Internet Not the Social Hinder it Was

imjustatomato writes "A 1998 study showed that the Internet causes declines in social relationships and isolation, similarly to how television causes social disengagement and bad moods. This is the 'Internet Paradox' because while the internet is heavily used for communication, it makes people lonelier. However, a more recent study shows that now the internet has a positive effect on social and psychological well-being. This is even more so for those who have more social support and are extroverted in nature. Interestingly, frequent Internet use is associated with a decline in local knowledge and interest in living in the local area."

Comments

2002

[skinnyrake]

The most recent of the two articles was published in 2002. Is this really relevant to the internet of 2006?

Define social and psychological well-being

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the answers might relate to the definition of social and psychological well-being. For example; in 1998 if someone said to have numerous online friends, they where looked upon as anti-social and unable to make friend in the real world. This is beginning to change.

Why does the grass look greener?

[Chatsubo]

"Unlike regional newspapers, for example, the Internet makes news about distant cities as accessible as news about one's hometown."

But also, we read about the cool things other places are doing on places like slashdot. Of course, we're not interested in all the BAD news about those places. Because the crime news about other places more or less matches that of our own. Maybe that's why the grass looks greener. Because we see all the positive and negative of our own environment, but only the "cool" stuff going on in other places. So naturally we want to go there.

Re:Staring

[legoburner]

I dont know, I live in London and have such a large local area that most of the time I dont know what is where. The Internet has helped out a lot, from casual browsing of online mapping services to see what is just outside the immediate area, to sites like up my street which lets me find any businesses near me. I have learned a lot more about my area from the Internet than I have by just going out and exploring (which I do fairly often as well).

Re:Is that a bad thing?

[Eivind]

Sure. In the absence of affordable communication and transport, the local environment is all there is, so you'll spend 100% of your time interacting only with your local environment.

The moment you get newspapers, radio or television, you start becoming *aware* that there's a larger world out there. But it's still one-way, you don't interact with this world, you only receive information from it.

With cheap travel, internet and telephone you are directly in contact with a lot that isn't in your immediate surrounding.

I know people in atleast 2 dozen countries. I've got *friends* living on other continents. People I talk to every week (sometimes every day), people I care about. Offcourse this means that I spend *less* time with the "local environment". When the starting-point was 100% local, how could this go any other direction than downwards ?

You don't need to make it global either. It's the same on a much smaller scale.

When my great-grandmother was small, (aprox 100 years ago) it was completely unpractical to have friends even 10 miles away. Sure you'd *know* some people living that far away, but communicating with them in any way meant either spending 2 hours for transport, or if you didn't need face-to-face, write a letter and wait several days for an answer.

The world is shrinking.

I'm closer to my friends in oh say Texas (Hallo Nadine!) (I live in Norway) in every way that matters than my grandmother was to her boyfriend (later husband) that lived about 50 miles away.

• I can trivially, and at zero cost talk to her whenever I want. 100 years ago that wasn't possible in rural Norway at all. For large expense (a days pay) a telegram could be sent that'd arrive the same day.
• I can send her email, and she'll receive it minutes later. 100 years ago a letter would be expensive, and would take on the order of a week to arrive.
• I can visit her. It takes like 10 hours of travel, and costs on the order of 1 weeks pay. 100 years ago the 50 miles took on the order of 15 hours by horse and boat.
• I can even send her physical packets, and have them arrive quicker and cheaper than the 50 miles back then.

In every way that matters *Texas* is closer to western Norway today than two different villages 50 miles from oneanother where 100 years ago.

Heh. You needed the Internet for that?

[Moraelin]

Then again, staring at this box has taught me one extremely valuable lesson - people will say anything, even if it is meaningless, in order to get a first post (and the inevitable mod points following it).

Heh. You needed the Internet to learn that? No offense, but I'd have thought that anyone who's ever went to (high) school, had any work that doesn't only involve telecommuting, or, really, went out of the house at all, had witnessed the RL-equivalent of karma-whoring. People want to be perceived as part of the group, well liked, cool, fashionable, etc, and will go to insane (and often bloody stupid) extremes to achieve that.

It even has an impact on polls and statistics, as you have to skew your poll to account for the facts that:

- if it seems that the interviewer wants a particular answer, they'll give that answer, just to be liked. So if you actually want a fair result, you have to go to great lengths to make sure that the question sounds as neutral as it the English language allows. (Or, conversely, if you want to skew the statistics to your ends, you just need to give people a strong indication that only a monster would pick the other choices.)

- all else being equal, people tend to answer "yes" more than they answer "no". (Presumably because being too negative is perceived as something bad or non-social.) So you have to actually have randomized tests, where the same question is asked in one way on some forms (e.g., "are you for continuing the war in Iraq?") and as the opposite on others (e.g., "are you for stopping the war in Iraq?")

- as anthropologists showed, even when you accounted for the above two, if you ask people anything about themselves, the result will be basically a lie. Well, not as in a deliberate, conscious-level lie, but more like distorted through the need to perceive themselves as doing the right and, most importantly, the socially-acceptable thing. _Very_ few will give you an answer that, according to the current social standards, would ammount to a "yes, I'm an asshole" confession, even if the poll is completely anonymous and confidential.

Or you can see that at smaller levels, and sometimes even at petty levels, from high school to your everyday work. People ostracize person X, just because they want to fit in a group where the popular ones are against person X. People pretend to be stupid in school, just because in nowadays' broken culture it's _cool_ to be stupid and ignorant, and is waay uncool to show any academic effort or ability. (And god forbid showing _interest_.) Etc.

The most perverse form of that is "groupthink". Take a dozen people which, each of them separately, are against doing X. Put them in a group where they each think that the rest of the group is _for_ X. Watch them all vote/chest-thump/shout-slogans/whatever for X, just to please the rest of the group, and take a decision as a group that neither of them actually really wanted. It's more common than you'd think, and affects a wide range of groups, from small cliques at work to government commissions to whole countries.

Etc, etc, etc.

So let's just say that Slashdot's karma-whoring is actually just representative of society as a whole. In fact, compared to some RL counterparts, let me assure you that the worst /. karma-whores would come out looking as the milder version.