but not so good at promoting "quality time." I have found that the internet is very helpful in maintaining contact with distant friends and family, even those that normally don't write letters. They're a lot more likely to send a quick email every few days than they are to write a lengthy epistle every couple of months. The trouble, however, is that while people are writing to their distant loved ones, they aren't hangin' out. I don't mean that email in particular is causing this, I just mean that time spent online is time spent *not* sitting around talking, *not* going for a walk, *not* cuddling with a particularly loved one. Personally, I blame Everquest.
Personally I am not the Net BECAUSE I'd like to escape from ppl in RL.
HI !!!
I'm in college in the USA, and if anything, the amount of time I get to spend on the Inet has severely decreased since my high school days.
For one thing, I'm working hard to keep my GPA in a demanding major (CS), and I'm always on foot killing rats and running errands. Used to be last year that I'd put in an hour a evening to chat with my online friends, but I don't even get that now. I spend maybe an hour per week chatting just for the hell of it, either on ICQ or IRC.
So I'm a little pissed at Stanford and their report cause I let my Inet friends down by my long absences and they say that everyone else is netting it up.
I'm just cross, never mind.
Solution: give me some neural implants and a microwave tranciever so I can access the Datasphere (thank you Dan Simmons) without having to be in my room idling time away; I could net while I'm walking around campus.
Oversoul
I suspect that the growing proportion of "seniors" on the 'Net is actually accounted for by the fact that they have the financial resources to get online, rather than the extra time. A very large proportion of (American) youngsters live in poverty, remember?
In addition, many older persons are allowed access (free) to colleges and senior centers, where courses or speakers "hold their hands" as they take their tentative first steps online. I'm not aware of any comparable programs for over-school-age, under-retirement-age folks, at any cost.
Just-graduated young adults probably connect at work, but are typically saddled with huge debt (for college graduates, student loans and student credit cards) or other restrictions (must have car! must buy engagement ring!) and can't afford a home PC. (Or at least, they think they can't, which comes to the same thing.)
These SS/Psych/Undec people are easy to spot too. They're the ones with the backpack slung over one shoulder and the birkenstocks and a Bob Marley T-shirt with their "save the environment" reusuable plastic mug they carry everywhere and talk about "partying" (by that they mean getting wasted) all the time.
Look at the numbers. A whopping *1/4* of the respondents reported fewer face or phone contacts, and all of 1/10th of respondents reported fewer out-of-home activities. *That's* the dramatic effect the web is having? These guys should get a clue, they decided the results of this study before they took it. The most dramatic effect the web is having is in reduced TV watching, not social interactions. I e-mail my parents more than I ever called them. I can keep in touch with friends cross-country who I would otherwise probably just fall out of touch with. I wish that e-mail had been comnon when I was an undergrad, maybe I'd still be in touch with people I knew in high school.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I find that alot of people radther talk to people on the the net instead of being online for protection reasons. The "Wall of Protection" helps easy communication between people becuase the fact they are not face to face. Talking about interacting and stuff like that, Geeknews.net has a message board thread about geek dating and geek freinds, and the sort. Also we should be having a geek dating site up in about a couple days. It's not just for find a lay or date - it for finding all sorts of people. All thou that these weblogs and message boards are nice - they just aren't personal enough for some people. You can goto the match maker sites - but there isn't one for geeks. So I hope to be able to get this site up and running really soon and start to make more for the community.
-Ellis of Geeknews.com
"If the railroad had not been invented to move my son away, there would have been no need for the telephone for him to talk to me."
100 years ago you befriended and socialized with those who lived close to you. You had no choice. Walking 100 miles was not an option. If the people around you were jerks or uninteresting...oh well. You were stuck.
The car has opened our options. We congregate with people we actually like and share interest with. Unfortunately, home builders don't generally bother with front porches anymore, because no one uses them. No one sits on their porches to talk to the neighbors walking by, because all the neighbors have driven to be with the people that they actually find interesting. This lack of direct socialization have made neighborhoods lonelier and less friendly.
Enter the internet with the ability to connect people even more precisely and over a larger area. The local landscape becomes even lonelier and less friendly.
Should the government take away our cars and ISPs and make us all shake hands with our neighbors? Or should we all just accept that people are choosing who they wish to relate to, and the boring people next door are loosing out?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I remember a few years ago I just happened to catch Clifford Stoll (? -- I think that's right) on TV. He was talking about how he was against e-mail because it separated them. "I get so much more by just walking down the street and interacting with the people there."
Perhaps that's true, but not everybody can live in BERKELEY, now can they?
To me, socilization has never been about QUANTITY of contact but QUALITY. Come on, defining work as a social experience? I'd rather save an hour or more a day working at home and be able to spend that time with people I *CHOOSE* to be with. The alternative of socializing with whoever happens to be handy is not appealing.
