Comments on: Is the Internet making us more lonely or less lonely? Yes.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 12 May 2012 10:18:52 +0000

The internet doesn’t change fundamental human behaviours eh? Acccording to this writer and Pinker, this is the case. I can only assume then that neither Pinker or this writer have ever been internet dating. Having 100 dates in a year and constant messaging and texting associated with it, is a brand new behaviour.

By: Jim Caccamo

Jim Caccamo — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:02:43 +0000

With all due respect, it is unfortunate that you didn’t choose to delve more deeply into Turkle’s book, which is much more nuanced. The NYT piece is less nuanced, I am assuming, due to word limits. But I think you are over reading the blame on tech. When she says, “Technology-enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to be,” I read the emphasis on people who use tech, not on the tech itself. She’s more nuanced in the piece than you give credit.

There’s also a lot of research behind her work, which you don’t acknowledge. Yet you note that authors you agree with have research to back up their claims.

Perhaps a bit of straw man on both sides of the blog?

By: mhbilly

mhbilly — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:18:10 +0000

Saw this in another article. The problem with the dichotomy of real vs. online world is that it assumes all real world actions are authentic honest. No elevator talk? No acting different around certain groups? No small talk? Come on nowwww. False narrative abound in that construct

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:59:29 +0000

“it’s how we choose to use these tools that matters” is true, but also the reason this topic is important.

Generally governments do make choices for people to ensure that society moves forward or is at least stable. Whilst that may not aleays work, we cant’t live without it. For instance, someone isn’t allowed to threaten me with a gun (a tool) so I give them money.

It’s hard to say what tools create a ‘net’ negative impact on society, but suggesting that all people will always use them for the greater good is tenuous.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:45:41 +0000

Thanks, Dave — I’m well aware of Sherry Turkle’s research, which I have been following for at least a decade or so now. Whether I am qualified to disagree with her or not, I agree with you that inter-personal relationships are important — I am not the one who is suggesting they can be substituted for or subsumed. That’s what Turkle seems to be basing her argument on, but no one (including me) appears to be claiming that they can. It’s a straw man.

By: Dave Trautman

Dave Trautman — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:41:30 +0000

Oh no you didn’t just diss Sherry Turkle?

Oh dear. Sherry’s research reaches back decades into the emergence of technologies and computers and their relationships with people. Her most recent book is only one small part of the larger question of what computers are ‘doing’ to us.

And if you haven’t read what McLuhan was saying about this in the 70′s (long before mobility and personal computing) then you might not be qualified to comment.

I might disagree with some of the people you’ve included in the article but nothing I’ve read from any of them seems to dispute (in the way you suggest) the central theme of inter-personal relationships.

People need other people to be civilized. They need to be in direct contact for people to be socialized. And if you think these values can be subsumed or substituted for with other dazzling means of exchanging utterances then you haven’t read what Jaron Lanier has to say about it all in his recent manifesto “You are not a gadget”.

Over simplifying human relationships and discounting the value of actual human contact is like suggesting no one will have any psychological problems traveling to Mars. The brightest minds are aware of the implications. But simplistic explanations will get you nowhere.

Communication is only but one human activity in which our entire society is organized. There are a host of other developmental and civilizing activities which we require to live a healthy life. And many of these cannot be turned into bytes.

Cheers,
Dave

By: Ryan Steiner

Ryan Steiner — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:02:27 +0000

I remember an article about Twitter when it first debuted a few years back. The author described Twitter as ‘social periphery,’ and keeping that in mind has helped me keep a healthy perspective on what social networking can be (I think).

There seems to be a tendency (that I don’t understand) to assume that any new form of communication or social interaction will render more traditional modes obsolete. At first I chalked it up to a fear of progress, but now I think it is more likely a fear of waking up one day and not being able to communicate with anyone. Without a sense of balance between new and traditional forms of communication, I can understand how that would lead someone to fear for future generations.

By: Emily Thynne

Emily Thynne — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:48:16 +0000

The analogy from the Atlantic puts it into perspective: If you use Facebook to organize a soccer game with friends – cool. If you use Facebook instead of playing soccer with your friends – not cool.

By: i hate this airline !

i hate this airline ! — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:46:53 +0000

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:44:25 +0000

Yes, integrated is a much better word for what I meant — thank you. They aren’t the same thing, of course, but to assume that either one is universally good or bad seems… well, dumb. Thanks for the comment, and for the link.