Slashdot Mirror
No Harm, No Foul in Heavy Net Use
An anonymous reader writes "Breathe easy, addicts. A new study says there's no harm in extended Internet use, contrary to earlier research indicating otherwise. Science Blog reports on an a University of Alberta study that found it can even be therapeutic for those 'facing social isolation and loneliness.'" So rejoice, everyone reading this on Sunday afternoon.
Yeah, but what came first?
If people weren't in front of their computers 24/7 maybe they wouldn't be isolated and lonely..
Just a thought..
Will code a sig generator for food
I think most people look askance at anyone doing anything excessively, particularly when it's to the detrement of other facets of life...unless what you excess on is something you do that contibutes to the world in some manner.
The most normal peolple that I know are often well-balance people. They balance work, play, relationships, family, etc., very well. They're the type of people you can have a beer with, share some jokes and feel good about knowing them.
Those that excess are either very weird or considered genius.
...if using the internet leads to a quasi-addiction (like reading Slashdot), you can easily waste many hours a day for years of your life in front of your computer instead of doing something with other people.
Something that would actually reward you and bring you forward in your life.
...is harmful. Drink too much water, and you'll die. Moderation in all things should be a way of life.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I didn't develop bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome at 19 from watching too much television. Let's be realistic here - too much of almost anything is bad.
G
How can you suggest that the internet as a whole can be either harmful or harmless? There's such a wide range of things that make the interent-porn, gaming, newsgroups, bulletin boards, research, trolling Slashdot, IMs, email etc. It's a tool, and as such comments can only be made on the relative safety of the activities done with it, not on the tool itself.
Some people don't have a choice when it comes to social isolation.
The most obvious example, of course, is the elderly who are shut in. Before you say "but they're old," the elderly are increasing using computers more and more, especially to communicate with family and friends.
Secondy is what I fall into. I have social anxiety disorder, and the net is one of the few ways that I can easily communicate with others. If you don't like using the phone and meeting new people isn't a very pleasant experiences, the 'net helps out tremedously. It helps keep me some sort of connection with the outside world and it works as a springboard for increasing my contact with others.
Not all people are at fault for causing their own lonely situation.
It all depends on the person, not what the study says. If net use interferes with other activities in your life (yes, there are other activites) or simply you're not happy then you can consider it bad for you. It might be 12 hours/day or less, everybody is different. If you're happy in front of that computer and in peace, I don't think a study should tell you to get off that machine.
She found that Internet users on average were more likely to have sociological and psychological problems than the regular community. However, for each of the psychological items, she also asked when the Internet users first experienced their symptoms and found that onset of psychological symptoms "clearly preceded Internet use," at a range of five to 22 years.
This is interesting, I guess, but really doesn't say anything about the effects of internet usage. We don't know how psychological functioning changed as a result of internet use. All we know is that these people were experiencing problems before they used the internet - according to their memory, at least, which is not the most reliable form of evidence.
I have trouble believing that there is no detrimental effect. Let's a assume for a minute that there is no direct psychological harm done; perhaps it is even a little bit beneficial. Which is more physicly beneficial: Sitting in front of a monitor all day, or going out playing a game of basketball with a couple friends? Almost anything that involves other humans is more physicly beneficial simply because it makes you get out of the chair. Even going to a LAN party requires you get up, get moving and carry your computer out to the car. Its well known that the body affects the mind, just like the mind affects the body. Their study says there is no harm, but as compared to what? Lying in bed all day?
Questionaires and Surveys are tools used by Social Scientists in order to gain credibility for what essentially a totally qualitative inquiry. They question the users, the users answer, they do not psychologically analyze each user or attempt to understand they simply retrieve data directly from the user. These studied are incredibly biased to the surveyor. This is essentially a poor evaluation using quantative methods in a naive fashion to bolster the logical and scientific aspects of the study.
everyone here knows that the REAL purpose of the internet is to 1. look at porn and to 2. allows geeks to talk to other geeks. (just joking actually)
there isnt anything wrong with being on the net for long periods of time. in matter of fact i met my girlfriend of 1 1/2 years on the internet. of course i have no problems, im the perfect embodyment of millions of years of evolution. but my girlfriend certainly had social problems, and at the time she had no friends, as was very depressed. now were both extremely happy, and she has become extremly funny, and she started to make tons of friends. because her talking on the net allowed her to loosen up from her anxiety, and also learn to trust people. and the internet is really a good medium for information.
and for all the people who make fun at the people who spend alot of time on the net, or have social problems. i know that deep inside you are bitter trolls, who may actually the object of your own jokes.