If you live in Bumfuck Iowa, it may be hard to socialize with people who share your interest in computers. Interacting with random people is like watching TV -- it may be entertaining, but it's not particular fulfilling.
The Internet allows me to keep in close contact with RL friends around the country, and virtual peers. My monthly RL geek parties allow us to get together and do even more geeking. I've been blessed with the ability to be able to travel around and meet many of the folks I origially met virtually.
In fact, I can think of few people that I truely value being with that I have NOT met through the net.
Research can show anything if you base it on the right assumptions. Imagine a research project on slavery which was based on an assumption that the slave population is inherently worthless.
I guess it's time to get rid of the telephone and postal e-mail...
You've got to be kidding me. Meeting people in everquest is sadily social, but going to trash someones house while drinking booz isn't sad?
Thats what almost all the people in my age group (I'm 20) that arn't net frequenters seem to do on the weekends.
That said, I've found a few people like me (the sort I'd talk to on the net) and we hang out. It's not that easy for everyone, I live in a preety technically adept area of the country.
Seems to me like people who focus on 'interacting well with other people' are a bunch of assholes and liars who hide behind a facade of friendliness until they can get over on you. If you can make people play well together you sure can control them better. Perhaps if I really spent time with more people, I would inspire more hatred that could motivate me to work toward social destruction. Maybe staying away from the human race keeps all you assholes alive one more day. Just a thought.
"What is it that humans can't that dogs do?"
Duh, doggy style!!!!
This is so dumb. Of course using the internet will take from other things. The analysis that Katz spends is too much. This is a classic case of innumeracy.
As to the cultural impacts, none of us can see what it will mean.
This is the most trivial type of study you can do. "Are you on the Internet?" A:Yes. "Do you feel more lonely than most people?" A:Yes. (Note: even the most extroverted people can answer yes to that second question.) Conclusion: Internet makes you lonely. "Do you spend more time on the Internet now?" A:You mean more time than before, when I wasn't on the Internet at all?--yes.
Science is good, but don't put too much faith in non-controlled experiments. What's a "controlled experiment"? Group A is given the Internet, and Group B is given a Placebo of the Internet. Both groups are measured for loneliness before and after using their computers. That would be an example of a controlled study. And: Don't EVER EVER EVER let a study--or worse, a news article about a study--tell you what your conclusions should be. Don't let me tell you, either. Read the methods, read the results, draw your own conclusions.
Finally, Slashdot: Please provide a link to the actual study whenever you post these, not just articles about it. We don't want to know what the (less-well-informed, given-to-over-summarization) newspaper reporter thinks about it, we want to know what the researchers did.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Does an increase in net usage cause increased withdrawal. Or does an increase in withdrawal cause increased net usage?
I would argue that the convienience of the Internet, cutting down the time it would take you to do many tasks actually frees up MORE time for you to spend offline. The time you'd spend to say, pay your bills, purchase various items, etc.. would actually free up more time to spend that otherwise wasted time with friends and family.
Dogs are a great way to meet people! I meet more people in my Chicago neighborhood walking my dog than any other way. People will not normally say anything to a stranger, but if you have a dog with you, many will feel much more comfortable about asking to pet your dog, or what kind of dog you have, etc. For example, my current supervisor met his wife through a dog friend. Also, I believe dog owners add a sense of community to a neighborhood by actually leaving their house and walking around the area regularly. I recognize people, know their first names, and know more about my neighbors than my parents, who never seem to leave their house in the suburbs except by car. With my cell phone, I can call police if I witness a crime, luckily this does not happen very often in my area. Plus, like computer users and online interest groups, people join online dog groups/clubs and competitions, like agility. Agility is great fun for both dogs and owners. My wife currently belongs to several e-mail lists populated by adults who have special interest in our dog breed. This e-mail community gets together regularly each year, with people coming from Canada, and all over the country to meet in meat space. If you are feeling lonely, a dog will provide companionship too. They love to have you around, and many studies show people who play with and pet their dogs have lower stress levels than people who are truly alone. Regards, --Peter who cannot remember his Slashdot logon password. . .
My wife hates when I turn on a computer, unless it is to check email, which she uses more than me.
.sigs suck, thus nothing here.
I want to issue Jon a big congratulations on a wonderfully written and well thought-out article. I daresay that this is the best Katz article I have seen on my 1 1/2 years of slashdot reading. Bravo!
Yes, I spend more time on the net then I did 8 years ago, but I watch alot less TV.
So I watch less TV, so I can surf the net and watch more TV's hehe little humor.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think both views have validity. On one hand, I met my wife on a BBS (back in the old days before there were ISPs on every corner). I've made close friends online, as has my wife, and have used this medium to maintain contact with other friends we initially met offline. In that way, it has helped our communications and interactions with others.
On the other hand, there have been times where either my wife or I have spent time online rather than than with each other, or in offline social activities. And that has, at times, put a strain on our relationship.
