Slashdot Mirror
Internet to Blame for Lack of Close Friends
Anonymous Coward writes "Duke and University of Arizona researchers are citing the Internet as one of the main contributing factors to a shrinking of social networks among Americans. People say they have fewer people they can talk to about important stuff, even if they are talking to lots more people from all over the place about unimportant stuff online."
That maybe people use the Internet because they don't have any friends?
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
... and I'll say it again. Where can I get giant bags of cash to study the blindingly obvious?
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
That would be cool. I'd settle for one or two friends though.
I would think that most people that "rely" on the internets to make friends typically are the outcasts that don't have loads of friends. I hang out with a lot of people, but still know plenty from the internet alone.
I don't think just knowing people by the net and never meeting them is healthy. You need human to human interaction.
Its like if you want to get a mate now a days, one has to get a myspace.
<H0ley> What ever happened to getting to know people and dates and crap.
<H0ley> Screw this profile crap.
<H0ley> Everyone is trying to profile each other.
<H0ley> Freaking meat-markets.
<L4m3r> Dogs leave piles of crap for each other. We have Myspace.
I talk about that on the internet all the time.
must... stay... awake...
As unfortunate as that trend is, it seems to go along with another possibly related thing: folks are putting more and more personal information on their networking sites and blogs, things that they'd be embarassed to tell a "real" friend and downright insane to tell an employer. Off the internet you might not have many CLOSE friends, but on the internet everyone is your BEST friend.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
Maybe the article just got it wrong and the paper actually makes valid points, but the assertion that comparing data from 1985 and 2004 can tell us anything about the Internet's effect on socialization is absurd. That data and those time periods can't even show a correlation, much less causation. Perhaps if they had studied data from 1985 to2004 and related it to the amount of internet access for those time periods (or better yet, actually studied differences between those with internet access and those without) then there would be a story. Otherwise, this is just an absurd claim completely unsubtantiated by any facts (much less my own personal experience).
I believe that the problem is not Internet, but the increase in population. I have lived in small cities and big ones, and seen other even bigger cities, and you can really feel the difference. In small towns people are friendlier, more relaxed. For instance, you may say 'hi' to anyone you cross in the street and it won't be seen as something strange (in even smaller towns -rural areas- it's more like you must say hi, even if you don't know the other person). In bigger cities, on the other hand, you can feel the distance from other people. It's much more colder. Think Japan, loads of people all together but they try to avoid contact with each other. The "personal space" is a few centimetres around you... The bigger the city, the worse the problem is. Another thing I have seen is that people in bigger cities ignore unknown people more easly. In those cities I've heard other people talk about personal matters without minding who might hear them. In my home town that would be quite undiscrete and considered bad manners. That's my opinion, anyway :)
Let's put the blame where it belongs: I have less close friends because I spend too much time on the internet. It's not like the internet's fault, it's mine for taking the easy option.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Maybe I'm not the demographic being described by the article, but I believe I have more close friends than I would w/o the Internet. I have my real life friends, some of whom have been my friends for more than half my life, and I have close friends I met online, and only know from online. Some of these people I've never met in real life, yet I'm comfortable enough to confide in them and look to them for advice.
I don't use MySpace, I don't participate in social networking sites, yet I've still managed to encounter other minds like mine; minds I can learn from, and minds I can teach. Having an online life doesn't preclude me from having an offline life, and indeed they supplement each other.
Finally, the Internet has greatly facilitated maintaining offline friendships that would have dissolved for geographic reasons. These friendships have moved online, and if not for the Internet, we might write a letter once a month or so. Instead I talk to these people daily. We also game together, so on a typical Friday night, a half dozen of my real life (offline) friends and I meet up and slay Onyxia or run Molten Core together when it would be logistically infeasible for us to meet in person.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I've got to agree ... bogus article alert time.
People say they have fewer people they can talk to about important stuff, even if they are talking to lots more people from all over the place about unimportant stuff online."
Maybe people are talking about important stuff more than ever, but doing it behind the anonymity or convenience of blogs?
People who say they have dozens or hundreds of close friends in real life don't know the meaning of the term "close friends". A close friend is one you could tell anything, and their response is "how can I help?" Want an easy 20-second test of whether someone is really a close friend or just an acquaintance? Tell them you want to get a sex change and watch their reaction.
