Social Side-Effects Of Internet Use

venicebeach writes "The World Internet Project has released its third annual report on internet usage. It contains few surprises, but lots of interesing stats - for example the most experienced internet users spend an average of 15.8 hours online per week. CNN is running a story on the social findings - "New study shatters Internet 'geek' image." Apparently they are suprised to hear that internet users are more social than non-users: internet users watch less television, read more books and engage in more social activities."

Comments

Less TV == more social

[glinden]

Considering that the average American watches four hours of television per day, I'm not sure the average person has much time left for socializing. Anything that reduces the amount of TV watched, including using the Internet, is likely to improve how social that person is.

Re:Less TV == more social

[BlewScreen]

I'm not sure how that makes your point. If you replace an hour of TV with an hour of the Internet, you haven't exactly gained time for social activities...

-bs

Re:Less TV == more social

[dustmote]

I can't imagine watching that much television. Now that I've finally gotten used to not watching it (for about three years now, with occasional watching when at other peoples' homes) I can't stand to watch the "evil box" for very long. Every time I sit in front of it for very long at all I become very conscious of the amount of time that I am wasting on it, time that could have been used doing so many much more constructive things. (Or just surfing the net)

Re:Less TV == more social

[Rallion]

For me, the internet is a primarily social entity. I use it to communicate and to talk to people, to speak my ideas and see others. My time online is far more social than an equal amount of time in front of the boob tube.

Re:Less TV == more social

[c_jonescc]

Except, I can surf when it's convenient to my social schedule. TV viewers are usually locked up from 7 to 11 in the evening. I think that's the most likely reason.

Re:Less TV == more social

[Slightly Askew]

I would much rather my child take his cues on how to act socially from Clifford or Sesame Street than from the community in which I live. I have seen him interact with many children of different ethnicities and disabilities, and have never been embarassed by some social gaffe. I owe this to the fact that his mother and I never pointed out that being black or asian is any different than being blond or tall, and also to the fact that Barney, Big Bird, and the like always had mixed racial friends. If it was left up to my "village" to raise my "child", I have no doubt he would be an ignorant, bigoted redneck like the rest of them.

Watching television does not reduce the sociability of a person. It can teach them how to be a reponsible citizen. I'd rather my child be in front of a TV watching Caillou than being social with the other kids while chucking rocks at the Mexican kids.

No, it is not coincidence that the television shows I listed are on PBS

Re:Less TV == more social

[lukior]

Actually i used to view television primarily for the news. Now what would have taken me four hours channel surfing for relevant news i can easily get in an hour on the net freeing up 3 hours for social activities.

Re:Less TV == more social

[Anonymous Coward]

I owe this to the fact that his mother and I never pointed out that being black or asian is any different than being blond or tall

Don't worry, someone else will teach him to be racist. I learned all about racism in my Baltimore middle school. Our black female Librarian taught all of us that there are only 2 races, black and non-black. (That is right, I learned rasicm from a black woman.) If you are non-black you are a narrow minded racist pig and you have victimized blacks for generations. Regardless of where you or your ancestors were born you enslaved black people and you owe them.

I learned the lessons of the 70s left very well. And, my parents didn't have to teach me. Certainly not the lessons they would have taught me. The personal is political. Even today, I look at a TV commercial and identify the racial/sexual makeup of the ad and determine which group is being made fun of (usually the white male, BTW).

Don't worry even if you don't teach your kids this, someone will come along a teach your kids how to view people as just a demographic to hate or feel sorry for.

Re:Less TV == more social

[xankar]

It may not be social activity, but trying to say something informative/insightful/funny in the eyes of others every time you post is definitely an exercise in understanding people, and thus an exercise in social skills.

Re:Not surprised.

[ParadoxicalPostulate]

I agree.

Although I consider my self to be fairly competent when it comes to conducting myself socially IRL, when it comes to meaningful discussions the net is the way to go - even when I am talking to people I know IRL.

From my observation, the biggest reason your confidence gets boosted when on the net is because you don't have to worry about the person's initial reaction - i.e. you don't see facial expressions, hand movements, etc. Thus, you are not continuously evaluating your "speech" to see if they care. That leaves a lot more room for confidence and attention to what you do mean to say.

Is is adjusted for SES ?

[rcastro0]

Apparently they are suprised to hear that internet users are more social than non-users: internet users watch less television, read more books and engage in more social activities.

This leads you to think that if you surf the internet you become more prone to social interactions and you read more books. However all of these things are probably related to something else.

The article is not clear about it, but I would guess they did not adjust for Socio-Economic Segments (SES). SES would reflect mainly an individual's income and education level.

Internet usage of course begun in the higher SES levels (having started mainly in the academic world) -- and has ever since penetrated more the top levels than the bottom ones (this has in turn given risen to the term digital divide). On the other hand, guess which SES reads more books and has a richer social experience ?

Books are not by default better than TV

[Slightly Askew]

I get so tired of this assumption that just because a person reads a lot, they are automatically more intelligent. I happen to read quite a bit, but I know people who spend way more time than most people watching TV, yet are very intelligent. Specifically, I know of a college professor that could out debate anyone on Crossfire, and does nothing all evening but watch History and PBS.

Also, what's with the assumption that any reading material is automatically more valuable than any television show? I can learn more watching 30 minutes of TLC, Discovery, A&E, Biography, History Channel, or PBS than I can in spending three hours reading whatever trash Oprah is recommending this week. I do agree that reading increases vocabulary, but I would also argue that television is much more conducive to other areas of learning, as it delivers its message via sight and sound.

As for the social aspect, many of us are forced into social situations all day long. We do not need to spend our times outside of the office, carpool, school, college, whatever to increase our social skills. However, we do need "alone time" so that we can regroup and prepare for the next day.