Personally, I think it's no different than any other form of social interaction. If I spent too much time "out with the boys" or on the phone, it could have the same effect in my other relationships as spending too much time online can. Yes, it tends to be somewhat solitary - you usually don't have two or three people sharing a keyboard. But it's just another form of interaction.
Oh, I understand. Your completely unfounded generalizations about students who major in Sociology or Psychology obviously imply that all psychology or social science papers and scholars are clueless. Sociologists/Psychologists being such simpletons, maybe you ought to make a name for yourself in one of those fields. That way even your confused, idiotic rambling will get you recognition and wealth, right? Fuck off.
that their research methods probably are skewing their data! Reading through the Stanford site I noticed that they distributed WebTV consoles to their test subjects (see methods used). As I see it, this will cause (a) a decrease in TV viewing proportional to Internet use due to the use of the television and (b) a decrease in telephone conversation proportional to the time spent using the line as a dialup connection. And then they act surprised that such a trend shows up in their data. I wonder how many of the people who said they do more work at home and the same amount at the office are telecommuters?
I'm surprised that they didn't do a better job of analyzing their methods. Their publication doesn't seem to even consider the possibility of these variables confounding each other. At best, it shows a lack of awareness of the medium, at worst a blatant disregard for standard self - analysis procedures. It seems to me that their research itself may have been the cause for some of the percieved trends. At this point it would take a lot of explanation to convince me that this survey wasn't entirely inconclusive.
"Space exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit"
-Buzz Aldarin
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
People will do whatever they feel comfortable with, if that's being online more then most then good for them. If you prefer parties, concerts, and large groups over chat rooms and email, ditto.
:)
These same concerns about the fall of society were raised with the TV and IMHO we're none the worse off with a TV in every room. Has anyone looked at TV watching vs. computer use? I know personally I spend alot less time watching TV then I did before the internet exploded.
The more things change the more they stay the same. We'll survive the internet.
-Paul
"I'm nobody suspicious... That makes me sound even more suspicious, doesn't it?" - Spike (Cowboy Bebop)
By now I seem to have reached a sort of equilibrium state. It includes interacting with people IRL (which was not the case before I was online!) but more often interacting online. It is not that the Net has taught me to deal with people face to face like it was a stepping stone: rather, the net is a more suitable mode of interaction for me- and _having_ that, I end up being more confident and comfortable in general, and am able to _also_ interact with people to some extent away from the computer. That is still less interaction than your average person, but I'm not your average person.
I don't know how well that answer fits into the original study context. It seems that if 'more REGULAR HUMAN INTERACTION, whee' is always better, then I will always fail to be 'better'. My level of healthy interaction is a particular level, not just 'more is better'. I also have a level of interaction on a more detached, impersonal, 'literary' level, and typing words into the Net fills that need far more than face-to-face communication does. They do not exclude each other if things are going well- one will make up for a shortage of the other, but I can't thrive on just one or the other.
Is this anything new? No. Can people do two things at once? Yes, but not usually both equally well.
What the study's own researchers obscured was that most people in the study experienced no change in the amount of time they spent with friends and family. And some people's time in the study actually increased with their friends and family.
Why did the researchers not publish their study in a peer-reviewed journal? No peer review usually means poor research to begin with. No study (there is no study of which to speak -- good luck trying to get a copy of the detailed data or data analyses used, since they don't have them) means big problems.
Last, the potential biases introduced by the researcher and university both having finanical interests in the survey company which conducted the actual research is unfortunate. It calls into question the findings even further, since all of this press nicely highlights the company's name and mission.
Despite the computer's ability to fulfill virtually every human need, human interaction is still occasionally necessary and unavoidable during the course of a day's computing. Here are some tips to help you navigate through the often-bewildering world of "Actual Reality." #1 When another human approaches your teminal, they will likely want to "speak" with you, exporting an audible, linguistically coded message from their mouth to their ears. #2 Eventually, their mouth will stop moving and producing sounds, indicating the data flow is complete. It is now your turn to "reply." #3 To reply, have your CPU, or brain, compose a "sentence," a grammatically self-contained speech unit made up of words. #4 Then, export the message using your voice. (This process is much like e-mail.) Note: Do not attempt to click on person's face. Do not try to insert disk into his or her mouth. Good luck!
Everybody in America howls at the very thought of an eight-year-old kid ever once taking a sip of beer (my father, who was born in Paris, drank 1/2 water and 1/2 wine at dinner every night past his fifth birthday) and there are decades-long prison sentences waiting for anyone caught supplying that kid with just one marijuana cigarette. But no one in this country full of idiots looks askance when parents by the million farce their sons as though they were the fucking Christmas turkey with daily doses of Ritalin, just because their kid acts like boys have always acted from before the beginning of recorded history.
Now have you ever taken a dose of Ritalin yourself? I have, once, about twenty-five years ago. Did you ever read the famous urban legend about a guy who strapped a JATO unit to a Chevy Impala? It's my experience that Ritalin straps a JATO to your cerebral cortex. That's one single dose, not the one thousand doses those poor kids get in less that three years of this so-called "therapy."