I find that the hollowness of American social life is not only due to the Internet, but to a growing American utilitarianism and sense of entitlement that stretches into personal relationships.
Friends and would-be lovers alike are more and more forming and maintaining friendships on the basis of "What is this person doing for me right now?"
If someone isn't making them a profit, or is (gasp) taking their time or effort without a mechanically measurable payoff of some kind, people are only too ready these days to "kick them to the curb" and look for friends who are profitable or represent a measurable gain of some kind, whether in prestige or job prospects or exclusive memberships or exploitable expertise/skills.
This mentality of "everything has a price and can be calculated as a cost-benefit" has already ruled American material life for years and led to a kind of spiritual bankruptcy that leads to cults, sappy new-ageism, under/overeducation, and other strange social pathologies and now it is polluting our social lives as well.
When everyone is busy being a self-interested climber in their relationships, is is any wonder that nobody seems to be able to find non-selfish-climber friends? When everyone is busy sensing that they are entitled to their opinion, their time, their wishes, their preferences without the need for discussion or compromise, is it any wonder that people suddenly find that no-one is willing to compromise or have patience with them?
It gets to the point that you socialize on the Internet merely because the stakes are lower. You're less likely to get screwed or hurt or exploited and at the same time you can justify the time expenditure to others because "spending time online" appeals more to the protestant ethic of endless "useful" labor than does a phrase like "hanging out with some friends at the bar."
People are working all the time, their social relations have now become part of work too, calculated like work, and so they are finding that relationships feel like work and are subject to all of the risks and pitfalls that occur in the workplace.
The solutions? Stop bringing work home, set aside time to be "home," don't try to measure what other people are doing for you, only what you are doing for other people, and try not to take it personally when people "kick you to the curb" for not being productive enough or razz you for being a "slacker" and not leaving work at 8:30 PM to bring it home and pound on it with some climber friends from the office until 1:30 AM while calling it a "social life."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Plenty of corp's, PACs, and other orgs will shell out for "studies" and "papers" that say whatever they need said in order to entice investors/policymakers toward their ends. It's a whole industry in its own right.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I use the internet as a crutch for my non-existant social life. And after all these years it's finally wearing me down.
Technoligy in general seems to contrubute to the breakup of traditional social structures. Air travel changed a lot of things in the 50's & 60's, allowing people to relocate about the country.... before then, most people just lived in the city where they were born, and relationships ran long and deep.
Now, phones, TV, the Internet... they all direct our communication and our association away from older models. Musicians who used to hang out at the same nightclub now link to each other on MySpace. It's great that they can do it, but there was something better about the old way.
The one redeeming quality of socialism (if socialists would recognize it), is that it promotes a notion of community as opposed to the depersonalization and fragmentation of our relationships that advancing technology (fueled by capitalism and freedom) promotes. As old concepts like neighborhoods, towns, churches decline in influence, people feel the need for stronger communal associations. Government at various levels can fulfil some of that need, however poorly.
I believe the increasing size of the US gov't (as a percentage of GDP) over time is a reflection of the very same needs. The blessing of the US is that this is happening at a relatively slow and controlled pace over a period of decades. I love freedom and technology, but... well, here I am on the Internet instead of arguing with some friends at a lunch counter.
I think it has more to do with the mobility of the population than the internet. How many more people these days are moving multiple times in their career, away from friends and family? I know I have twice in the past decade. Distance breaks up friendships, even in these days of the internet.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It makes sense I think. For many people the internet & it's social communities offer a release. There's just so many more people you can meet online and communicate with. Freindships are formed quickly as it's easy, through various online social groups, to find others with very similar interests to yourself ... which may not always be possible depending on where you live. I think this is the key, personally.
On the other hand, it's not a black and white thing and it really depends on the type of person you are. I've met tons of ppl online and i've met many of those personally and we've become strong friends. But I still have my real life friends, those same people who've been these for me for 15-20 years.
Some of my best real-life friends were people I initially met on the Internet, or before that, on BBSes. Seriously.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-25.482661,112. 972273&spn=0.003724,0.004302&t=k&om=1 ...where am I going to get some friends?
What was the name of that book? Bowling Alone?
