Slashdot Mirror
LonelyNet (Part Two)
The irony was pretty sharp as reflected in last week's "LonelyNet"discussion. Although by no means a scientific sample, hundreds of the very people portrayed as isolated from human contact by the Internet disagreed.
One of the questions that popped up continuously on Threads and via e-mail was puzzlement over why the Internet is so often portrayed as alarming, isolating, dangerous or de-civilizing.
One of the answers is obvious. The avatars of culture - academics, pundits, journalists - often use outdated notions to try and come to terms with a radically different kind of culture. They like Western Civ, Shakespeare and Classical Music, so if you don't, then culture is declining. They read papers and watched TV, so if you don't, you're withdrawing. The fact that you're doing new and different things, and defining culture and civilization differently, doesn't seem to matter. They link popularity, health and face-to-face relationships. If you don't, human links are being broken.
Thus the Stanford study measured isolation in part by dubious measures like whether you are reading newspapers, hanging out in groups, spenting time with members of your family f2f, watching TV less, or whether or not you shop in stores or online. The study doesn't count virtual contact as human contact. E-mail senders and recipients aren't people. Virtual communities aren't communities. Getting news online doesn't count as getting news. Contact with family online isn't contact with family, but something else.
Yet the hundreds of posts on Threads, almost to a one, suggested that Stanford's researchers must have gone to a different planet. Almost all of the responses, some of them eloquent and powerful, talked about the ways in which people used the Net to connect with friends, family and colleagues - not, as the study suggested, to withdraw from them.
This doesn't mean that some people don't spent more time online than is healthy, or in place of face-to-face contact, or that others aren't obsessive about gaming, programming or computing, which is often a passion, not a hobby.
But the study's main premise, reflected in headlines all over the country last week - that the Internet is promulgating a broad wave of social isolation - seemed completely at odds with the personal experience of the hundreds of people who took the trouble to post messages here and elsewhere on the Web.
The "Matrix" never seemed more on target. Increasingly, we live in parallel worlds.
"What's going on?," e-mailed Jeff from Ann Arbor, "I have the sense I've been reading stories and studies like this my whole life in papers, on TV and from academics and politicians. Yet my own experience couldn't be farther from the truth. Every single day of my life, I e-mail my sick grandmother, who I love very much, and she e-mails me back. No matter what else I do, I do that. I talk to my friends all day on AIM. I keep in touch with friends from high school. I send love notes to my girlfriend who's in another state, and keep the relationship going. I have long philosophical conversations with my Dad, who's better talking online than in person. I talk to my best bud, who's in Ohio. I meet people on MP3.com, and in chat rooms. I talk to other students about school and schoolwork. Is that in the Stanford study?"
No, it isn't. How come?
First, for obvious reasons. The Net is frightening to many of the most entrenched institutions in American life. What people fear, they viscerally attack.
But for the clearest explanation, it helps to look backwards, not forward, even though some dislike invoking history. Almost everyone reading this is part of something frightening and controversial. In one guise or another, technology has affected politics for hundreds of years - the industrial revolution and the rise of a technologically-based industrial society, the rise of the middle class for the first time in the world, mobility provided by cars, trains and planes, the specter of Utopia, raised by people from Jules Verne to Walt Disney, the rise of technologically-empowered elites, the liberation of sexual imagery, the explosion online of religious and spiritual conversations away from organized religion, environmental worries, the horrific toll of hi-tech warfare, the sudden power and importance of young geeks and nerds, the social, cultural and political trauma of rapid changes in the workplace, the rise of pop culture, alienation, leisure time and an explosion in information and the new freedom of individuals to express themselves.
With each passing day, it looks as if the Net, which no one foresaw, may end up being the biggest technological change in human history. So if history is any guide, it will be the most controversial.
Political scientist Langdon Winner:
"Technology and its various manifestations have become virtual obsessions in discussions about politics and society on a wide variety of fronts," he writes in "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought."
"Social scientists, politicians, bureaucrats, corporate managers, radical students, as well as natural scientists and engineers, are now united in the conclusion that something we call "technology" lies at the core of what is most troublesome in the condition of our world."
For ordinary people, too, change seems to be making life complicated and coming too quickly. The people who create technologies - computing, genetics, nano-technology, artificial intelligence - rarely do a good job of explaining what they're doing to the outside world, and the outside world is increasingly bewildered and unnerved by what these technological elites are doing. People often perceive technology as an oppressive force that poses a direct threat to human freedom, family, and stability.
The philosopher Paul Goodman once suggested that widespread unease about science and technology - from medieval Europe to the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution [certainly, to the rise of the Net and Web] - amounts to a religious upheaval similar to that of the Protestant Reformation.
In our time, the rise of new technologies, especially the Net, has triggered a wave of alarm and moral outrage, from concerns about pornography, thievery, addiction, cracking and national security, greed, the theft of intellectual property and last week, to the notion of culture that sees the Internet as pushing withdrawal from humanity itself.
Academics and journalists are often happy to sound alarms about the Net and the Web. Like Wall Street brokers and music and movie industry execs, they feel supplanted by the computer-empowered hordes who are suddenly setting their own agendas and having their own conversations. Politicians are increasingly nervous about so much sudden democracy in a political structure previously dominated by comfortably familiar special interests, from corporations to lobbyists to politician parties to journalists.
People who think nothing of giving their credit cards to strangers in restaurants are anxious about transmitting them online. Even though children are much more likely to be harmed by relatives at home than by going online, online predators are given explosive and completely disproportionate attention by journalists and politicians.
This doesn't mean that all studies and surveys about the Net are wrong, but it does possibly put them in a context that answers Jeff's question: What's going on?
Why are studies from reputable universities and other institutions so completely at odds with our own experiences?
That's my two bytes. Add more of yours below:
"They have found a valuable resource that is growing with content every second. There are far worse places to be, and to each his own."
/. community might be content to let people do their own thing in life and not bother them about it, there's a huge number of people in the world who like nothing better than to but in on other people's lives for no other reason than that other life is different than their's is.
'to each his own' is not a phrase a lot of people tend to use I'm afraid. While you and I and it seems most other people in the
I agree with him here. Most other replies, people see "Jon Katz" and think "Blech". The Net doesn't isolate us, cause there are thousands of people there to meet and talk to. We are a community.
What most of Slashdot needs to do is to stop and read rather than blindly dismiss things.
Just because no one else mentioned it and i have karma to burn....looks like someone did a replace of all the "?" with " ' " hence the link http://slashdot.org/article.pl'sid=00/02/16/202122 1&mode=thread being proken when it should be http://slashdot.org /article.pl'sid=00/02/16/2021221&mode=thread just an observation...poor MS WORD...
sorry...got the link right, but the text should read http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/16/202122 1&mode=thread
You're simply living proof that he might be wrong about the bad effects of too much time on the 'net.