I shudder to think what it's got to be like kicking a chronic, iatrogenic stimulant-drug habit like that. But of course the American medical profession, one and all, don't give a fuck, not so long as the cash keeps rolling in.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Actually, even if you redefine two, you still have only one unique element being processed twice in the mathematical equation, meaning that you would always get twice the value of 2, and thus there would be some answers that would be impossible to come up with (such as 1, if you were dealing with only integers) You'd also have to redefine the laws of mathematics to truly make 2 + 2 = anything...
What you need and what you're going to get in this world are two different things. Better the damned net than nothing.
Sincerely, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Language has evolved over many thousands of years, we, humans, are social creatures. It is not too much of a stretch to assume that active personal communication is a fundamental element of mental health. When you hear a voice, that is a function of human evolution--it evokes emotions in the listener...many times, even if they don't understand the language. Whereas text based communication simply lacks this--it is a strictly intellectual abstraction.
These online chat methods are not merely the same human emotions and discussion over a different medium (text). One key difference is that, on all these online forums, the user only conveys the sentiments or emotions that he POSITIVELY asserts (e.g. types). Additionally, online communications are essentially one dimensional--it lacks the depth. Think of how many ways a simple word, such as "yes", when uttered in voice can be interpreted. It can convey depression, happiness, cluelessness, etc. It resonates in the human mind...internet/text based communications do not. Additionally, the very nature of discussion, and who you talk to online is vastly different. While online communication may be great for intellectual pursuits, there generally isn't that same emotional content there. You might talk about computers, your favorite sport, your job, your girlfriend, etc, but it is a generally a rather shallow coverage (despite what many will say). Nor are you talking to those whom really know you in person (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, etc).
The internet has both positive and negative potentials for society. I can easily see, how a person who is unable to communicate sufficiently in person (e.g., hearing problems, speach impediment, horribly disfigured, freshly moved, diseased, you name it), may find comfort online (I certainly did at one point...more of an intellectual/thrill seeking kind). But for the general population, I think the net effect of frequent online discussion (say, >2hours a day) is largely harmfull. Even those with problems, may be better advised to avoid online chat entirely. My reasoning is, that, most of these people are just partially "flawed" (you know what I mean), yet they have a hard time communicating with others in "real" life, due to lack of experience and confidence. What mediums such as IRC allow them, is an easy out. While IRC may not rise to the same heights of real interpersonal communication (they might not necessarily have much experience with this), it is EASY. It is a form of instantaneous gratification.
Any time, day or night, IRC is there...essentially the same any time. It is consistent. It is risk free (well, in the short term atleast). When one gets bored of one channel, or forum, they move on to the next, many times juggling more than one in an attempt to maximize pleasure. It is "sticky" in a way...enough to keep the user (addict?) on his console at odd hours. Unfortunately, enough to keep the user from going out, and trying to develop something of a social life.
I call this addiction--it ruins lives. What many people fail to realize, is that even though this behavior may ultimately result in being LESS happy/healthy, many users continue on. Much like the lab rat wired to recieve electric stimulation if they push one button, and food if they push the other,...the rat starves itself by focusing just on that stimulation. Or like, what i'm sure many of you are familiar with, in your approach to exercise. Most people understand on some level, that if they exercise enough, they feel much better throughout the day. Yet most people are too lazy to exercise regularly...exercise hurts...and sitting in your ass is, in the short run, much more appealing. Likewise, these people become socially sedentary, to the point where socializing is difficult, yet they continue on their same path.
I believe time will tell. In five to ten years, society is going to see a whole new crop of addict, of social problems, resulting from this kind of internet usage. People who're on IRC now, for 4+ years, are most likely going to be on IRC (or the equivalent) years later. Think about what kind of parents these people will be if they're still involved in IRC heavily. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it results in record numbers of sociopaths. Even though society may not initially identify heavy internet usage as an addiction, or an unhealthy thing (might possibly be equally enamored with the "geek" of today), it will feel its impact. While most people aren't going to have MAJOR problems, it'll be a HUGE jump relative to other forms of addiction (not to mention that these people will come from many different classes and cultures). I think it's impact will be perhaps more severe than television (though many think TV is harmless, I think it's had some very negative effects on certain portions of society), both in penetration, and in who it sucks in.
was it bohr who said, "all research in social sciences boil down to - some do, some don't" (paraphrased)
-- "all generalizations are wrong" --
There's lots to be said for physical contact, and if you can get it it's wonderful. Not all of us can; at least not in the way we would want. Though some of us can't at all.