Clear, Dark Skies
one reason that the survey might have turned up such a shift in social networks is that many respondents might have interpreted the questions differently in 2004 than they did in 1985.
Sure. In 1985, a close friend was anyone who shared my hobbies and was on a first-name basis with me. There weren't many to pick from so I had to work at maintaining a friendship with all of them.
Thanks to cheap telepresence I'm now in touch with plenty of people who share my interests. I can reserve close friend status for the very few people I'd trust with my life.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Two chicks at the same time, man.
Some people use the Internet to find new acquaintances or make new friends. Some people use the Internet to maintain relationships with existing friends. Doubtless many people do both.
I find myself in the second category. While I occasionally make acquaintances via the Internet, my primary mechanism for forming friendships is still meatspace. The Internet is tremendously helpful to me in maintaining relationships with friends who no longer live where I live. I can communicate with friends from my years on the East Coast, friends from my time in the military, college, and even back to high school.
The quality of that communication is up to the parties involved, but the mechanism is there. It is simply easier for me to send an email than it ever was to write a letter. A group of about eight or ten friends, spread all over the country, communicate via a small discussion group.
I think back to the early 1990s. I was geographically isolated for three years, far from anything or anyone familiar. The friends with whom I communicated most often were those who had email addresses, and there were many times when those email conversations boosted my spirits and helped me feel connected.
My feeling is that the Internet makes a wide array of communication possible - everything from the shallow smack-talking of game boards and in-game messaging to deep philosophical conversation and truly meaningful sharing of thoughts and feelings. As others in this discussion have suggested, how you use that technology is your own choice.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
2 important points to note:
1) Internet tech doesn't necessarily discourage local, face-to-face friendships. Right -now- the Web isn't used for local connection but I think that's just because of the way it's -framed-, just a momentary lack of vision by the people/firms building it. And I think that's a temporary anomaly that's disappearing as wi-fi and locative tech takes hold.
Remember the net evolved from a set of LANs, and even as recently as the 80s, the folks who inhabited the dial-up BBS world were very locally-focused (you dialed BBS's in/near your town most often because those phone calls were cheapest) and many of these people got to know the other local BBSers through face-to-face get togethers. These "GTs" were an important part of BBS culture. More recent examples -- Google the study "Neighboring in Netville" to learn fascinating things that happened when researchers wired 1 out of every 3 homes in a typical suburban housing development outside Toronto w/ very simple terminals attached to a basic message forum system tied to a proprietary LAN. The people who moved in weren't techies, but nonetheless after a year this neighborhood was measurably more cohesive and local connections were much stronger than in neighboring unwired subdivisions that otherwise were almost identical in physical structure and demographics. In short: in the wired subdivision a lot more people knew their neighbors and other folks nearby, and the community as a whole was much more politically active in tracking and responding to issues that affected the good of the neighborhood. All because networked communication tech was -framed- as something that connects you to people nearby -- not just as something that connects you to the placeless Web, not -just- something that's for finding people on the other side of the planet who share precisely the same interests that you do.
2) Back to this "Internet to blame" study, note an important point the researchers themselves make: that the wording of the survey questions might have strongly affected the results and their interpretation. (i.e., 2004 respondents might have thought "discussing" doesn't include e-mail/IM.)
Add to the Internet:
These all contribute to not talking to people, not mingling, and not making new friends. Why make a new friend on the streetcar when you're yapping to a friend on your Bluetooth cell phone in your car? Why go out to a theatre when you can see it in private on DVD or cable? Why make listen to that attractive woman trying to hit on you when you're rocking out with your iPod?
The more private, the more personal devices and tools we have, the more solitary our lives are becoming We don't want to share an experience anymore. We don't want to do things for the common good or the benefit of society at large. The Internet is just one facet of an overall trend. Our lifestyle in the early 21st century promotes this focus inwards and our selfishness.
Taking an extreme example, it is now quite possible to live in a room by yourself and never really talk to anyone, never go anywhere, never really interact with people at all - assuming you order your food in. But even to a lesser extreme things like Wal Mart and supermarkets provide the means for people to survive without being dependent on any other individual person. Whether you're buying dinner or a new car, you're interaction is going to be with someone whom you could just as easily never see again. Instead, we're just dependent on 'the system'.
