Slashdot Mirror
Bulletin: The Net Isn't Dehumanizing!
The results of this study contradict years of short-sighted, phobic reports to the contrary, but you probably won't see them on the front pages of your local paper, or see the study leading the evening news. "The Net is neither isolating nor dehumanizing" would make a lousy headline, and a worse debate soundbite. George Bush won't add this to his "Dark Hearts and the Net" riff, and Gore and Lieberman won't cite it in their anti-"cultural pollution" or stop-the-video-game campaigns.
You can find the study, which was reported by the Associated Press, in the tech section of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune site and a handful of sites and papers here and there.
The findings shouldn't be a huge surprise to Net users, but it ought to come as a huge shock to the rest of this country's grown-ups. More than 75% of the people polled said they don't feel as if they're being ignored by relatives and friends as a result of chat-room activity. In fact, the majority of Net users said e-mail, Web sites and chat rooms have a "modestly positive impact" on their abilities to make new friends and communicative more with family.
If stupidity, hysteria and ignorance were crimes, lots of journalists and polticians would be calling lawyers about now. There are few more widely propagated stereotypes than the idea that the people reading this column are isolated and alienated from other humans as a result of the time they spend online gaming, squabbling, yakking and programming. The study is overdue, but it's probably small comfort to the people who've been berated for the perils of spending time online for much of their lives.
The study surveyed the opinions and online habits of 2,096 respondents -- both Net users and non-users. More than 70% of parents said their children's grades are neither helped nor hurt by Internet activity. Nearly two-thirds said they now buy less from traditional retailers, as opposed to shopping online. Lack of privacy was the biggest concern of the Net users surveyed, who said that few fear the government watching them, but most fear invasive corporations tracking their behavior. Curiously, the study was funded by the National Science Foundation as well as AOL, Microsoft, and the Walt Disney Corp. Officials of the Pew Internet and American Life Project were quoted as saying the report supports their own findings that the Net is a tool that unites more people than it isolates.
The UCLA study has other interesting findings: 66.9% of Americans use the Net; 54.6% use e-mail. More than 86% of Americans with college degrees use the Net regularly; 78.7% of adults say children in their households spend an appropriate amount of time online. More than 70% of adults say the grades of kids who use the Net don't fall. The top five Net activites? Web surfing or browsing, 81.7%; E-mail, 81.6%; Seeking hobby information, 57.2%; finding entertainment information, 54.3%.
Oh, yeah: 75.3% of Internet users say they never feel ignored by other people because of the Net. This is a good survey to print out, store in your computer or print out and put in your wallet. Unfortunately, you still need it.
Hrm.
I did all that and I'm not violent. Maybe it's because I had parents who actually raised me instead of having the TV, the school district, the internet, etc. raise me.
Most of the conclusions presented in this report and others like it depend on data that itself depends upon the subjects determining causal relationships for themselves. How accurate will data gathered from self-reporting respondents be? A subject claiming to be unaffected by net use and external data proving her to be unaffected are two different things.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
Nonsense, it's credible because it says what we want to hear!
is why there's all this hand-wringing about the Net supposedly leading to social isolation etc. etc., yet you pretty much never hear people whining about television having these effects. When you consider that the Net can involve actual social interaction and TV pretty much by definition can't, this is...odd.
Note who paid for this study: AOL, Microsoft, and Sony. The results are very much in line with what those sponsors want to hear, which is that the 'net is good for you.
Note also that this study did not attempt to measure any objective indicators at all -- it asked people if THEY thought the Internet was isolating or dehumanizing them, and they didn't. But people are notoriously poor at objectively evaluating their own lifestyles & circumstances. Ask some smokers if they think that smoking is having a negative impact on their health: they'll tell you it isn't, and they'll be wrong.
I don't personally believe that the Internet contributes to social isolation, but I don't think this study is very good evidence in support of this position. It looks to me like an attempt by MS, AOL, and the other big boys, to generate some nice factoids for their PR departments.
The net gives an opportunity for the messed-up weirdos of the world to show their faces in "public."
They were all doing that before. The net just changes their audience.
In fact, it makes them easier to ignore; instead of having to walk around them on the sidewalk or try to avoid them at work, now you just delete and filter.
-
The US isn't all that different from England. In fact, it's been my experience that you see far more difference between socio-economic classes than you do between US and English citizens. In other words, a professional in the United States is apt to have more in common with his counterpart in England than he is with the blue collar worker down the street. They may follow different sports, drink a different beer, read different magazines, and what not, but once you get past that they're a lot alike.
Sure, you still have small town communities with a certain take of the world, but that's got more to do with how they live than the country they live in.