Are those studies really serious, "using" Internet means so many things, it's like saying "living can kill".
Spending hours in "the outer world" of games or business could lead to social issues (well, like spending 3 nights in a row in casinos or all week-ends at the office). But for really shy people it is also a way to socialize. Or sometimes, it's just fun. Like somebody said, everything can lead to addiction in huge quantities, even CocaCola!
I personally spend a lot of time (in my own time-scale) on Internet, but well, less than the population average 2-3 hours in front of TV, and I don't have TV. I keep in touch with friends, learn far more than the same time stoned in front of a TV, mix professional and personal interests... And I don't spend so much time surfing at the office;-).
ClaudeBBG
I, for one, spend most of my living hours at my computer, at work and at home, and thus forego a chance to lead a more active and healthier lifestyle. Even 20 mins spent jogging/walking every evening would be healthier than the same time spent browsing /..
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Considering that ISPs make their money by selling you "unlimited" access that they pray you never use, I'd say that's highly unlikely. ;)
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
" Does the internet make you lonely, or does being lonely make you want to use the internet?"
Nar that's not really the question anymore, it's "should one who is depressed get off the net?" The problem is that some people heal themselves with human interaction on the net, others perpetuate it. I've met people in both categories, so I don't really know the answer. The difference between the two is really a matter of "Are they trying to help themselves"?
"Derp de derp."
All I have to do is read the comments, and I know what my response will be.
There's a problem which has been around for many hundreds of years prior to the invention of the Personal Computer, indeed, it has been around before even the Industrial Revolution. It is something which many, perhaps rightfully, believe to be a mental disorder. That problem is, to express it in "nerd" terms, a binary outlook on the world.
Under this problem, one believes that everything is either good OR bad, black OR white, present OR nonexistent, etc. I think most of you already know what I'm going to say next, and a good deal are likely to stop reading at this point because it's been said so many times before, but I'm going to say it, anyway. The world is full of color and number, beyond the arbitrarily set demarkations of 0s and 1s.
Here I'd like to introduce two of my own personal adages. Nothing is ever so simple as to be yes or no/black or white/etc. if you will take the time to look deeper than just the bare surface; and also, there is an exception to every rule, even the rule that there is an exception to every rule.
The second, though recursive, is applicable to just about everything. The first applies specifically to issues, world views, and "studies" like this one. As others have said before me, and more will say again after my time in this world passes, anything taken to an extreme is unhealthy if not destructive. But, and this must be determined on a case-to-case, personal level, doing, consuming, etc. anything within a certain limit will not do enough harm to be of concern (unless, of course, you're a hypochondriac).
Is spending time on the internet harmful to one's health? That's hard to say for sure, due to the ever-growing amount and quality of mediums that the internet provides. Assuming an otherwise healthy body, is sitting around and using the internet harmful? See the last sentence of the preceding paragraph.
All of this being said and understood, one can readily see that such studies are non-issues when all they conclude is that something is either good or bad (1s and 0s, again). The fact that they raise awareness of a topic is usually beneficial, granted, but if a study is so simple as to have such oversimplified results, except for what the researchers may learn, that study is irrelevant.
The harm we cause ourselves is not brought by what mediums, ideologies, places, and polities (among others) that we live in, but by what we choose to limit ourselves to. If one limits oneself to sitting in a chair for twelve hours a day, awake but relatively immobile, then it is that choice which brings about the onset of harm or potential for harm.
That being said, I'm going to go finish some work and then go outside, hopefully before the sun sets.
~UP
Eat the Path.
I don't think extended internet use has any harmful effects. But I do think that it can be a symptom of depression and other serious problems.
It all depends in what's going on in the person's head. I know some people close to me who have used the internet as a way of avoiding their real life. It's so fun and quick and interactive and social... well... who needs real life, right?
There actually seems to be a little subculture of depressed people who get together online and thrill each other with attention and understanding. Which almost sounds like a good thing until you watch one of them spiral downward and suck the life out of everyone around them in the real world.
Someone close to me hit rock bottom this way. Luckily she is now recovering. She had to swear off many types of internet usage (gaming, IRC & IM). Which was sad because there can be some legitimate healthy fun in all those things. Now it's just email and purposeful browsing.
Her old online friends who were left behind are like a bunch of old drinking buddies trying to convince the recovering alcoholic to come back out and have some fun again. They email regularly about how much they miss her hanging out online with them... for 12 to 18 hours a day. Can't she just come back and play a little?
Anyways, thought I'd throw in my $0.02.
Cheers.