Looking outside of developed countries, there hundreds of examples of societies and cultures where there isn't a supermarket on every corner, in which case you really have to build relationships and get along with people, whether it's with Mr Baker or Mr Farmer or whatever, in order to survive. And in those places, I can tell you from plenty of field experience, people often genuinely have many more close friends and are much closer to their extended families than we are in the west. In such cultures, people genuinely feel connected to others - not just the people they are very close to, but their neighbors, their communities, their tribes, and their fellow citizens in general. It's probably an important thing to bear in mind, especially since we seem to be dropping bombs on a lot of these sorts of folks these days.
From an evolutionary perspective, situations of social interdependency are a more 'natural' state. I'm not sure if they are 'better' in every way, but they are probably healthier in a strict psychological sense.
A-Bomb
With increased time online and increased time at work, people are making more friends online, and it seems rarely every meeting them in person. While I have made my closest in-person friendships due to the internet, and am very close with some people I've met online, but haven't yet met in person (this summer I have plans to meet three of them with whom I am especially close), I've also seen in-person people very dear to me become unable to handle in-person relationships and friendships as they are much more comfortable dealing with people online, their primary mode of contact.
Internet contact gives them more control as to how much contact, when, the ability to hide faults about themselves that they may not like, therefore not letting others get to know the real person, while others are doing the same, etc., and puts them at a disadvantage for connecting with people within a close proximity on an intimate level or at a real friendship level as they don't have as much control and don't know how to deal with humans being flawed and how to deal with conflicts and such that people tend to try very hard to avoid with online friends. These three things alone indicate a lack of trust in online friends, and a lack of trust of people online can become a general lack of trust in people at all.
It hurts to fall in love with someone, only to have that person, when he moves cross country and to a place a couple miles from you, decide he can't handle the closeness, and then it's over. It also hurts when you meet someone in person you met online as a friend, and any illusions are shattered, and that friendship ends.
I count myself excrutiatingly lucky to have so many people, both in person (most whom I met first online or through someone I met online) and online, with whom I can confide about important matters, but it's taken work to accomplish this circle I have now, and it's takena lot of trial and error, and the determination to not hide flaws to put forward only a good foot forward. Truth be told, no one does or says the right thing all the time, and we all have our insecurities. The question is whether or not we are secure enough to let our imperfections through rather than to mask them. This tendency to hide becomes habit that carries over into in-person friendships and relationships.
This is not to say that all online contact is bad. True, it is easier to keep in touch with friends who have moved away, and we may not always want to peel our butts from our chairs at work to go talk to our bosses, who may not be available at that time, and those little note papers of yesteryear are easily misplaced, when a simple e-mail will due and won't get lost. It can be easier and quicker sometimes to get in touch with your doctor. And sometimes it's easier to make local friends with 10+hr. workdays.
But it's also true that too much internet use has led to a population of recluses and a loss of personal social skills.
It's a girl!
...an ex-fiancé and I used to both spend so much time online that we could be in the same room and would IM rather than vocally speak to each other. Our housemate found this to be funny, though slightly disturbing, and, in the end, we had such a breakdown in real communication that we broke up (as if you couldn't tell by the "ex").
It's a girl!
Through the internet i've met a total of 39 people from a forum i frequent. We've met up several times in Europe and there've been other meets in the US and Australia.
I flew to the US for a week long holiday, with the first weekend spent in NY meeting up with a group of 13 Americans, i travelled with 3 other Brits. We toured 6 states and 3 capitals in a week and it was one of the best holidays i've had. Although i'm only 17 (Started posting at 13) i've grown up with these people. Granted, i went on holiday with a 21, 24 and 34 year old and the next closest to my age was 20 that we met, but i'm great friends with all of these people and we regularly meet.
If it weren't for the internet i wouldn't be mates with a 34 year old drummer from York. Although i was 13 when i joined, people thought i was 18, we talked to each other because we were interesting and liked the same topics, not because we met in a bar drunk and liked the face sitting opposite us.
Is it an unusual way to meet people, probably. Is it a flawed way of meeting people? So far, absolutely not.
It's the internet's fault that I don't have any friends, not my complete lack of social skills!
This sig was generated by a barrel of trained kittens for SeXy_Red (550409).
I wouldn't be surprised if most people reported themselves to have less of such friends even without the internet. It's entirely possible that this is how humans, who once used to be in high school or college, see themselves after they hit 30. Or after they hit 50. Or after they his 70.