Here, let me deliver the death blow to your love of linux:
"For example, I've always liked PowerPoint, and I've always thought that Visual Basic was a good product." -- Linus Torvalds
Linus likes MS products?? Oh nooooooooo!
Oh yeah, and please stop using the "royal we" when expressing your opinions. We don't "hate" him. You do.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
Who cares if people are spending more time on the net and less with other pursuits (including people).
They have found a valuable resource that is growing with content every second. There are far worse places to be, and to each his own.
I find it hard to imagine that exploring a world of varied information could be detrimental while slamming a few drinks at the bar is 'good' for you.
Unfortunately most people use it for chatting and buying things now, not for spending hours reading over the works of Bakunin or looking up information of different cultures
I disagree. Those who spend large amounts of time online are doing many other things than chatting or shopping. Those activities get old quick, and thus its the varied, and ever changing aspects of the net that keep it interesting, and thought provoking.
In some cases over use of the internet could be detrimental, but this is a very rare occurence. To generalize, and say that such use is ALWAYS or ALMOST ALWAYS detrimental to the individual and society is pure bullshit. period.
As for your argument that net users are not communicating with those around them, you may be correct. but they ARE communicating with those that may be thousands of miles distant, yet share a common interest. This provides a wide array of interactive conversations with perspectives that COULD NOT HAVE OCCURED in real life. Net communication is inherantly more pervasive, more available, and more distributed than regular voice communication. This is a tremendous bonus.
Many slashdot readers have a passion for computers that extends beyond any rational behavior.
I would work on (read 'play with') computers even if I weren't paid for it. I would use them even if it were proven that they made a third arm grow out of my forehead. I can attempt to justify my love of these wonderful machines, but I cannot truly explain it to someone who does not have a similar passion. To most passionate artists, engineers and authors the explanation is obvious, if somehow difficult to express in words. To the outsider, this fascination seems excessive, even pathological. Perhaps it is.
This kind of fervor is, I believe, the reason for studies like the Stanford study. As long as there are engineers, programmers and neophiles with a mad passion for one technology or annother, there will be psychologists with a need to show how these technologies can consume time to the exclusion of 'normal' behavior.
Thank you for not thinking.
Thing is, though, I really do find part of the Stanford study to be true, at least where it concerns loneliness and chatrooms. I've admined them, used them occasionally for over 10 years now, and with that kind of perspective, you really do get a sense for what the Stanford people observed.
They really become enormous crutches for some people, and those same people are usually the quickest to deny it, but deep down I think they realize the harm. Once you get to know a lot of people online, at that point for many people, it becomes such an easier path than to bother cleaning up, dressing up, and going out with real live people. I've seen so many people gradually growing out of touch with their real friends for the ease of hanging out with their online friends.
I think that among the people who spend too much time chatting, there's this undercurrent of knowledge that it's not good for them, but it's always unspoken because it's something that's incredibly hard to admit -- whether it's out of stubborness that they're not wasting their time, not wanting to say that real life friends are more important than the online variety (I'm sorry, but they just are) out of sensitivity to their online friends who genuinely do have no real life friends, and even to spite studies like this one that (unfortunately) portray online people as losers. Even though I mentioned that it's an undercurrent, you can tell it's there whenever there's one of those huge fights on the talker -- that one, huge, final slam that almost always gets said (paraphrased): "Yeah, like I really care what someone who has no life outside of spending every waking hour on a talker thinks!" I'm telling you, you can practically feel everybody in the room -- not just the intended victim -- wince at that one, because of how it does or doesn't apply to them and their online friends.
Anyway, I think it's a pretty fascinating topic, and I could probably type for hours on it (but I'll stop myself before I get addicted ;-) ), so feel free to continue it.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
When the sheep start giggling at you, you've got problems.
-ODB
http://slashdot.org /article.pl?sid=00/02/21/1125208&mode=thread
It was there this morning, and it's gone now. Why?
I'll bet I'm not the only one that gets confused when someone asks that question. 1st, I work there - 90% of my work is with computers other than the one I'm sitting in front of (Internet, intranet, extranet, whatever). Meanwhile the boxes at home are aDSL'ed and "on" 24x7. Does this mean "I" am on 10(work)+24(home) hours a day?
If I'm watching Canadian TV on the computer via net is that "tv time" or antisocial net time? 2 of the computers at home are connect to the DSL - does that mean I'm on the net 48 hours a day? If we don't count all the time the boxen are connected then how about all the time email is being downloaded or checked? When I'm across
the room and the box says "You've Got Mail" (Actually Barbera Eden "Master, I've got mail for you.")? Does it only count when I actually physically check it? Is the only net use that they really want to measure the time spent typing one-handed into IRC?
Basically I think the question is a bad one. Really bad. Meaningless. If you start a study with meaningless questions the bets that is ever coming out the other end is meaningless answers.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
The question shouldn't be "anyone stay on as much/more as me?", it should be "anyone able to stay on more as me and live?". No, I for one am not able to be online that much, I sleep 7 to 8 hours a day, sometimes go to the bathroom (otherwise the room really becomes messy), go out and get me some food and a new pack of beer and somtimes I feel the need to stretch my legs. Oh yeah, I have to go to work too, but there I'm online again the whole day. But 17 hours a day? That's way out of my league...
Thimo
--
Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux!
Don't we all pick it up from our buddies in the chat rooms? (and off course email and newsgroups)
Thimo
--
Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux!
Moi aussi. I am also on the Internet for 5-7 hours per day. I send in my homework by email, chat with my family by email, read slashdot, and have significant discussions on the the various chat media. I only use my TV to watch movies on the VCR (NO DVDs!-ban CSS!). Am I more isolated? Hell no! I have always been introverted, shy, socially awkward and I am 28 years old. I do my thesis research on the net as well as in the library. I go out to clubs and dance and mingle with people. I go on the net to talk to people who are just like me. Did the Internet keep me from becoming a blonde, buff business major who joins a fraternity and boffs cheerleaders. No! I'd rather shag a sheep than someone who giigles all the time. I have always been shy, but I do get out. I have gone through various stages in my life of social practice. I have been on the net for 11 years, all my problems date from before then. The Internet is just an informationa nd communication tool. It does not use us, we use it.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
I spend 10-12 hours online or otherwise on a computer each day. 8 hours at work and another 2-4 hours at home.
My first intellectual addiction was TV. Growing up I learned more from PBS than school. In the Navy I got hooked on books. Finding a good book I haden't read started getting tough. I messed around with computers and programming since HS. When I put together my first PC I got hooked on computers. Hardware and then progressively more programming.
When AOL started offering unlimited access I signed up. Bopped around a bunch of flamer tardo infested chat rooms but eventually found the escape hatch (buried deep within the bowels of AOL) to the internet. I dropped AOL after a month. Found a good ISP.