Sure, I could go hang out at some bar or night club, but what would I really end up doing? Sitting by myself in a room full of people that I don't know who are taking part in an activity which not only do I not take part in, but dislike being around others when they do. That is drinking (alcohol). Why should I spend time somewhere I don't want to be, around people I don't want to be around, and in effect end up feeling very lonely and isolated when I could be at home in a place I feel comfortable, and 'spend time with' people I enjoy the company of. Sure they may be in another state or even another country, but I like them, and I enjoy my time communicating with them.
the people who retreat from society and get on IRC are trying to get away from judgemental, hateful humans who already have a zero tolerance for diversity. (See: homophobes and geek bashers.) if the user didn't have IRC they still wouldn't go out.
- Last August I went to a (specific) newsgroup conference. I'll be going again next August, across the country. Travel and people.
- I've met a number of friends, and yes, I spend "physical time" with them.
- I interact with people that I wouldn't be seeing otherwise
- There's at least 3 concerts I'll be seeing due to information gotten online... which is to say, being on the internet opened the door to more social events.
- One concert in the past and one planned in the future, and more to come, I'll see out of town... thanks to the fact that 1) I know the details of when and where they'll be happening, and 2) I now know people in those towns.
Etc...-- did you get my letter? / did you get it today? yeah, i got a letter / i threw it away - Sleater-Kinney
I get on IRC, atleast I used to. I'm not gay, or any particular sort of freak by any means. I initially started out on IRC to get jaurez, music, hack, etc...but it evolved into sort of a form of distraction for me...a way to pass time in a new city, where I knew virtually no one. At some point, I realized that it was hurting me, and made various attempts to change (both my particular activities on IRC, and more recently, a complete ending of IRC alltogether)
Additionally, both gays and geeks manage to find more meaningfull forms of social interaction. I can't claim it's easy, because I have no experience with it. However, the fact of the matter is that many people do it. I don't believe IRC is healthy for most everyone in the long term, including your "geeks and gays".
I can see where certain social "outcasts" may find IRC rewarding, if taken in moderation. As it can provide an outlet that social norms may not allow to the same extent and frequencies.
But the IRC "lifestyle" (where the bulk of your "social" existence revolves around IRC) is not healthy.
After all, proper social behavior like going to the bar and getting drunk is so much more beneficial to humans.
Download a fast DirectX Tetris Clone [276 k]
I know this is waaaay offtopic, so moderate it to hell if you all feel like it, but I hate it when people like you go around thinking you're so high and mighty just because you're some sort of engineering or scientific major, and you act like it's a travesty that you have so much work. It's your fault. You picked your damn major, ya know. Then you all go off and make assumptions that people of other majors are slackers, etc...
I'll admit I detest the Marley shirt wearing/ecotopia wanting/save the planet people as much as you do, but they're in all majors, not just the social sciences.
Honestly, I'd love to see what you think of my majors (motion pictures/fine art photography). I bet you think we all dress in black, sit on our asses on friday nights and go through DVDs by the dozen, sip lattes, etc...
What's the opinion on fancier chat systems - CU-CMe, voice chat, avatar chat, as compared to IRC-type systems? Would you prefer voice over typing? Video/voice over voice only? Avatar worlds with chat? If you had voice chat, would you want a voice-changer option? Does existing voice chat suck? What if you have decent bandwidth? What happens in a group of people? Do the social conventions change with the technology? Do you want role-playing with your chat? Or would you prefer vanilla IRC? I might have to do some work in this space, and I'd appreciate comments.
Not fully a person? Perhaps to you, and I know others that feel that way; and it disgusts me to be completely honest. A person is a person weither they are across the room or across the planet. How I communicate with someone does not change how I view their existence. As for your question, it would be eaiser for me to break up in person. You likely won't believe me, but it is the truth. I prefer to be as 'close' to a person as possible. Unfortunitly face to face, or even over the phone isn't always (and in my life usually isn't) an option. My long time girlfriend and I broke up not too long ago. She is in NY and I stuck in VA. We talk daily via IRC, and the night that it happened I knew it was coming, I could feel it... and by my choice I called her. If it could have been possible I would have flew up to see her. Yes I would have taken a plane to NY to have been face to face with her when she told me that she cared about me, but at this point wanted to just be my friend, if I could have. Thanks to the fact we can communicate without being face to face she and I have been able to remain in contact with much less awkwardness than we would have otherwise had. I may have lost my girlfriend, but I retained the best friend I've ever had.
"Healthy is a state of mind"
/.ers i was a big part of the old BBS scene. Most of my current friends that I have today were people that I *first* met thru email or in chat sessions. That was over 8 years ago.
It can't get more correct than that. Though I agree with you, what may be a healthy social lifestyle for you may not be for the next person.
If someone enjoys doing something, doesn't harm others in the process, and makes them happy; then what is the problem?
For some, the anonyimity(sp?) of communicating thru a computer often gives people more courage to open up to others more so than face to face. I consider myself to have a decently healthy social life, but I spend a good quantity of time conversing with my current friends online. It helps out our friendships more.
Of course like most of
If it makes you happy, run with it.
