And Now Facebook And Twitter Will Melt Your Mind
from the evidence-please? dept
It's been quite a week or so for people with fancy titles and no actual evidence to spout off about just how evil and dangerous social networks are. First, there was the totally ridiculous claim that Facebook could increase your likelihood of cancer. Then, there was the news that using Twitter meant you had no identity, and now a "professor of synaptic pharmacology" is claiming that Facebook and Twitter are threatening to "infantalize" our brains. This is based on what... exactly? Well, it appears nothing more than a hunch. There isn't any actual evidence presented, and some of the facts appear to just be wrong. For example, she claims that these services mean kids read fewer books, and that means they'll empathize less. Well, there are a couple problems with that... such as the recent research that showed that people are reading more books than in the past. And... I'm curious as to the proof that actually communicating with real human beings online is less likely to create empathy than reading fictional books?Oddly, while she complains about less empathy due to less reading, she then complains about people showing empathy via social networks, saying that social networks encourage bad behavior by providing people "constant reassurance -- that you are listened to, recognised, and important." Confused? You're not the only one. Then she pulls out the same old line that's been trotted out for years about how since these interactions are all online (gasp!) they seem to count less... and somehow that will lead people to no longer want to interact in person. This is an argument we've heard for over 15 years online, and it's never been supported by the slightest evidence to back it up. Most people who actually use the internet to communicate have found that it's increased opportunities to meet and talk to people in person, not diminished them. It's amazing how many experts can be trotted out who so fear a technology it's clear they've not really used it very much.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: moral panic, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
goo goo ga ga
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
only losers use computers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social networking can create more empathy
Thanks for the Internet in general and social networking in specific, we all now have potential access to anyone who belongs to the same network service/application (Facebook, twitter, and so on). That means I can access people all over the world and gain insights into their experiences with relatively no foreknowledge of them and almost no effort expended on my part. I can realize how much alike we are in our concerns and dreams, rather than seeing them as people too far away to care about.
As far as needing and getting constant feedback and assurance that I'm significant via social networking, while I can see some people using these services to those ends, it's also a method of channelled information input. We can choose our "friends" and who we follow, moulding the stream of information we take in and, if we choose, sharing what's important to us with those who have connected to us.
Any technology can be abused and overemphasized in a person's life, but it doesn't mean the technology caused those deficiencies.
BTW, while I spend a fair amount of time online, both professionally and personally, I also read quite a bit and, as an author, I also write "the old fashioned way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online socializing worked for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Online socializing worked for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Online socializing worked for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goo goo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
empathy
I think the idea that stuff in the first person especially exposes children to world literally through anothers point of view. I dont think "chat" or interpersonal communication provides the same sort of "inside-out" view point benefits. I dont agree with the study and I think inter personal communication have thier own benefits (including digital com) but I can see the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem.
Also, there is absolutely no significance to the fact that the rest of these kids are "reading more". Simple synthesis of pages and pages of mundane texts (pop-psychology and 'Sisterhood Of the Traveling Pants', anyone?) doesn't say a thing for intelligence. It means nothing special that some twit can stare at a book for hours in meager comprehension, spending the other half of their day perusing "friends'" profiles and exercising an astoundingly ape-like vocabulary.
It's perfectly logical to assume that online social networks butcher a teenager's ability to empathize with his or her peers. I mean, what is the most rife feature of any American high school? And what do you get when you put these same kids in electronic contact with each other on sites that allow them to mimic a physical social construct? That's right; cliques, short-tempered idiocy, pointless joking, mocking of inferiors, superficiality, zero creativity, etc. Where's the room for genuine compassion? What gives these kids a chance to express themselves in a more meaningful way than with boxes labeled "About me", "My favorite x", "My favorite y", and "Who I'd like to meet"?
I'm not going to write any more. You get the fucking idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem.
I am in full support of dumbing down our teenagers. Remember less education today, means less competition tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem.
You start of by calling names.
Next, you admit that you stopped reading when you came across something with which you disagreed.
You claim that the article's sources are incorrect without citing any sources of your own to substantiate that claim.
Instead of proof, you offer only your own point of view.
Finally you end with profanity.
From this we are expected to believe that you have a better understanding of empathy and social interaction than the article's author or any of the sources cited by him.
I have already given your post all due consideration and I put greater stock in the original author's position than I do in yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem.
Are you sure you don't enjoy the taste of shit? That is all that is coming out of your mouth.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ahem.
Looks like the original has no sources either, but strong opinion and a title of Baroness ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem.
I'm going to say it, how is this any different from high school before the Internet?
When I was in high school everyone had to go to the library to use this amazing new thing called Yahoo. I seem to remember people back then without social skills and could barely read. We didn't call them social networking users, we called them football players and cheerleaders.
People had problems with "cliques, short-tempered idiocy, pointless joking, mocking of inferiors, superficiality, zero creativity, etc." long before the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For more on this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to consider
I recently read iBrain by Gary Small, and I strongly recommend reading it as a primer for the potential side effects of excessive use of technology.
The old adage applies... everything in moderation. I think social networks have the potential to push people beyond moderate use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Melt my mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hulu
Got to say I'd rather teenagers were on facebook than on 8-mile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courtesy
Recently in the Pirate Bay trial the Prosecution asked if the defendants had ever met IRL (That's In Real Life, for those of you playing at home!) and the defendant replied that they don't use that term, becuase it's all Real Life, that they use the term AFK instead. (Away from Keyboard)
I think that's the trouble-- so many misguided people started out thinking that online = not real, and now they're having to unlearn their bad habits. (Insert a phrase about aged dogs and new tricks here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>Confused? You're not the only one.
No shit. Your blinders immediately came up and what small excuse you have for a brain closes.
Tell us Mikey, what the fuck have you ever accomplished?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]