Lack of close friends due to the internet? Bullshit, I have no friends because I keep offending anyone who comes close.
I dont read
Sorry! Don't think much of their methods. Did they take in to consideration that since the 2nd world war the national population have physically moved from 'the country 'towns' where your 'friends' came from generations old neighbors and relatives. Once Americans began moving to where the post war economy and commerce was, strangers were their neighbors and their relatives might be half a continent away. As those populations of strangers grew in closer and closer proximity to each other and further and further away from their past relationships, IMHO most people found experience drove the trust factor of neighbors down and frankly without the INFAMOUS INTERNET INFLUENCE, long distance communication with old friends, neighbors and relatives became less and less rewarding or efficient.
I sincerely believe that the Internet has added access and accessibility to more and more meaningful relationships. After all in small town America, you kind of had to stay friendly with most since you were probably distantly related and 'you can't choose your relatives'. You can, and DO choose your Internet relationships based on shared interests.
Plus, now all your old family, small town friends and relatives have almost instant access to one another via computer. Kind of looks to me like they got it totally backwards.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
Dunno about normal persons, but I was never able to get close friends until I got broadband and started to IRC with people I had daily contact with at school. Screen + irssi has for me become a great and natural way of keeping in touch with people, but usually it's really hard to explain to social and or non-technical folks that internet isn't only a toy, but a new and efficiant way of dealing with real life matters. Of course, some people probably rely on teh intarwebs as a faked social network rather than a way of communicating with people they've met IRL. I'm sure that more or less random smalltalk is nice and all, but it doesn't even serve the same purpose, living a life with the people around you isn't relevant online. Besides, to really know people with whom you communicate only online is extremely difficult, and the sad thing is that even some young people find hard to believe that "this chat thing" is not only for flirting or getting help with homework. MSN/AOLers need to be converted to IRC users and there should be at least one channel for every high school. Or something. Really.
I'm glad to know I don't have any friends because of the Internet.
All these years, I thought it was because I was an asshole.
Learn to love Alaska
Could it be so simple? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_fo rmula/5012478.stm
This could explain the variance between urban and rural, as well as the timescale of this social change.
I have 739 facebook friends, so I don't know what the hell these guys are talking about.
What do you mean, I lack friends? Just look at my MySpace friends list!
Slashdot is perfect example of IMPORTANT stuff that gets discussed online. I have a lot of respect for most of the Slashdot community. We discuss politics, science, technology, and life in general with some very thoughtful and insightful comments.
Of course, Slashdot is a minority example of what's on the web but hey, porn is important too.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Tolkien often said that the ring was symbolic of "the machine". There's a passage in the book that talks about how anyone who wears it will have their life extended, but it will be a shallow one. This article makes it sound like he was right on.
Think back to a time before Google. When you watched a movie and thought the actor looked familiar, but didn't know who it was. You called a friend, told them to tune in, and they told you who it was. Usually this would prompt a conversation and maybe some plans to hang out. Now, the instinct is to look it up online. No social interaction necessary. Instant gratification.
Enter MySpace. Now if you want to know what your friends are doing, you just look at your event invites. If you don't want to go, there's no need to make excuses over the phone. Just say you forgot to look. You don't have the benefit of that friend pulling your leg telling you it just might be fun. It's easy to miss out on things this way. But it's SO much less of a hassle, right?
The flow of information has gone from push to pull. You can now look up only what you want to see and ignore everything else. Even searches about heated topics like war, religion, etc - the result of your search depends on how you perform it. People aren't often challenged by new and opposing information. They have enough online friends that share their opinions. When you talk to people in the real world about the same subjects, you are getting a somewhat random mix of opinions. You risk having to defend your view and even having to change it. Online friends are easier to deal with because you've pre-screened them based on their interests.
Look at radio. It used to be that we were given a set of songs that were repeated over and over until we liked them or tuned out. The only way to hear new music was to go - gasp - OUT to a bar or club. Now we can download just the songs we want, or check Pandora for recommendations.
My point is that people are lazy. It's natural to look for the path of least resistance. Often times, the internet is that path. The internet only got as popular as it did because of this. It's not a chicken-egg thing. People created the internet. We only have ourselves to blame for the isolation. We asked for it.