-brain
The research doesn't take into consideration my case: Without a network connection, I would not be able to keep in touch with family & friends from home and abroad here at college. After leaving home for school you leave behind dozens upon dozens of people you've spend nearly two decades with, and how are you going to keep in touch, via telephone? Doubt it. Most people can't afford phone bills like that. If you're not getting any social aspect from internet use you should join/form a user's group and help each other out. I'm going to go spend time isolated from society reading chemistry homework for the next couple hours now...
I bet you think we all dress in black, sit on our asses on friday nights and go through DVDs by the dozen, sip lattes, etc...
No, no. You're a pretensious, artsy-fartsy future waiter. You look down on people because you are an intellectual, avant-garde artiste, whose work is clearly beyond the lesser people of this world (everyone who's not a file major, esp. engineering types, who you hate with a vengence). Since this is your major, please get your sterotypes straight.
Of course, you have to admire the moxy of people who want to enter a field where photos of your genitalia can be considered 'fine art'.
Subversive? It's down right evil! Or so says anyone in authority.
If you aren't part of the group they can't control you. Sort of like cult mentality on a global and socially acceptable scale.
That's just nutty. I'm extremely shy. But using the net, I've been able to get to know people in a "safe" environment, so that we were already close friends by the time we met for the first time.
Of course, now, I've just moved to a new town, and haven't got any friends here; all of my friends live 3000km away, at least...so the net lets me actually spend time with my friends, rather than simply abandoning them and spending my life in solitude as this study would suggest is best.
Whoever did this study has obviously never spent any decent amount of time on BayMOO
~All I want is a simple content editor position. Is that so much to ask?~
Actually I have found the same, I am much more comfortable in social situations than I was b4 I was on the Internet a lot. I am shy too and the Internet has helped me heaps. I even found my husband on the Net....so that study is wasted on me.
~Life is what happens to you while you are planning to do something else.
Seattle WA (USA) has a law in place which makes it illegal for teens and adults to congregate for recreational activities in the same facility, known as the Teen Dance Ordinance (TDO). It rings of this very idea to the same extent. It'd be a real shame if people got so paranoid that they would start litigating or investigating online friends of their children. I'm 24, and have numerous online friends ranging in age from 12-60. I see the same kinds of fears perpetuated by fear-mongering media who don't take the time to do any real research, when it comes to reports of drug use at raves (a real concern for me, as a DJ and a talent promoter and record label owner).
~All I want is a simple content editor position. Is that so much to ask?~
Who's looking down on who now?
Woohoo! Woohoo! *STUPID* *STUPID* *STUPID*
*ahem*
- My country tis of thee
Yadda Yadda Yadda!Sweet land of QVC!
F D I C
No. You dance/photo people spend all your time figuring out how to get women into tight silk outfits and to grab them in key locations all in the name of "dance". Or to get women into various states of undress or body-paint-only and photograph them for the sake of "art"..... uhhhh, yeah right. Justifiable porno. That's all it is. And dance has always been erotic foreplay and ***nothing*** else.
"...who burned the inventors of the past at the stake."
Perhaps they would have been better treated if they had invented a better, more enjoyable past.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
And the photo exhibits are always capsules of the student's own warped political dementia or porno. Photos are never scenic or meant to be something people would want to look at or be pleasing to the eye. They all seem to have an agenda behind them. Pictures of a decaying wall, or a whino on a park bench, or nekkid chick with red, white, and blue footprints all over her. They all seem to have "shock value" by design. Yes, I think the photo students must all be severely disturbed or outright demented. And when these people aren't photographing, they're slacking or more often wandering around aimlessly looking for something interesting to shoot (or totally wasted from Friday when classes let out to late Sunday night).
I'm a fucking engineering major and have opinions about everything. And unlike the theoretical scientists, I don't have to prove them methematically correct for all cases, but only to show that it's true and works for all practical purposes. The following illustrates our philosophy:
A mathemetician, a physicist, and an engineer are asked the following: At a high school gym, all the boys are lined up on one side of the wall and all the girls on the opposite wall. Every 30 seconds they move half the distance toward one another. The question: When will they meet. The mathemetician says, never. The physicist says in an infinite amount of time, and the engineer says, well, in few minutes they'll be close enough for all practical purposes.
We are the realists.
The "essay" the above link leads to is a wonderful way to get a headache, I'd rather read something by Katz, or even Ballard's "Crash". Okay, maybe not "Crash".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
True some people just cannot fit in with other people in situations like that. Most people like this feel more alone when there in a crowded room than the would sitting at home in the dark.
-=Methodica=- -= Can An Artist Make It In the Linux World =-
TODAY IS THE FIRST OF MANY DAYS TO COME WHERE THE ONES WHO SEE SIGNAL 11'S KARMA FARMER WAYS WILL BE GIVEN MODERATION POINTS WITH WHICH TO RECTIFY *JUSTICE*
I really wonder about 'scientific' studies sometimes. Does anyone know who funded the study at Stanford? (reminds me of the time a study appeared, stating that red wine prevented cancer... people failed to notice the study was funded by the california grape growers association...)
