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
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...
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.
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
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...
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
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
- 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.
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?
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
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
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.
It's a win-win situation!
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
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".
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
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.
Well, yes.
There is something that face-to-face interaction provides that email just doesn't. I suspect that a majority of the /. crowd will miss this because they tend to be more introverted than the average population (actually, I'd bet my lunch that the average /. poster is a INTJ on Meyers/Briggs). I know people whose idea of social gatherings is to get a party together in Everquest or meet someone on a MUD. You might argue that this techically qualifies as social interaction (it does), but it's also really sad. Also, it might fit the technical definition of social interaction, but not the spirit in which the author meant it.
Sitting behind your computer and firing off the occassional IM while mudding is not a healthy way to live.
Setting aside the "I met my wife online" case studies which /. will no doubt be flooded with, you've got to realize that spending more than a hour or two per day on the net will generally be destructive to your social life. Email doesn't let you bond with other people. You might have interesting conversations, but you'll never have social experience unless you get off your ass and out of the house.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
What a revelation! It just hit me - all the things I do to avoid "human interaction":
1 - Sleep 6 hours
2 - Run 2 to 3 miles a day
3 - Work 8 to 10 hours a day
4 - Bathe
5 - Brush Teeth
6 - Toilet Breaks
7 - Think about how to make the world better
8 - Read a book, newspaper, online article
9 - Worry about finances
10 - Feed the cat
11 - Take out the trash
12 - Talk to out of town family on the phone
Is it just me or have you noticed that about half of all surveys are below average lately?
This just in: Half of all divorcing people are men.
Every change is not progress, but there is no progress without change.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
"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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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); }
If you're a social outcast, try a different social environment.
It is far easier finding social environments you fit into on the Net than offline, especially if you're an over-intellectual/bookish/geeky type. Just join some mailing lists (or in the old days subscribe to some newsgroups) and get involved in conversations; and there are forums for everyone, because the space is vast. Whether you're into mediæval warfare or typography or 70s prog rock or trainspotting, you can surely find people who share your interests; whether they live in Milwaukee, Manchester or Madras doesn't really matter as long as they speak your language.
In Real Life, your social sphere is constrained by geographical factors. Had you lived a century ago, you would most likely have never travelled more than a few miles in your life. The only people you'd know would be from your village/town. Which means that if your interests didn't sync with those of people nearby, you'd be out of luck. In the past century, transportation technologies have expanded this social sphere, but it's still there. And you can't just grep Real Life for other underwater macrame enthusiasts.
The key is to have a broad range of interests, with some that aren't too esoteric. If all you care about is hacking your customised Linux box, you're not going to be the life of the party, and probably won't have much to talk about with most people. However, if you can talk about other things more involving than the weather and yet not hopelessly esoteric, you can find common ground. These may range from movies and music to philosophy and the meaning of life. And if you don't have anything to say, listen and ask questions. You may learn something.
One key to not being an outcast is to not place yourself in specialised social environments based around interests you don't share. If you hang out with a group of wargamers (for example) and have no interest in wargaming, you'll be left out of the common milieu, and be by definition an outsider. You'd be better off in more general environments, where there are more unfixed variables.
This is soooo confusing. I think I'll wait a few days for the dumb version on freedomforum.org.