LonelyNet

A Stanford University study released Tuesdy found that the Net is causing Americans to spend less time with friends and family. The more time spent on the Net, says the study, the more isolated we are. Is this so? You don't have to be described by pundits, academics and journalists. You can speak for yourselves here:Update: 02/17 04:30 by H :Oh, check out the story about dogs and people on Wired today - it's hilarious.

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:

Comments

Reversing cause and effect

[Nonesuch]

Perhaps the study is correct, but their results are backwards?

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?

dogs are better than the internet :)

[tuffy]

• 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 internet ;)

define "interaction"

[Signal 11]

We're constantly scanning for new ideas on the web, e-mailing people, and interacting both in video games and in online forums like this one.

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?

It just looks bad to extroverts

[object.orient()]

Long time reader, first time poster, but when I saw,

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 had to respond.

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."

Introversion vs. Social Anxiety Disorder

[Skyshadow]

There is a point where introversion crosses over to social anxiety disorder. It's an unreasonable fear of social situations (you've probably seen some drug company's commercials about the subject).

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.

----

More to do with the definition of "Addict"

[philg]

"What pisses me off is that people think I am an Internet addict."

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

Levels of Abstraction

[Skyshadow]

The problem with the net is that it implements another level of abstraction -- the people you talk to are just another step away from seeming "real".

Consider: If you were going to blindside your s/o and dump them, what do you think would be the easiest way?

Over the Phone Send them an Email Send a "Dear John" letter Do it in person

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.

----

OK, another data point

[Chris Johnson]

I don't count as some sort of average person, because I am a geek-type person with Asperger's Syndrome (a sort of autism), but I've found that before I had Net access, I became increasingly more isolated, unable to cope with the typical demands of social interaction. Upon discovering the net, I found that text-based interaction was a lot easier, and I went through advocacy newsgroups, MUCKs, IRC and all, getting more and more comfortable with the idea of interacting with other people.

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.