What attracts me to the web is the endless knowledge. I've always been what I call a tangential thinker. I like to work on many things at once. Hopping from one idea/knowledge quest to the next. TV doesn't give you what you want, only what they feel like producing. Books are expensive and tough to find. The net gives me whatever I want whenever I want it.
Sure I have a life outside the computer. I have three wonderful children and an awesome wife. My wife is getting hooked on the net for her own reasons (chatting and buying stuff). I closely monitor my children when they are on the computer. The oldest is only four and unlike my parents I understand that a smart 12y/o has the ability to take responsibility.
I feel more alive now that at any time in the past. I feel connectd. I love this Open Source movement and the sharing of knowledge. So much so that within the month I'm starting a Linux computer business.
Yes I do things out in the physical world. But for me at least, my time on the internet is adding to my life not taking away from it.
The study is flawed mainly because it doesn't see the 'Net for what it is.
That is to say they don't see it as a mere communications tool, and as a
tool it is morally neutral. Like a baseball bat, a hammer or a handgun the
Internet can be used for good or for evil, it can bring you closer to people
or it can shut you off from them. It's all in what you see it as, and how
you use it.
For me the 'net is just another tool in my communications toolbox, depending
who i'm communicating with and what's being communicated I make the choice
between emailing, ICQing, calling or going over in person. Many times a
lengthy ICQ conversation will turn into a phone call when I feel that the
conversation has moved beyond ICQ's ability to keep up. It's also not
uncommon for me to stop a long phone call and tell the person to come on
over, I don't care what anyone else says communication face to face with
another person is a much richer experiance than anything else. So much is
told through body language and eye contact, that you simply miss with any
other medium. Not to forget the ability of physical contact to really bring
two people closer, or to express emotions that words only weakly describe.
On the other hand, when it comes to a simple exchange of information that
isn't deep or incredibly timely email rules, you can't beat it for sheer
efficientcy. Need to reach alot specific people with some important
news, you've got mailing lists, have a message you want the whole world to
hear you've got the WWW at your disposal to get the word out cheaply and
quickly.
Just what the hell is my point you ask? I seem to have forgotten, I'm sure
it's around here somewhere, lemme check.... Ok I've got it, the point that
the Standford people missed is that the Internet needs to be seen as just
one more way for humans to communicate and like any tool it can be overused
and misapplied. If they want to do some work that actually helps people they
should be looking into the causes for depression and what makes individuals
fear social contact, and withdraw. Looking at how the Internet leads to
social isolation is as valid as to looking at how baseball bat technology
leads to lethal beatings, you need to look at the motives behind both to
really do some good.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After all, if you really want to feed your addiction, you'd get a job doing this :). j/k - the better I get at application design and architecture, the more time I spend in meetings and coaching other developers (currently about 1/2 my time ... and rising.)
I used to chat a lot while in university; I stopped in the middle of my last year and haven't really gone back. I'd say I spend about 8 hours a day at the keyboard, part of that developing, part of that searching for information on new tech (it's part of my job - tres cool), part just reading mail and writing. Less on weekends, but that's because I have a serious partner and I've discovered photography, another good diversion.
I'd say I'm about average for a higher-level code monkey. Less and less of the new people here (and I assume where I work is typical) tend to be involved in net culture; a lot tend to be graduates of 1-year computer colleges and not especially well-seasoned in the net, how it works, and what makes it good. C'est la vie, although I wonder where all the old-school netheads went.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
The only good point I saw was about anonymity on the internet damaging or altering identity as well as expression of emotion. Nothing new though.
If you hadn't already seen it, The Journal of Computer Mediated communication is at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/ -- It has some fairly decent articles on developing a sense of self online as well as many others.
I missed Mr. Katz last article, but I would like to add my opinion.
If anything I would say that being on the internet has allowed me to broaden my social circle. And to broaden it to a size that just would not be possible without the internet.
I remember back to July, 1997 when control of Hong Kong shifted from Britian to China. This, I believe, is a historical event in that it was a peaceful change of government. Well, about six months after the handover, I got an ICQ request to a random chat. I went ahead and opened it up. It was a gentleman living in Hong Kong that just wanted to chat. I had a nice chat for about 30 minutes with him, and we talked a bit about Nebraska (where I lived at the time) and Hong Kong. It was one of the cooler things that I can look back on.
If somebody had told me 5 years ago, that I would be talking to a Chinese national about the handover of Hong Kong, I would have thought you were crazy.
Anyway, I am sure that we all have stories like that, and I think that it is the perfect example of how technology brings us to together, not forces us apart.
But, like I said, it is just my opinion.
Does the Internet spell doom for the religious and political status quo? In a word, yes. Such entities have thrived from a top-down suppression of free thought and speech since their institutions thousands of years ago. Suddenly, everybody (with a little effort) can do both, with the flimsiest, if any, consequences for even the most blasphemous/slanderous of comments.
The new world order is here, and no government or church shall lead it. However, get prepared for even rougher times. Those that would wish us ill have not lost yet.
-- Remember: There is no difference between a monopoly and a government. --
Not to beat a dead horse here, but the S/N ratio in this hole is really getting out of hand. The average day on slashdot consists of a couple of interesting science stories, complete with low comment volume and not much said, a few OS stories, jam-packed full of idiot "microsoft sucks" posts, and a Katz piece where all of you limp-dick amateur flamethrowers attempt to sound smart in front of your peers while never EVER bringing up valid points or contributing to a decent conversation.
... ideas that your dead brains are incapable of creating and so are consumed with destroying.
Three quarters of you motherfuckers haven't managed to say anything useful ever, and probably don't have the slightest clue about anything going on around you. Mindless babble. And when you aren't babbling, you're posting some pseudo-intellectual thinly-veiled attack against a) the author b) some commercial company c) somebody else's ideas
Face it. 99% of what happens on slashdot anymore is useless. Anyone who tries to say something besides "linux is cool" is shouted down. Intelligence has been largely replaced by some horrible open source frat party. The only guy who dares to write original material for the site is hissed at constantly by a bunch of low-brow morons who wouldn't know intelligent discussion if it bit them in the ass.
Oh well. Fuck you people. There are way too many of you to start swinging the clue bat.
good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
Since there is a difference between physical reality and the net I bet that Grandma would rather get a visit than an e-mail and I be that no amount of dirty messages is going to replace seeing that girlfriend..
Though no one made the claim that the net is a replacement for these things, remember that we are inherently lazy beings. Why visit or call when I can e-mail? Of course the net is no match for that which is far worse for alienating us and which has been at it far longer, television. Why talk to family or neighbors when I can bask in the warm embrace of TV? This is a running joke on the Simpsons and its so bitter and funny 'cause its true.
In light of the hysteria generated by the DoS attacks on major shopping sites it's obvious how serious the gov't and the media take this area. You would of thought that there was some sort of major disaster that killed thousands the way this played out. Last I heard the death toll was zero and no major property damage. So some advertisers on Yahoo didn't get to count click throughs on some banner, big deal. Of course the box that keeps all the smart people (who don't watch TV) inside was threatened. FBI better get on the case.
And watch out that when you do disconnect someday that you don't find that all your civil rights are gone and the suburbs are in "lockdown" while you were surfing your life away. And when you are done with that spending spree and do need something today, maybe you will find that the little brick and mortar establishment that used to have the cool stuff is gone and all you're left with is all Wal-Mart all the time, baby.
Myself, I can hardly wait for the Springer episodes "I didn't pay attention to my daughter till I saw her naked on the internet and now it's too late".
I do think that the internet is great for a lot of things. I admit that I was too lazy to send more than the occasional paper letter and I am much better about contacting through e-mail. Of course those letters were longer and more reflective than the quips I shoot around these days. It's all about time and this "e-pace" just adds to the attention deficit disorder that constitutes the modern experience.
Besides I feel much like Bukowski, I don't hate people but I sure feel better when they are not around. Also, any culture that makes Mariah Carey a mega-star and Titanic the largest grossing movie of all time, deserves whatever it gets. And I hope Katz drowns in Grisham since that chump thinks that higher culture is elitist. There is plenty of sewage at the bottom pal and I hope you drown in it. Good thing for you it's all virtual all the time.
Kill! Kill! Kill! For inner peace and mental health!-The Baader Meinhopf
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Find someone you can share your life with. In this case, 2 is infinitely better than one.
I agree whole heartedly with Jon Katz that the net is a powerful tool for communication. Like Jeff in the story, I email my gf who's in another state everyday over the net. I've also been working with a friend on a software project over the net - we're in different states, so this wouldn't be possible otherwise.
However, there's still something to be said for face to face, human to human contact that the net doesn't replace - people are pulpy, embodied creatures, not just disembodied voices. The danger here really is that the internet makes it easier to go on with life without knowing people in person, and we try less hard as a result.
For heaven's sake Katz, do you really believe a report is either the full truth or not at all? That because statistics and studies one days says 60% of Internet junkies feel lonely one day, there is 60% chance of _you_ feeling lonely? That there exists such thing as an _unbiased_ interrgotation and interpretation method? That there must be only one truth, and it's either 60% or 42?
;-)
The frightening thought here isn't that people are lonely, people have been lonely for ages. What's frightening is what power such reports have to influence people's opinions and belief systems. What's the typical discussion topic at lunch? The latest and greatest news, especially reports that tells us who we are. We are very keen on finding out who we are. Just too bad we let other people decide it for us all the time..
Don't you think that for each person connected to the Internet, there is a unique story? Why do you, or those making reports, feel the urge to brush everyone over the same comb? As if truth is a boolean switch that is either true or false. And at all times the rest of us commoners should worship the current state of this switch..
Let's stop that silly game here and now.
The simple truth is that there are many truths, and many different kinds of truths, more than any of us can imagine. People react to certain things _differently_. Lots of people (students) get lost in the Internet world for years. Their family and friends hardly ever sees them offline anymore. While others spends just a couple of minutes surfing and reading email everyday. Some people learn to be more expressive and grows on using the Internet, while others becomes obsessive and closed.
The point is that the Internet transcends good and bad, just like everything else. It's just an illusion we maintain to judge people and their behaviour. The real responsibility and choice all comes back to us. We attack others when we discover something something "nasty" about ourself. Do you for example believe that you "could never pull the trigger to blow someone's head off"? Or some other nasty action you can think of?
I doubt that it's impossible for anyone of us given optimal circumstance. Now, try to figure out if that circumstance is present for that other person you attack. Don't we all have reasons to do what we do?
Don't let reports and summaries tell you who you are and what is bad for you. Don't push your truth down the throats of other people, let them find out for themselves instead!
Instead of taking criticism and report like this personally, try and find the core of truth in it and utilize it. Now if that frightens you welcome to the club.
Attacking it won't make it go away.
- Steeltoe
(Now I'm doing the same mistake that every other arrogant authorative figure do, pushing my truth down your throats. Please accept my apology for that, I just hoped I made sense, else I've made a fool out of myself for nothing
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
You know, there are many reasons to hate Katz OTHER than his use of Word. I don't like him either, but I make an effort to think of better reasons than what word processing program he uses. Yeah, it does look kinda stupid if he pulls an article because some of the punctuation is messed up, but it's better than having half of the comments on it talk about how Word sucks. (It does suck, but we already know that.)
Although considering the incredible paranoia people show whenever an article is pulled, maybe he still has something to learn about the /. mentality.
when he saw the cat was already out of the bag, he pulled the article in its entirety to prevent people from knowing he made it in Microsoft Word
Somehow, I don't think that was his primary motivation. If you're not willing to forgive him for using MS products and ignore the occasional errors, then you're not really interested in what he's saying.
There's one thing that all the studies in the world can't point out: it's a risk, but it's not reality.
The fact of the matter is, the internet is a lot like television. They're both a means of communication that allow us to view the rest of the world through a window rather than through our own eyes. The only difference is that the internet has grown to be interactive, but all-in-all, both are equivalent to one another.
Here's where the problem arises though...because the internet is an interactive medium, plenty of people claim that it's not harmful to one's social life. But guess what? Humans need physical social activity in order to thrive. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't go crazy if they locked themselves up in a room and only talked to everyone else through the phone. Everyone needs some kind of physical contact every now and then, and to only communicate through the internet is as dangerous as watching TV 16 hours a day. But, there's a problem with this logic, and that's why everyone's misunderstanding what these reports mean.
Back when television was invented, a two step process occured: first, people were amazed by the ability to finally see a picture with what they heard on the radio, and people rushed to get their own TV set. Then the second step occured...studies showed that people were beginning to watch too much television, cutting back on their social interaction. Everyone thought it meant that humans would soon just sit in front of their television set and watch TV all day long. They were wrong.
Why people changed their time schedules in order to watch more TV, and why people are now changing their time schedules to get in more time on the internet, is because both mediums are replacing previous ways to obtain information. Before the radio, people had to wait a day for the newspaper to arrive. Then, before the TV, people had to wait anywhere from 15 minutes to a few hours for the news to arrive. Then, before the internet, people had to wait around five minutes to find the news in between the adds and channel changes. But now, the internet allows us to view the news in less than a minute. It's "there at our fingertips." Each medium replaced the last because each medium gave us the chance to get more done in less time. And since each medium saved time, naturally, humans spent more time on it to get more things done at once.
What the studies on television proved is fairly the same amount of material that this study proves: too much viewing can lead to a decrease in social interaction. What they didn't say, though, is that just because someone was a "TV Junkie" or "Internet Junkie" didn't mean that they're not socially involved...it only proved that the oportunity was there for it to occur. Sure, if someone spends over 8 hours a day watching television, they might develop a social problem. If someone spends over 8 hours a day on the internet, they might develop a social problem as well. It all depends on how deeply involved the person gets.
Aye, IIRC i picked up a lot of TLA's from IRC buddies. AFAIK they picked them up from other chan's. OTOH, IANAL (I am not a linguist), so CYAL.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Why do some people always think that spending a lot of time on the Net is necessarily a bad thing, or an addiction, or however you label it? I mean, yes, there *is* such a thing as Net addiction, which is uncontrollable and not mentally healthy. But that does NOT mean that using the Net for more than X number of hours per day is Bad, and getting on less than X number of hours per day is Good.
Quite to the contrary, I find that recently the Net has become one big factor in keeping me going... I'm an extreme introvert IRL, and do not in general meet new people unless circumstances are such that I'm with them for a period of time. But on the Net, I'm much more open to talk to new people and learn new ideas. Recently, I found that by talking to people on IRC, contrary to the popular belief that "people you meet online aren't real people [sic]", I actually became more sociable and less introverted. I also found that I rediscovered my interests in many things like music, etc., just by talking to people with similar interests on the Net. IRL I would have a very hard time finding someone who could relate to me in that way.
Anyway, my whole point is, there is no single measure of goodness/badness or healthiness/unhealthiness (whatever terms you wish to use) on the Net. I mean, I could've ended up with the wrong company of people on IRC and become a compulsive maniac or something. It's all a matter of how you use the Net. The Net is but a tool -- albeit a very powerful and versatile tool -- and if you use it right, even the stereotypically "bad" or "anti-social" things online may turn out quite the opposite way. Do not judge a book by its cover. Much less by rumor.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
My question is, do you lose anything from your internet habit? Maybe if you were looking for a job, instead of surfing the net, you would have a job? I don't know anything about your life, of course, perhaps you have enough income from other sources and don't need to work. Don't take this as a personal judgement. What I'm saying is that *if* somebody _needs_ a job, and spends 17 hours a day, 7 days a week reloading slashdot instead of looking for a job, then that person does have a serious "internet addiction" problem.
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
Lots of people have criticized the study on the social effects of Net use without looking at the study itself. That's understandable, given the overwhelming amount of press coverage it's gotten. But since a few people have asked for more substantial analysis, here are a few of my thoughts. Some of the most important flaws in the study.
(The study can be found here:a ry16/internetsurvey-216.html.)
ht tp://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/febru
(1) Know the researchers. Norman Nie, the study's lead author, is a Stanford political science professor who has a vested interest in proving that people are uninterested in one another: he has substantially based his career on showing how Americans are detached from civil society. He has done several studies on voter participation - with the understanding that low voter turnout is a bad thing (instead of a sign of voter contentedness). Look at the list of his publications for yourself - it is rife with his belief that Americans are forgetting what "citizenship" is all about.
Nie's work is reminiscent of the work of Robert Putnam, who argued that American society was in steep decline because more people are - get this - bowling alone. These goofy, academic simpering simpletons believe that there is always a cloud to every silver lining, and if they took a few moments to bring their heads out of the oxygen-deprived ivory tower, they would see how wrong they are - and they would be laughed to death.
(2) The question is suspect. From the outset, the study intends to frame the question inappropriately, asking whether we will "live in a better informed and connected, more engaged and participatory society" (the sort of society Nie would prefer, based on his previous leanings), or will live in a society "of lonely ex-couch potatoes glued to computer screens, whose human contacts are largely impersonal and whose political beliefs are easily manipulated."
Whoa! Why is that framed in black or white, one or zero, with nothing between? Are citizenship and society simple on-or-off characteristics, which you've either got or you haven't? From the very first page, the study betrays its authors' intent: to show that anything less than ideal citizenship is dangerous.
(3) Is a quantitative study the best way to answer these questions? The study is a product of Stanford's "Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society." The study reflects their juvenile belief that human society, in all its complexity, can be summed up in numbers: "For answers to these questions, we must move from ideological claims to empirical evidence."
Again, false! Empirical evidence - putting numbers on human social behavior - does not answer the underlying questions at all. As the discussions on Slashdot have shown, the important questions here are ideological. It is not enough to say that people have gone from spending X hours with friends to spending Y hours with friends. Knowing the simple numbers tells you bubkus - you still need to know whether and why spending time with your friends is good, and which aspects are being preserved as technology changes our society.
(4) Extreme conclusions are reached with minimal data. The study says that the people who have used the Internet the longest report that they spend more time online. The authors conclude that the data therefore, "strongly suggest a model of social change with not only a growing number of Internet users, but with web users doing more and more things on the internet in the future."
O, the surprise! People who have done something for a while may want to do more of it? That seems pretty natural - but where is the evidence for "a model of social change"? The only way to squeeze significant "social change" out of these data is by extrapolating - and that is dangerous with data so sparse, and especially with data of a developing scenario. My favorite example of a misguided extrapolation is this: At the time of Elvis's death, there were under 300 Elvis impersonators. By 1996, there were over 7,000. By extrapolating that rate of increase, we can know that one out of every four humans on the planet will be Elvis impersonators by 2020.
(5) So What? The study's conclusions are hardly alarming.
Look at the chart that purports to show that "Social Isolation Increases" as Net use increases.
The first flaw in this chart is that "social isolation" supposedly is what happens when you don't talk on the phone, or talk to your family, or attend events outside the home. If, however, you go shopping regularly, e-mail your family, and go to school or work every day, you are considered "socially isolated." Huh?
The second obvious flaw is in the dotted lines, which don't actually represent anything. The only real data are the dark, plotted points; lines representing trends really shouldn't be drawn with so little data. It's just a sloppy representation of the data.
Finally, so what? Less than one out of six people who use the Internet more than ten hours a week (the highest category on the chart) said they spend less time with their family or their friends, or spend less time at events outside of the house. Those are hardly numbers to cry about? Come on, now! I'd be concerned if, say, 60 percent of the people who use the Net that often report that they occasionally kill their neighbors' pets, but staying off the phone is hardly an apocalyptic signal.
(6) Human behavior doesn't fit into neat little check boxes. The professors conclude vehemently (they wrote it in bold and italics) that, "Clearly the media are competing... You can't surf the web and watch TV at the same time."
What silliness. As James Gleick showed in his brilliant Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything, we are animals especially able to multi-task. We absorb media from wherever we can, and can successfully navigate between television, radio and the Web simultaneously - because we can mentally tune between them during commercials, or during those painful minutes as we wait for the X-Men trailer to download. Claiming that we cannot concurrently absorb input from multiple media is plain silly! We adapt easily - we can watch television, carry on phone conversations and flip through Playboy all at once - so why pretend we are handicapped when it comes to newer media?