Is it really such a bad thing? We look back fondly on a time before the internet. We think that time was wonderful because it no longer exists. We remember study groups at the library and honestly think they are better than independent research online. But we forget how interaction with others often slows down our individual progress. You're only as strong as the weakest link. If the collective knowledge of your own pool of friends is all you had, would you know as much as you know now? Or is it that we are starting to believe that knowledge isn't all it's cracked up to be? What can you do with it when you are all alone?
Maybe it is better for people to help each other, to strengthen the weakest link instead of tossing him overboard as dead weight. Sure, that's better for society. But not for the individual. What we are seeing now is the struggle between the two. At the moment the individual is the one who is winning out, and that is why Americans are perceived as shallow and selfish.
- Widespread prosperity shields people from the ordinary trials of life that build character and bring people together.
I've met a lot of people, including people who live or have grown up outside of the United States. Enduring adversity does not appear to have any appreciable impact on their character. On the other hand, it has more to do with personal values and the way they were raised. I've noticed that in general people who have suffered more "trials of life" actually are more poorly adjusted and have more personal problems and flaws in their character.
- Peace deprives people of the bond of a common cause
Why don't you just wear a sign on your forehead that says "Bush 4 Life"? Peace deprives people of having to die, maybe, but it never hurt anyone's ability to bond socially.
- Feminization weakens us by favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism over resolve and steadfastness
Looking back at the very recent cold war, I'd say these "weak" values managed to save us from destroying civilization. Favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism has nothing to do with feminizim or the female sex; you're assigning your own conservative cultural values to other people. Maybe you are taking this for granted, but it's a gross error. That aside, the worst people I have ever known were those with "resolve" and "steadfastness." Intelligent people naturally favor more clever solutions than simply using power to force their own "rightness."
Open up a dictionary right now and look up the word "conciliation." You spew all this crap about creating bonds and bringing people together, and then you outright denounce conciliation as a weak feminine value? Go figure.
- Government policies have undermined the importance of families on dozens of fronts
You're not specific enough--examples please.
- Right and wrong have given way to "political awareness" tests. Say the right things and you're golden.
You always have to please authority--that's life. Of course, you loath having to pay lip service to a culture that is not your own, and you have a strong urge to devalue you it and attack it, citing "political correctness" as some sort of liberal conspiracy, making yourself look like the brave little guy sticking it to the man. Spare me.
I getmail from all the gals too, such as Sonjia and Marci, who both saw my stats on a dataing site (funny I never signed up for any dating sites...) but they REALLY want to meet me!
That guy who wrote the article must just be a loser. ;-D
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Like the one published at the beginning of the year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. ... One major benefit comes when people want to mobilize their networks as they face problems or significant decisions. The Pew Internet Project survey finds that internet users are more likely than non-users to have been helped by those in their networks as they faced important events in their life. "Internet use provides online Americans a path to resources, such as access to people who may have the right information to help deal with family health crises or find a new job," says John Horrigan, Associate Director for Research at the Pew Internet Project."
The Strength of Internet Ties, authored by Jeffrey Boase, John Horrigan, Barry Wellman, and Lee Rainie found "The internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions" The press release that publicized the report says, "One major payoff comes when people use the internet to press their social networks into action as they face major challenges. People not only socialize online, but they also incorporate the internet into their quest for information and advice as they seek help and make decisions.
The Duke/Arizona study is flawed in its analysis, as it interprets correlation as indicating causality, a common mistake among quantitative researchers.
I think the decline of social clubs and organizations has been going in for many
decades. I would blame, not the Internet but Television, The Interstate highway
system, and Subburbs. I think they are way our of date in their study. There
used to be tons of social networks, organizations and support groups in society.
Now days no on belongs to them. E.g., the Jaycees, The Odd fellows, The Daughters
of the American Revolution, other civic organizations, etc. If I were dictator
of this country, I would ban Television.
Quote from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
Social capital "refers to the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other," according to Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone and the concept's leading exponent (though not its originator). According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy. Putnam says that social capital is declining in the United States. This is seen in lower levels of trust in government and lower levels of civic participation. Putnam also says that television and urban sprawl have had a significant role in making America far less connected.
Unquote
Girlfriends are to blame. For some reason they hate all your friends and you have to stop hanging out with them or you get no sex.
bite my glorious golden ass.
Well, if you tell them you want a sex change, you're probably not going to try to convert them to going down the same road ...
I think that's what offends a lot of people about born-again fundamentalist evangelicals - the lack of respect for other people's beliefs. The evangelicals don't see it - they believe its God's command.
I just wrote my a paper for an interpersonal communications class on this very subject and finished it about literally 4 hours ago, so how odd this comes up on Slashdot. To summarize why I disagree with the assessment from my simple minded point of view:
.html
...are superior ... or relationships in cyberspace better?" I really don't see much value in generalizing both and making such vast assumptions about how either works or which is "better" than the other, though I can appreciate the author's efforts at trying to present a well thought article contrasting the two.
In-Person relationships are based on a whole stage process that psychology has spent many, many years developing and refining. It is actually a fairly interesting model, and does seem applicable in many situations. The methods of how we communicate and open up to each other now with Instant Messanger, Slashdot message boards, BBS's, FidoNet, or whatever completely takes a lot of these concepts and throws them out the window. This is of great confusion to some by-the-book psychologists, and therefore, I cannot tell you how many articles I had to parse over in terms of "Whats Better: In-Person Relationships or Cyberspace Relationships." For example, http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/showdown
The author contrasts online versus in-person relationships and cyberspace relationships and which type might be better. He specifically poses the questions, "Is it true that real relationships
The author only hints at one such reason why I feel the generalization isn't necessarily fair - "some people may not have the opportunity to develop good relationships in person." If someone is homebound, due to physical limitations or even mental impairment, a potential relationship in cyberspace may be that individuals only avenue or gaining some form of positive communication with the outside world. This contrasts to them living a depressed life as a hermit, and contemplating such things as suicide. I am absolutely confident that even simple online communication has given people a feeling of participating in the real world and prevented suicides.
Additionally, cyberspace allows us to discuss things that we may not normally feel comfortable discussing in person. I had a friend who was vastly overweight and joined several online chat groups to learn more about gastric bypass, developed many close relationships with people in different online groups, learned much about the procedure and its effects on your personal life, and recently underwent the surgery. I am confident that he would not have simply walked into a support meeting initially searching for information on this, as it just was not in his nature. Near strangers online confided in him very personal information about how this surgery affected their lives, and I don't believe these barriers would have been anywhere near as easily climbed in person.
I was a groomsman in a wedding a couple of years ago for my friend Aaron, and his wife Tiffanie. He was an office manager living in New Hampshire, and she was finishing a communications degree and lived in Montana (she was also a former Miss Teen Montana). He is a great guy, and most girls regard him as pretty decent looking, though he is very shy and had an extremely difficult time working out relationships with women. He met Tiffanie online in a Yahoo chat forum years ago, and they built a relationship from that point. They learned about each other, started to share secrets and personal information, and truly learned about each others values. This then transpired into phone conversations, and eventually they flew back and forth to meet each other, converting into an in-person relationship. They have been married several years now, and I can honestly say that they are the happiest couple I know.
I think a better argument is to recognize online chatting for what it is, an
According to a January Pew/Internet Study, online activity enhances social contact rather than promoting isolation. According to the report, email and the Internet supplements rather than replaces offline communication. 'The larger, the more far-flung, and the more diverse a person's network, the more important email is,' reports Jeffrey Boase, co-author of the study. For example, people who e-mail their friends and family at least once a week are 25% more likely to have phone contact. Internet users, on average, have 37 close friends instead of an average of 30 for non-Internet users. In addition to enhancing social networks, the researchers also discovered that 45% of people turn to their online network to help make major life decisions such as dealing with a major illness, choosing a school, making investment decisions, changing jobs or finding a new place to live. Blog Post: http://www.omninerd.com/news/news.php?nid=509 Study: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/172/report_displa y.asp
There is one word that is VERY important in this discussion, and I don't see it much on these pages:
/. readers - but I know in my life, the more the work-a-day world takes my time, there is less time for friends. This also is almost uniquely American.
CORPORATIONS
So in most cases, nobody makes any money when people can connect and help each other feel good and solve each other's problems. Now, if they are connecting and buying coffee, or they are coming togther and buying entertainment, or they are coming together and buying a meal -- then somebody's making a buck. Or maybe they are coming together in a college classroom, or a dance class, or meeting at the mall. there is a buck there too. Let's not even start with bars.
The one thing I see more and more is the wholesale cash-for-connection thing in the US that is not in other parts of the world. Basically you have to pay to have any place where you can meet *new* people and socialize.
The other affect corporations have is that they keep most people SO busy working to survive, there is little time or energy left to have many friends. This may be toward a demographic older than most
Finally, the rise in corporate power has further stratified society along money lines. In the US we have more financial difference between the top and bottom since the early 1900s. There is virtually no middle class anymore. What this leads to is a reluctance of peopel to reach out to others, for fear of crossing the (now huge) social chasm created by wealth disparity.
I think the rise in power of corporations is largely to blame for destroying the social networks of people - as much or more than the "Internet". Basically, the Internet to me is near-free, near-instant, widely available communication. By ITSELF - more communication will help people connect to more people in more meaningful ways than ever possible before. We have only seen the first 2-5% of what is possible because of the Internet. Instant communication will break down all barriers eventually and lead to abundance.
Internet not only cut us off from the people we really need to meet up, it also got also to get along with people we should really care about. We break away from our parents, friends, and spouse and chat with someone whom we have never met in real life. we feel safer because we don't have to assume any responsibility there, talk whatever you can , whenever you can, and when you grow out of the relationship, just walk away scot free. So personal relationship are really weak and flimsy these days. Every one seems to be chasing instant gratification. I see a social crisis ahead of us, when we will identify hollowness of instant gratification. There would be too little people who really care about us.
On Mars, people seek what is new and different. Martians enjoy exploring both sides of an argument, and they are not intent on isolating themselves from anything that is not them. Well, some Martians are--but, that is how they wish it. On Mars, people are allowed to be isolated, if they want, but other Martians don't judge them or spend time trying to educate them about the error of their ways. It's each Martian's responsibility to identify and mend the error of their own ways, if there are any. As a consequence, Martians are about as unlazy as you could imagine, because they know their own progress in life is entirely up to them.
Martians are very kind and understanding people; they aren't shallow or selfish. They just insist on being who they are, and they don't accept the judgement of others about how they live their life. That doesn't mean that Martians have no respect or understanding for the importance of community. What it means is that they understand the value of accepting what is different, perhaps more than people that spend their time labeling others with words like "lazy", "shallow", and "selfish". Martians know that what might seem lazy to you, may just be work that you are failing to see.
The number of people who say they have no one to talk to about important matters has more than doubled, according to a new study by sociologists at Duke University and the University of Arizona.
That's horseshit. If I need to talk about important matters with someone, I'll just message someone in my guild.
I believe this may be a misreading of the report. I heard the authors today being interviewed on NPR and the interviewer specifically asked them if the internet had anything to do with the decline. It sounded to me like they were saying that they didn't find a specific correlation between internet use and the reported drop. They cited numerous other causes, like greater geographic distribution (suburbs, etc), and greater racial diversity. I think the study was only in the US, also.
I could never relate to most locals, really. The best friends I have are those I've met online. A few have moved nearby since and I see them often in real-life.
Therein lies the rub.
Leaving aside all the things that friends do for you that require physical presence (e.g. visit you in the hospital after the car accident, feed your pet iguana while you're on vacation), it means that more than ever, birds of a feather flock together.
Friendship used to be 50% affinity and 50% propinquity. People used to have some friends who were mostly affinity (my friends I see at the monthly meeting of the the local chapter of the Christian Republican Golfers )and some friends mostly by propinquity (my next door neighbor, who's a lesbian Democrat labor activist and used her trusty swiss army knife to get my broken down car started when I was running late for the big job interview).
Being friends with people who you couldn't relate to beforehand broadens your mind in the way that mere access to the wealth of information the Internet provides can't. It's all too easy to be like a person in a exotic foreign bazaar who heads right to the McDonald's for a Big Mac. Pretty soon your circle of friends contracts until you and your asscoiates in the Virtual Jihadist club reinforce each other in a very peculiar and narrow minded world view. You no longer have people who have both conservative Christian Republicans for friends and liberal gay Democrats. We stick to our golf buddies or fellow lesbian separatists.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.