So, seeing as I'm such a lonely git, and have no life (and Stanford has proven this now), does that make me psychologically unstable? (as opposed, for example, to someone who devotes his entire life to learning how to fight over a little egg shaped pigskin and get it past the enemy into a certain line...you are telling me 50 guys beating the crap out of each other for a pigskin is psychologically stable and is good healthy interaction? woohoo!) More to the point...why is watching TV considered human interaction (especially watching 50 guys beating the crap out of each other for a pigskin)...or even shopping...I tend to try and avoid people when I go shopping, the lines are shorter that way, and I hate people that yak on when I'm watching TV.
And I guess the fact that I have good friends I talk to daily in malaysia, china, australia uk, german, blah doesn't count, because I don't sit and watch telly with them.
Good stuff, Stanford. Yea, science. Ignore reality! We are a snazzy university, so we can say what we want to and people will listen, even if it is garbage! bwahahahaaaaa!
and tomorrow, they will discover that the moon *is* made out of cheese.
Who understands does not preach;
Who preaches does not understand.
Once the presenattion of an idea is more or less irrelevant, good ideas will tend to bubble up to the top and be widely accepted(a process which occurs, more or less, in scientific journals and in open-source coding). People will hopefully become more rational, and the set of ideas we get to evualuate and choose from will contain better ideas as it becomes larger (since they are not offered up by the stooges who have historically been able to use the media-TV, newspapers, radio, etc-as a stage to promote their own self-interest).
Censorship and propaganda have become more difficult as well. It is harder than ever for pundits, religious fundamantelists, and governments to hide the truth from intelligent citi/neti-zens. In a certain sense, violence, particularly racist/sexist/religious violence, depends on ignorance and the dehumanization of those one hates. The net provides a plethora of infomation concenring the humanity of those very indivdiuals (along with just about everyone else) . We cannot hate those whom we truly understand, and the information the net provides about people in general makes it harder to foster hate through ignorance. We are all being educated (I hope!!!). The conflict in the regions you speak of may be reduced by spreading such information--the knowedge of our common humaness. It is this hope which inspires all (well, some anyway) of the bombastic pronouncements of 'revolution' concerning the new media.
just becasue such staements have been repeated ad nauseam does not mean that they are devoid of truth. Dont let the Katzes of the world fool you into thinking its all a crock. The world is changing and will continue to change as its citizens are empowered with unprecedented amounts of information--eventually, pr0n will get old, and people will start learning. Social interaction on the net with 'exotic' people--of different personality, culture, and experience than somebody one would be otherwise likely to meet-is one of the best ways to learn.
Patience. The revolution still might happen. Give it a decade.
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
In case you are too cluless to have worked it out yet, I am talking about MARKETING the ONLY worthwile major.
Thank you
dmg
try saying that three times real fast!
:( - other than that they're all just a bunch of random stupid people who drive like idiots :) Who'd want to associate with them?
I loved it when they came out with 'pay at the pump' self service gas stations so now I don't have to deal with the lousy cashiers who can hold you up if they don't like your looks - and we just got grocerys with 'u-scan and bag', altho there you still have to get in line to pay the lousy cashier
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
My experience with the Internet (which is, of course, the final word on the matter ;) is that the net INCREASES communication and interaction with other human beings.
An example. I live some fifty miles from my (geographically) nearest immediate family member, and have siblings at distances of over a thousand miles. Needless to say, I do not often get together with my family in person. Yet we are able to maintain quick and easy communication (often in real time using instant messaging software) at little or no cost. In contrast, in the "bad old days" when I was in college and none of the rest of the family had 'net access (late 1980's), paper mail was slow and infrequent, and long distance was prohibitively expensive.
I have to conclude that the Internet *FACILITATES* rather than hinders communication and social interaction.
On the list of activities that isolate people from society, the Net has to rank pretty low. How about television? Why don't they do a study on how this one-way, non-interactive, cold and isolating activity called "watching TV" turns people into sociopaths. I would think plopping ones ass on the couch for numerous hours would be alot more intellectually unhealthy than the rich interactivity of the net. I beleive that the net, used properly, can completely increase the level of social activity thru the access it provides to connecting to people, finding events to attend, and cutting down on time spent on menial tasks like ordering things you need and doing research. Don't blame the net, blame how some people choose to use it.
Um, no.
My sister is a studio art major, and as much as I kid her about being in a "hippie" major, she's found something that she's really interested in and really believes in. She also does dance on the side, but there are no pornographic overtones in any of her performances.