Feed the groupthink! One survey suddenly proves the internet is harmless? Puuuhlease. You know this was partially funded by corporations that just happen to have a vested interest in the results? Now I'm not saying it was rigged, but you guys can at least be consistent. Ignore it like you would any other corporate funded study.
This survey probably wasn't rigged, but come on. There are lots of ways to get the wrong results on a survey like this. Firstly, it seems as if most of the test only "asked" people if they felt like they were being cut off. Well, I don't know about you, but very few people with problems with admit that they have it (even to themselves). Secondly, the internet has only made itself into America's living room in the past year or two. Don't assume that just because it's got a huge market share now, that all those users have been using the net with any regularity for a significant amount of time. Thirdly, I believe Katz and this survey quoted about ~75%, that's still a significant percentage who are reporting problems. That remaing ~25% could be all over the map, maybe 1% with serious problems. Fourthly, because this study is so broad, you can't ignore the fact that most of the users are so new that it's unlikely that they'd have problems even if the internet were known to be harmfull in extreme. In other words, this doesn't mean the internet hardened geeks of the world that have been using it for years have nothing to worry about.
Maybe this is going a little too far, but I believe you'd see similar numbers if you were to introduce alchohol and do a similar survey. Do you feel you're an alchoholic? Of course not. Do you know anyone that's become an alchoholic after only moderate use? Similarly, most people who drink alchohol don't abuse it, but some do.
It's clear that the internet offers undeniable benefits, even some social ones (i.e., to communicate via email with friends). It may be very positive on the aggregate, but I am convinced that there is also a significant bad element in it. I am convinced that excessive usage of stuff like slashdot, IRC, ICQ, IM, etc are going to be a real cause of tension in relationships and what not in the coming years. I've seen enough of it first hand to know that it's there. Anyways, the point is this survey has done nothing to dissuade me. Katz is wrong to trumpet it like it means you can just scoff at any criticism.
My sister, who is now a freshman in high school, goes home and sits at the family computer every day after soccer practice. For her, the computer has replaced the phone (or in many cases, added to it, since she'll also talk on the phone). Luckily, I've set up a home network so that we can all share an ISDN connection and still use the phone. Now, instead of talking for hours with one or two people at a time, she'll spend hourse with sometimes as many as eight or nine open AOL instant messenger windows talking with friends. In the social network of 15 year old girls, I'd guess that she's a major node. I doubt anyone would ever claim that the net is dehumanizing her.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I don't know how many fat people I hear saying that they don't know why they're fat. "I don't eat too much." Many alcoholics insist that alcohol isn't their problem, ditto drug addicts and drugs, etc.
Why is this relevant? The whole thing was about surveying people's opinions. I know at least half a dozen co-workers who go home and surf their home internet kiosks until it's time to sleep or turn on Star Trek. Repeat until dead. And it's like digging a tick out of a long-hair to pry some of these people off their systems and get them to join the lunch crowd for some face time. Even more fun to get them to speak more than a few sentences.
From the article:
They didn't just ask net users if they thought they were adversely affected. They asked friends and family of net users if they were being less social. That's a lot more objective. Wouldn't the net users social group be in a position to judge?
-- I'm not evil, I'm
Okay. What makes this study any more credible than the several other reports that contradict it? Because JonKatz says it's right?
--
Assuming that you're speaking from an American perspective, is that really what it's like over there?
Here in England, pretty much everyone discusses quite a wide variety of things, we still have 'national debates' where a certain meme has made it's way into public and people discuss it pretty much anywhere. The cannabis debate has been the last one recently, the worth of the European Union is always ongoing. Sure people talk about football (*soccer*), but it's not limited to that.
Perhaps it's because there's a lot of us crammed in a small country together, and probably due to the multi-cultralness as well. There's not that many places left here where you can find the small-town mentality.
Well, here is an example of the good benefits of the Internet, learning about different peoples cultures from the horses mouth, rather than filtered through TV and films.
They were all doing that before. The net just changes their audience.
Maybe, but it took a lot more guts to break into an Apple II user group meeting, in person, just to argue that the Amiga was more powerful. Similarly, who would verbally assault a Windows user in a McDonalds? You see this all the time on the web, but in real life it's just dumb.
The net gives an opportunity for the messed-up weirdos of the world to show their faces in "public." Think about it: What kind of person does it take to violently argue the superiority of the Dreamcast over the PS2? Or KDE vs. Gnome? I'm not talking about technical nitpicking, but hardcore goofiness like posting phony (negative) reviews of KDE in order to boost Gnome, or posting slams at Linux every time a BSD story is posted. That kind of behavior is seriously messed up.
In the ensuing years, however, the rise in commercialization of the whole thing has led me to limit my use to email with friends, information gathering and buying stuff.