(7) The study relies on people's perceptions, not facts. A typical flaw in quantitative studies is that they purport to show facts about behavior - while they only really show facts through the filter of people's perceptions.
So does the study actually show that people spend the same amount of time in traffic, or more time at work? No, the study's authors didn't follow people around to measure time spent at home and time spent in the office - they asked people to report on themselves. Everybody knows how difficult self-assessment is; how accurate can these results be?
What's more, we should be suspicious about this "Internet is making us work more" claim. Is it true that time spent "at work" is the same as time spent working? Hasn't everybody who has access to the Web at work used some of that time (a lot of time, for some of us) fooling around online? We don't need a study to prove it - just look at all the companies that are spying on employees' computer use and even firing them because of "inappropriate" Net visits while on the job.
(8) Surveys can give you any answer you want. It is well known in political circles that polls can be tweaked to elicit any desired answers from respondents. In particular, the placing of key questions in a long list can affect the responses.
Here's a silly example of what I mean. Try it on a friend or coworker (if you still interact with friends or coworkers, which might surprise these academics). Ask the following questions. What color is grass? What color is money? What color do people supposedly turn when they are envious? What color is a cucumber? What color is at the top of a streetlight?
If the questions follow in rapid succesion, the answerer will be so accustomed to the pattern - all the answers would seem to be green - that they would probably mindlessly answer "green," for the last question, although the correct answer to the last question is red.
That is an oversimplified way of representing a serious problem with quantitative research that depends on answering questions. When you look at the questions (here) asked in the study, you get a similar feeling - the questions could be tweaked to get alternative results. In particular, Question 19, the question which has generated all the grand debate here on Slashdot and elsewhere, is a question that, perhaps accidentally, makes respondents feel self-pity and guilt. It asks respondents to rate whether using the Internet has affected each of these behaviors:
Working at the office
Working at home
Shopping in stores
Commuting in traffic
Reading newspapers
Watching television
Spending time with your family
Spending time with your friends
Watching television
Attending events
Imagine if the questions were framed in the way that the authors of this study are framing the results now. Imagine if the question asked: "Do you feel that using the Internet has isolated you socially?" or "Do you feel lonely because of the Internet?" or "Do you contribute less well to society because of the Internet?" or "Do you feel like your life is missing something, and you are now a pawn of corporations that pour their crass commercialization into your cranium over the Net without the buffering effects of friends and family?"
Conclusion: If you out to prove something statistically, you'll succeed. This study, which got hundreds of hours and thousands of column-inches of press coverage, is not serious or significant: it is an attempt by supposedly impartial professors to prove an ideological point while ostentatiously disdaining ideology.
I would be delighted to hear others' further criticism of the study itself - its aims and methodolgy.
Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Actually, KaCee, the study you describe sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, the study that these Stanford professors conducted was hardly that interesting or rigorous. I dissect it below.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Sure, the original study which began this debate was seriously flawed. There is still, however, a lesson we can learn from the disussion which followed. There is a point where you get too much of a good thing, and spending 17 hours a day sitting in front of the computer would qualify.
Like I said in the last forum, the internet is a great medium for gathering information and connecting people, but there is a point where it simply becomes an excuse for naturally introverted people to become shut-ins. You might think that you're living the good life because you're hanging off the greatest collection of raw data ever concieved, but you're really not if that's all you do.
Moderation, as always, is the key -- you can always overdo things. Too much food, too much exercise, too much sex, too much of anything isn't good. It's not healthy to never get outside or get any physical activity. It's not healthy to never interact face to face with other people. You're behaving like one of those people whose life is completely dominated by their significant other -- you're making sacrifices you can't imagine in trade for fairly minimal benefits, but you've become so encompassed by the lifestyle that you can't imagine any other way to live.
There's nothing wrong with net use -- it beats sitting around watching TV any day. But, people, please remember the value of variety. Overspecialize and you'll always encounter problems.
On a personal level, I would again urge you to stop and look up from the screen for a change. Going out and having a few beers with friends isn't the best thing for your body, but it's not going to kill you and could prove extremely valuable in other respects. Going out on the occassional date might not seem like a productive use of time, but there is a reason it's so popular (and I don't just mean sex, but that is a part).
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Er, what?
/. post where all the info anyone has is a name or handle that doesn't even need to be real, or in fact attached at all if they choose to post AC or in a study where they need to know your name, sex, age, television viewing habits, how much correspondance you have with your family, and so on?
When did Jon even mention anything about "losers" in his article? I'll admit that Jon's critique of the study isn't very scientific, but neither is the study itself from what I've read (which admitedly, isn't much). When isolation is defined as watching _less_ TV and more time online (whether it's IRCing, usenet or surfing) then there's definately something wrong, for obvious reasons.
As for the anonymity factor: Are people more likely to fudge the truth when their names are attached to something? Yes. But where do you think is more anonymous, in an email or
--
Reject
--
Reject
reject@metaphorcity dot com
Jon has been expounding this theme since at least his Hotwired days. The fear of the clueless leading them to attack this thing that seems about to take away a little of their power. But he seems to have missed a couple of points here. The first and most obvious is that the attacks have shifted over to the realm of the absurd. The very funny parodies of the Stanford "Study" should have been a giveaway. Mail is good, email is bad? Newspapers are good, news online is bad? This segment of the attack force has really lost whatever grip on reality it ever had.
But I would think that any discussion of attacks on the wired culture should contain at least a mention of the attacks that are actually threatening us. Direct frontal assaults are bound to fail (on the net as in most cases), but the side forays may be our undoing. UCITA, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and stupid software patents are just as absurd as the Stanford Study, but are much more dangerous. In fact the Stanford Study is itself dangerous in that it gives the clueless one more weapon to use in their efforts to destroy this thing we hold so precious.
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
Information is not Knowledge
I couldn't agree more with the fact that "culture" is an elitist term, and we're out for a divergence or at the very least a huge paradigm shift. In my decade on the Internet (I was around pre-web), I've developed several strong friendships and close personal ties. I was even involved in a year-and-a-half long net romance with someone from the opposite corner of North Dakota. In many ways, it is the relationship by which I measure all others, as she and I were deeply intimate on a mental level. (Of course, pleasures of the flesh did come later.)
Anyway, I think we're heading for a culture shift. For far too long, good culture has been defined in a top-down-matter: the upper crust of society says it is good, so it is good. True, we do see bottom up movements, but quite often their import is denied or warned against by the "cultural elite". With the rise of the web, culture has already become far more democratic than 10 years ago. The web is probably not the stimulus for change, but it is one hell of a catalyst.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
I think a lot of this kind of thought comes from people who have never experienced any meaningful dialog on the net. ie they just do not get it.
I know several smart people who just don't get online chat for example. They have no interest and can not figure out why any one else does.
When they think about someone who spends 30+ hours a week of their freetime on a MUD, it must seem to them to be a lonely and sad experience. While to the mudder he/she/it may be having the best social interaction they have ever had.
I personaly think that the TV is the greatest problem technology in this area. As it gives the illusion of social interaction with out being interactive. (and no I do not count the pay per view button) :)
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
kayaking
I'm sick and tired of people bashing Katz for the little things like how long his columns are or the fact that perhaps on a certain time he use Word to write his column. I personnally like to see something with a bit more substance in slashdot instead of pure discussion and a link to another page. John Katz's column brings more to /. than anyother article as it gives you MORE to discuss. you condemn him for using Word. Does a person have access to a linux box all the time? In my experience no and I feel that Katz should have the opertunity to explain himself before judging him.
I really liked the part about people using studies like these because they feel out of control. I look around and see people who are scared of computers and the 'net all the time. Folks seem to be grasping hard at the illusion of control these days. I was reminded recently of this theme in my favorite book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (you can read it online here .) Every time I read this book I get something new. Now, I get things about programming and computers. Anyway, here's a good quote:
That attitude is not hard to come to. You go through a heavy industrial area of a large city and there it all is, the technology. In front of it are high barbed-wire fences, locked gates, signs saying NO TRESPASSING, and beyond, through sooty air, you see ugly strange shapes of metal and brick whose purpose is unknown, and whose masters you will never see. What it's for you don't know, and why it's there, there's no one to tell, and so all you can feel is alienated, estranged, as though you didn't belong there. Who owns and understands this doesn't want you around. All this technology has somehow made you a stranger in your own land. Its very shape and appearance and mysteriousness say, ``Get out.'' You know there's an explanation for all this somewhere and what it's doing undoubtedly serves mankind in some indirect way but that isn't what you see. What you see is the NO TRESPASSING, KEEP OUT signs and not anything serving people but little people, like ants, serving these strange, incomprehensible shapes. And you think, even if I were a part of this, even if I were not a stranger, I would be just another ant serving the shapes. So the final feeling is hostile, and I think that's ultimately what's involved with this otherwise unexplainable attitude of John and Sylvia. Anything to do with valves and shafts and wrenches is a part of that dehumanized world, and they would rather not think about it. They don't want to get into it.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I agree with this study in it's premise... that the internet is physically isolating people, causing them to exchange their ideas in a virtual forum as opposed to a physical one (think a slashdot thread as opposed to a town meeting). What I don't agree with is that this is, or will ever be, intellectually ,emotionally, or socially damaging to us as a species. The basic premise behind the Internet is the exchange of ideas and information. Throughout history, mankind has striven to reach the goal of ultimate communication with each other. the Internet is the culmination of those efforts as it exists today (yesterday it was the telephone, before that the newspaper, etc).
Of course, old-world pundits will be frightened of this sociological change, as they always are whenever a paradigm shift in communications comes along. I however, believe that this is a precursor of things to come. Perhaps eventually, ultimate communication will be reached... through an evolution of human consciousness beyond our physical bodies. Weathe ror not this will be into a non-corporeal form of some sort, or will exist as brains linked into a global "cyberspace", who knows. but eventually, it will happen. And no amount of scared old-worled idealists will be able to stop it.
Kent Brockman: Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy sack-beatings are up a shocking nine hundred percent?
Homer: "Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that."
Now that I will be publicly flogged for that statement. I agree with him. While many of us are spending more time online it is not a case of abandoning all of our friends merely a new way to continue to communicate with them. Without programs like IRC,first, then more mainstream AIM and ICQ I would not stay in touch with most of my friends from college. I would not be able to afford to talk to most of them every day. While at work I can get email and post on slashdot rather than staring blankly while my brain reboots. I consider things like this a boom for society. Granted it is a different society but oh well, change can be good. Slowly media types will start to adopt this online phenom as a good thing. Once more and more of them are online. Right now they cater to their execs who are older and less connected and many do not ever use a computer I fear. I know at my last job we had execs that could barely use outlook. It was so funny the guy running one of the top 10 life insurance companies in the world, could not figure out how to open outlook and send email, took me about 2 hours to teach him outlook. People like that see net life as a abomination, until we convert them or they stop being in power we will continue to see these studies.
oh well
I am 31337 or something.
"80% of all purchasing decisions are made on the basis of color."
--Brand Packaging magazine
Serious--I actually saw that stat. Obviously a...bit shortsighted, but what's really scary is that somehow there was a study designed to prove that.
When all you've got is a vested interest in diagnosing physical isolation as personal isolation...
You design your study to get your nail.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
There are bags of resources on everything you want on the net. In one bag I'm your average everyday image of the geek (arrived at 8am, its 7:30 and I'm still at work), I'm reading the Cathedral and the bazaar, I update my PC on my own, it dual boots only for games, I bore everyone senseless with how great my job is and why every one should get into computing. I talk for hours at dinner with friends about the merits of XML/XSL and why Java should have multiple inheritance. Basically I put my girlfriend to sleep.
I spend an age on the internet, I check my email every 30 mins and there is normally something in it, I post to Slashdot and log on at the weekends.
So I must be a social reject. Well I'd like to speak up on behalf of all of those coders, hackers and internet junkies who also live to snowboard, windsurf, jump off cliffs and generally blow our above average salries on the sort of life we dreamed of as a kid. I'm not the sort of hacker who has a problem raising his voice, who can't mingle and finds it difficult to mix at a party. I'm the out-going sort who is interested in everything, be it Shakespeare (last book I read was Henry V PartII), Max Ernst, or my girlfriend being a lingerie designer.
Most of these studies are cut and dried, people who use the internet lack social skills, they don't mix with people. And yet those who work in the world of Open Source email people all over planet earth. I'm sitting in the UK and today I helped out someone in a
In the end Ernest Rutherford was right...
All research in the field of human sciences can be summarised as some do, some don't
The purpose of life is to go on holiday.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
First of all, the concept of "loser" is so highly subjective as to be irrelevant to the discussion. Katz' article doesn't use the word, so critiquing it on that basis is spurious at best.
The point is, a bunch of researchers with a pre-defined notion of acceptable societal behaviour went out, selected a group of people without 'net access, gave them access, and then measured how they spent less time on other things. Given the finite nature of the day, spending any time online would necessitate spending less elsewhere, yet they had the gall to turn around and declare the Internet as a hindrance to social interaction, again based on their own view of what interaction ought to be.
Katz is saying here that he has seen posts and email that tells a different story, one that perhaps the researchers should have taken into account. Does the 'net isolate some people in a negative way? Probably. Are all regular 'net users anti-social? No way!
This was a badly designed study with poorly interpreted data, which was then, of course, presented even worse in the mass media that loves to feed paranoia.
Considering how many ACs post here regularly, and how many did stand up and say that maybe their online time isn't so great for their lives in response to this story, your observation here is incorrect. One guy even did post about how much better his family life was once he cut out a chunk of his 'net time. The point is, much as that may be true for some, evidence here (both named and anonymous) seems to indicate that social interaction is made better for others because of the Internet, and research groups making alarmist declarations of the degradation of society are more of a problem than any electronic medium.
Kimberly "'net goddess" Chapman
I have major depression, and just a few years ago it would have been severe enough to see me hospitalized. At its worst, my depression deprives me of my ability to interract with people in real-time, face-to-face. My mind slows to molasses as I try to figure out what I just heard, what it means, and how I should react to it. That leads to a self-consciousness that is debilitating enough in its own right.
But on the Net, "Nobody Knows You're Depressed". Why? Simply because the pace of interraction is under my control. I can even lurk for a while before jumping in, giving me time to "warm up" a bit. I have the luxury of time on my side, allowing me to read a post as many times as needed for it to sink into my head, and allowing me to take as long as I wish to reply.
Far from isolating me from society and social interraction, the Net is all too often the ONLY social interraction I am capable of!
More detail: I don't have to hassle with sales people and cashiers when I can shop online. In the past there have been times when I ate stale bread merely because I couldn't cope with going to the store. PeaPod fixed that.
Let me reiterate: Without the Net, I doubt I'd be able to take care of myself. I would be in some institution, consuming large quantities of insurance and public money, not to mention countless drugs. But, surprisingly, I'm not! I'm able to earn my living and survive, and I'm able to greet the world on my own terms.
There are those who would degrade my state of existence, or even pity me. Don't! I earn nearly six figures, and I have my friends, family and entertainments, despite my depression.
All due, in large part, to the Net.
The Net acts as a "buffer" between me and the "real" world. A world where the only meaningful alternative is hospitalization. This same buffer allows me to take a slow and gradual approach with therapy and counselling, rather than the hasty treatment and rush to discharge seen in most hospitals. Plus, in a hospital I would not be able to continue to make a living!
The Net represents a technology that is fundamentally connective, not isolative. For me, the Net is a "social prosthesis", much as a hearing aid is to a deaf person. It makes interfacing with the world easier, better, and even possible.
Is the "world" I'm connecting with something other than the "real world"?
For the present, it is the best world I am able to live in.
The worst thing about it? You can't get a hug on the Net.
- Bob
San Diego, CA
I haven't looked at the study in detail, but your dismissal of it is particularly weak. Your evidence? "Well, a bunch of guys emailed me and posted to Slashdot to say that they're not losers." For one, do you really expect people to post en masse saying, "Yeah, I guess I am a loser."?
Your rebuttal is easily invalid for two simple reasons alone:
Gotta give you an "F" on this one, Jon...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
There's two sides to this. One is that some people use the "square-headed girlfriend" for escape. They don't WANT to interact f2f. When they do, it's about the world in the box. This is, of course, bad, and generally to be avoided.
The flip side is those of us who use the box to augment, add to, facilitate, and generally improve the relationships we already have, or would not have had but for the wonders of modern technology. I know for myself that were it not for the Net I would still be single in Atlanta and miserable rather than married, in Seattle, and reasonably happy and improving. So there.
But there is a third possibility (sorry, Arlo) a third possibility that no one has considered yet.
It's quite obvious to the casual Slashdot reader (which is different from the casual observer) that Stanford ignored the reality of the situation. Nobody has yet bothered to ask why.
I think I know. Flame me if you think I'm out in left field, but here goes:
I think They are scared. "They" are the pointy haired bosses, the university deans, the brokers, everyone who's a middleman and raking in the cash. They see the potential for their power to slip away, for mere mortals to talk directly to God without purchasing an indulgence from the local priesthood. People like Bob Young and Jeff Bezos and a couple gents named Larry and you and me have, not overtly, but just as loudly, nailed our 95 Theses to the doors of Redmond and 1600 Pennsylvania.... and the fertilizer is beginning to hit the rotating ventilation device. But it's no longer politic to simply send in the Knights Templar and squash the revolution. First you have to demonize it in the press. Alternatively you can attempt (Microsoft, Algore, AOL) to co-opt it for yourself.
[skip a bit, brother]
Ultimately it's about control. The Big Bwanas see us scurrying around down here plotting world domination and they don't like that idea because it means they'll have to drive a Neon instead of a Nine-Four-Four. So they get all het up about regulating the net and filtering it and keeping pr0n away from short people and bomb making info out of the hands of those Bearded Fellows (hey, I resemble that remark...) and ultimately grinding it down and mixing it with water and making it into the same kind of Soylent Green we've been sucking off the OTHER Glass Teat since our mothers were in grade school.
Bleah! Pfui! yak! barf. Get that stuff away from me, it rots your brain.
So what are we supposed to do about it anyway?
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Keep banging away at your Open Source projects, keep hacking on wireless internet, keep sending those checks to EFF and friends, and above all, don't let the bastards get you down. Don't even let them slow you down. If it's obvious to you that they aren't interested in listening, put it in granny low, sound the horn, and floor it. They were warned.
The 21st century is coming thru, boys and girls, and we are in the driver's seat. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
--
My name.... is NEO!
Oddly enough, despite the often held belief that computers and internet are for the young, it's the elderly who are really getting their money's worth. The internet allows those people unable to get around easily to meet and talk to people of similar ages and with similar experiences. When you reach an age where most of your friends have passed on it's nice to have a place where you can make new friends.
Yes. I no longer meet my neighbors. Thanks to the internet I am able to keep in touch with friends who actually know who Voltaire is. I can discuss my latest problems with my child with my friends two time zones away, who also have a child of the same age. I can communicate with people of a similar mind and IQ regardless of their age, race, religion, profession, or location. I can have my opinions challenged and even rated on Slashdot.
I met my wife on a WWIV BBS. If it hadn't been for the interaction we obviously didn't have over the modem lines I would have never married her...
I live in Nebraska. My son (age 7 months) has grandparents in Washington and Seattle. We have friends and family all over the U.S. (plus a few Aussies). I can put his latest photos on his web page and everyone can see him without me trying to send photos all over heck and creation.
I have come to a conclusion. The study at Standford was done by human beings, and published on the interent. As I have not had physical contact with these human beings, I cannot possibly be considered to have interacted with them. Therefore I cannot have been influenced by them. Therefore I cannot consider myself to have been informed by their research. Therefore their study is meaningless to me and to all others who have seen it.
-----
No Zen is good zen