Art, at its core, is about self-expression: writing, painting, drawing, sculpting, dancing, cinematography, etc., etc. Sure, there are flim-flam "artists" and intelligentsia who ride the crests of trends in order to make money/get laid/become famous. But for you and several other people in this thread to make a blanket generalization of all artists only shows the shallowness of your ignorance and your unwillingness to cast aside a stereotype for a moment and actually look at some of the art that is being produced.
With the vast number of people making art, it shouldn't be too difficult a task to find some form of art that you enjoy. If it is difficult to find art that satisfies your aesthetic taste, then the discovery of such art is all that more rewarding. In some sense, truly elegant code can be considered art. Take a look at the etymology of the word "art." Its Latin root:
ars -tis f. (1) [skill , method, technique]; 'ex arte', [according to the rules of art]. (2) [an occupation, profession]. (3) concrete, in plur., [works of art]. (4) [conduct, character, method of acting]; 'bonae artes', [good qualities].
Art is much more than what the NEA gives funding for. True artists bring a certain skill or technique to their profession, whether that profession is drawing or chemistry. They exhibit bonae artes when they do their work and when they share their work with other people. Art comes from those people who invest themselves in their creations and their careers.
If people decide that they want to devote their lives to those things we nominally consider art, then they shouldn't face persecution. If you have ever faced persecution for your choice of career fields and wished your tormentors would show some human courtesy, perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to other people. There will always be sanctimonious fakes posing behind the mask of artistic taste. There are fakes in computer science who are in it for the big payoff, and I would venture to say all fields of work share this odious burden.
</diatribe>
- Y
"There is no culture in computer science, only cults." - M. Felleisen
Its the (unintentionally) funniest thing going! Shame they pulled out of the uk. But thats because, you know...
This is soooo confusing. I think I'll wait a few days for the dumb version on freedomforum.org.
I'm not sure if your post was ment to be a reply to mine or not. If it was I must say I'm confused, for I didn't say anything sarcastic, or mean for that matter. Where as if it wasn't ment to be a reply to mine then for which post was it ment?
Yep, Internet and BBS' helped a lot for these people =). Now, if I could just get the same services as TDD but over the Internet like DialPad. :I
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
In particular, it's interesting that you mention INTJ -- after missing the point of such typecasting entirely. If you would look at the Keirsey Temperament and Character Web Site and read through a little more carefully, you'll see that temperament theory is about deep-set priorities in life, not manifestations of delusion as you seem to be painting it to be. Just because introspection and introversion aren't considered socially acceptable traits doesn't mean they aren't the right ones for us.
Personally, I never had much of a social life at all before I got online. I found it very hard to relate to anybody in school. After I dropped out, though, I got online. What a difference! Here were people who talked about things deeper than clothes and who actually shared some interests with me. Who cares that I wasn't there in person -- typing my thoughts out on a computer, looking them over quickly, and then sending them out was much more comfortable and natural for me anyway.
Can I honestly say there's no need for face-to-face interaction at all? No. But I'm more than content to save that for special occasions -- my natural means of making friends is from the inside out, not the outside in (or just sticking to the outside entirely, as some seem to do).
Everything that needs to be said, nothing that doesn't.
The Institute to Refute Bull Shit Research published a study of web usage on their private server at http://127.0.0.1. Professor E. L. Eet, director of the institute, said, "the Stanford study is just so much lame crap."
<br>
Professor Eet summarized some of the more salient findings of the IRBSR study.
<br>
People who used the web on an average of five or more hours per day had these characteristics in common;
<br>
Web users were 35% better informed due to the fact that their information came from a wide variety of primary sources instead of TV sound bytes relayed by a neighbor raking leaves.
<br>
Web users were 22% happier at work, having spent their copious free time viewing their friends' vacation JPGs rather than hearing a re-hash of last night's X-Files re-run at the company water cooler.
<br>
Web users enjoyed their vacation time 17% more because of detailed planning and advance reservation of flights, care rentals and hotels. Contributing factors included less stress from their mothers-in-law in the back seat due to map and routing software on their laptops which resulted in running out of gas 12% fewer times.
<br>
Web users had 9% more disposable income from money they saved by purchasing their car, their furniture and their Christmas presents at eBay.
<br>
Web users had 78% more friends than their unwired counterparts when the distinction of "just an online friend" was not excluded in the count.
<br>
Professor Eet asked those who read the Stanford studiy to remember, "A school's primary purpose is to pass the societal norms on to the next generation. The conventional wisdom is funded for new studies, and the conventional wisdom gets published so that we can slurp it up like it was the sweetest of truth. This is true whether it is social science or pure science. Try to prove the Big Bang never happened and you get zilch. Blurt out that 90% of the universe is made up of cosmic silly string and you're man of the year. Publish a study that says life is going to hell and you got tenure for life."
<br><br>
My metamoderation cancels your moderation
Yes, I so distinctly remember when I would sit at the family dinner table and talk of things past. We would then sit in the family room and discuss the events in our daily life.....Oh, I forgot, that's not my family....we just all e-mail each other......