I spend about 1/10th of my work day on the net, and maybe 20 minutes a week when I'm home. It has not turned into the "television replacement" that was forecast a while back, and neither myself nor my nine year old daughter finds it all that entertaining.
Chat rooms seem to be a wasteland of children and idiots constantly on with their LOL and BRB, and I can't imagine anyone finding that to be a great use of time.
I think what keeps useage (and social isolation) down is the lack of community with a point -- it's one thing to go sit in a restaurant with friends talking, and quite another to slog through banner ads, only to find your communications inundated with the ROTFLMAO crowd.
In this study people are more likely to respond in socially desirable ways. By analogy, an alcoholic may not be willing to admit that his/her drinking has negative effects.
It's definitely good to see studies focusing on the fact that the Net isn't that bad (or is even, gasp, good), but we shouldn't give too much credence to this study in contrast to others. If we're interested in the truth, we should be willing to consider the fact that certain aspects of on-line life may not be very healthy.
On a related note, for a thorough analysis of the importance of "social capital" see Robert Putnam's new book "Bowling Alone."
The one question Katz/survey doesn't seem to concentrate on is whether other people feel neglected because their friends/relative use the Net. I mean, do the people around, say, me, feel neglected because of the time I spend on the web?
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Before BBS and Internet days, I wasn't a social person due to my articulation disability (unable to talk clearly). When I was introduced to Prodigy, BBS', and Internet, I became more socialable. The Internet helped me to communicate better and easier, become more productive, and have a happier life.
:(
When I hear my friends and relatives say that the Internet is making me not socialable, it pisses me off. I tell them that I don't socialize very well when speaking.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Why? Because I met my wife on the internet. That has always been a big issue amongst my family. They're all small-town people, farm workers, with no use for a computer, and here their family member got swept up and married to someone he didn't even know. NOT!
The internet supplements your life. It allowed me to find friends that weren't just about drinking, smoking, and football. It allowed me to spend my days hanging with the guys, then go home in the evening and have meaningful discussions about topics that I enjoy.
And that's how I met my wife, as a friend on irc. Then we just decided to meet (2 hours apart), as friends, after talking for over a year. Then we continued meeting as friends every weekend til we began meeting as a couple. Then a year after that, we got married.
Just because a majority of my friends that I enjoy are on the internet doesn't mean that I shut out everyone around me (which my family now believes). They just can't understand that when I go to family reunions, I don't want to talk about deer hunting, or college football, or how Michelle drove the tractor for the first time. I want to talk about life, psychology, why we do the things we do, where we are all going, and how to root a solaris box.
Sorry folks, but you can't just grab one study and yell "this is how it is!" The Washington Post covered this same story, and in their write-up they mention how the findings by UCLA are in direct contradition to an equally massive study performed by people at Stanford earlier this year. Sorry Katz, but independent verification is still a requirement of scientific research.
It would seem that the anonymity granted to users by the internet has harmful effects on people. "If you can't [be held liable] for your [words or actions] online, then [you] can do whatever [you] want" Seems to be the refrain of 12 year old net users around the world. That is not to say that anonymity is bad, but merely that 12 year olds who have no respect for that anonymity are.
Pax Digitalia
I would agree with you there, but it can also cause problems for shallow people, once you do meet them in person, are they going to live up to your standards. I hate judgemental people, and the world is full of them.
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
Katz, if you're reading this, all it took to get this link was typing "www.ucla.com" and following a link from their main page. Being the net savvy "internet culture" advocate you are, I'm suprised you didn't try this.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Simply because most people believe that the net has had a positive effect on their social interaction doesn't necessarily mean that it has. It seems to me that before any realistic conclusions can be drawn about the matter, there should be an actual psychological study done which rates the net's effects based on actual evidence. It's just as logical to conclude from these findings that net use leads to denial as that it has no social drawbacks.
"Yup," you sound a bit elitist, you city slicker! Nothing wrong with pickups or beer from a can, as long as it's not something icky like Budweiser. ;-)
Seriously, I owe a lot to my hillbilly roots.
I have a father who worked hard (in a steel foundry) for thirty years to make sure his children had every opportunity he could give them. I am trying to do as well for mine. Largely because of him, I worry more about carpal tunnel syndrome than steel dust in my lungs.
I had a family and community which taught me basic values like honesty, hard work, looking out for your family and neighbors, etc.
When I go back to my home town, I enjoy talking both to the beer swillers about their "mundane" interests. I also enjoy talking to those small-towners who are cruising the web and publishing web sites. I don't demand that you should enjoy both, but your "disgust" disgusts me.
Jeff (a pickup-driving, suburb-dwelling, hillbilly with a Ph.D.)
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
The tough part is that because their arguments are so emotional these people are hard to combat. In public debate you really can't come right out and say "Sorry ma'am, your son is of weak mind" because that only adds to the emotional mindset. You can only try to hope that people can see through all the hype and use logic. The ability of the Jerry Springer show to hold an audience and continue to find people willing to appear on the show indicates that this isn't a strong point of the some folks.
Icebox
I wish there were more like you.
I don't understand why this concept is so difficult. If all the kid ever sees or hears is disrespect, how are they ever going to learn respect? Contrary to popular belief, you are not going to teach a kid to respect you or anything else by constantly telling them they are idiots. Show them how much you respect them (and if you don't, then don't have kids. Please, the world is screwed up enough right now). If you can't respect them, how do you expect them to respect you?
Bite my yammer.
...that people are %100 honest about themselves.
In other words, you do have to wonder whether asking people their opinions on an issue really "proves" anything. E.g.:
In related news, a significant majority of individuals who consume alcohol on a daily basis do not fell that their alcohol consumption affects negatively affects their social life or their grades. Another survey of individuals who recently gave up drinking shows the opposite results...
Hey! Reading Slashdot, half-empty, Kuro5shin, etc. has a very positive social effect... I get to talk to fu_man, Misfit, nebby... :-)
Hey, what's all those green and brown things outside my window. They kinda remind me of binary trees...
The net is full of dangerous people
:)
No. It isn't nearly full yet. There's plenty of more room for perverts, sickos, and chimps on the net. In fact, I go whole days on the web/IRC/AIM/freechess/Slashdot without running into any obviously maladapted folks. Adding Usenet to the mix can quickly change that, but even then, staying out of certainly binary-centric groups seems to work well. I'm guessing that the internet is no more replete with the bad people than the average corporate office, shopping mall, post office, university, major league sporting event, or sidewalk.
Finally, as far as your rhetorical sisters and daughters are concerned, I really think they have more to worry about from their friends and family than they do from anonymous strangers on the net. All of the feminist readings I've done and women I've discussed this with indicate that family members or date-rapists (and party-rapists) are far more to be feared than someone online.
You don't need to be extra careful WHO you are chatting with, you need to be careful WHAT you are chatting about and HOW MUCH you tell potentially threatening individuals that may help them injure you (and to be aware of data about you that may be available which helps them fill in the blanks). Finally, although I have to say I wouldn't want my rhetorical daughter to be sex-chatting some old guy, I certainly would think that if I felt she had made the decision to do so in full awareness (and was old enough to understand the conversation), that such behavior was harmless. However, if that guy showed up my rhetorical house seeking that rhetorical daughter, he would be greeted with some rhetorically heated lead fired from a rhetorical shotgun and dumped in a rhetorical body of water. Rhetorically speaking of course.
I do not have a signature
I was very lucky to go to an alternative junior high program that was built around this assumption. Learned a ton. Would send my kids there in a second, if I have any.
sulli
RTFJ.
Not just video games, but actually buying them. Check out this ebay auction.
I bet if some of these bidders were put in a room to sort out who gets the 1 PS2, you'd see some real anti-social behaviour. =)
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'd like to see a study explain this. Before auto-post, I'll take into consideration:
Remote buyers who wouldn't be able to get to a store
Gatesian wealth that could care less
Does the ease of use of e-auctions, access to credit and the absense of someone beating you over the head with a clue-bat leave a new class of people with an "auction-after" syndrome? What a rush; it felt like the right thing to do at the time; What've I done?; Oh sh!t how'm I gonna pay for that!
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I mean, think back to 1453. Remember the chilling effects Guttenberg's printing press had on society? Suddenly, there were all these habitual readers, devoting dangerously large blocks of time to nothing but reading, completely ignoring such time-honored, socially recognized traditional activities as hard manual labor, angry mobbing, pennance, and feudal servitude. Eventually, society was so radically transformed that nobody from that period would even be able to recognize it today. It's a wonder humankind managed to survive!
Looks like we've realy dodged a bullet on this one, thank goodness. I just hope that the research is right--imagine what might happen if the Internet were to have a similar effect on our society as Guttenberg's infernal contraption had on his own...*shudder*
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It's nice to see some statistics coming out that support the real facts about the internet. But be careful not to misjudge in the opposite direction. John Katz and numerous others, instead of irrationally deriding the net often irrationally extol the wonders of the net (It'll increase the power of the people! It'll end politics! etc.) The net is neither totally wonderful nor totally awful. It's merely a reflection of the insides of society. You see there things from the real world reflected, neither for the better nor for the worse. So, when you next talk about the net, don't put it down, but don't tell everybody the net is a cure for cancer! It's no more good or bad than a telephone.
one nation, under pr0n...
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
the 'net is like any other TOOL...neither good or bad in and of itself. It all depends on the way the user uses it
============================================
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB