Internet to Blame for Lack of Close Friends 361
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."
Uh... okay, sure (Score:1, Interesting)
25% of America has no access to the internet at all.
A further 30% of America lacks broadband, which often restricts how much one can rely on the internet in a protracted fashion.
But, yeah, sure, if America is significantly lessened in people that they can talk to, feel close to, or trust in the last twenty years, let's go ahead and blame the Internet...
Flipside (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Did they consider (Score:5, Interesting)
Alienation (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes sense...for some... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Personal experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stop passing the buck (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Alienation (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's a culprit to be found in population patterns and geographic movements, it's not so much in urbanization (most cities have been losing people over the last few decades) -- as in suburbanization -- a pattern of life which is characterized by atomization and long commute times, leading Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone) speaks of a "sprawl civic penalty".
The Net can be used for local connections too (Score:2, Interesting)
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.)
My thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Oh, and amusingly, or perhaps sadly... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've travelled the world... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Stop passing the buck (Score:2, Interesting)
Useless (Score:3, Interesting)
Real Friends for IRC (Score:2, Interesting)
RE: population increase...from immigration (Score:2, Interesting)
This could explain the variance between urban and rural, as well as the timescale of this social change.
not valid everywhere... (Score:1, Interesting)
I snapped out of it, but I never really trusted them again.
LotR? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Did they consider (Score:2, Interesting)
But because of my use of the internet, I have met about 5 of the closest friends I have. I don't know what the hell they're saying about a lack of close friends because of the internet.. that's bullshit. I know many people who've met their closest friends on the internet through things/places that both of them have a lot of interest in.
Maybe social networking skills I can see deteriorating.. people not knowing how to deal with real people because they're used to typing out emotion and not 'reading' body language and tone of voice. But then again I know people who spend their time on the internet and they don't get out much, and thus don't have close friends. Which is a shame. But here I am 5 years later and I'm BACK on probation(today is my 3rd day, 2 yrs this time...) and won't be going out much because I don't want to get into any more trouble while I'm on probation and get my shit fucked up again.
All I can do is just remind you all to take things with a grain of salt. Everybody has an agenda, everybody has their point of view, and everybody has their opinion. Just take those into consideraton when you read studies and crap like this. Cheers.
Re:Conservative drivel (Score:3, Interesting)
Enduring adversity does not appear to have any appreciable impact on their character.
You probably have a different definition of character that I do. I'm not taliking about political beliefs. I don't confuse the two.
Ordinary trials of life, like temporary difficulty paying for necessities, lead to people learning how to take care of themselves in tough situations. It leads to an understanding of the value of help from family and friends. And it leads people to value something besides their immediate whimsical happiness. That's what I mean by character in this context.
And in this context, someone with character would be more likely to be a good friend.
Peace deprives people of having to die, maybe, but it never hurt anyone's ability to bond socially.
Are you saying that war doesn't lead to people sharing a common cause? Because it obviously does. And having things in common helps people to bond socially. It's silly to argue. And I don't understand why you'd want to.
That aside, the worst people I have ever known were those with "resolve" and "steadfastness."
So don't make friends with them then?
But if you make friends with shallow, flighty, lightweights then they'll abandon or betray you at their whim. It doesn't seem wise.
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 think you miss the point. The loss of right and wrong is the problem. Someone who doesn't know right from wrong can't be a trustworthy friend.
I know you have a big political axe to grind, but it's off topic.
Re:not valid everywhere... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Pew Internet Study Shows Just the Opposite (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I've travelled the world... (Score:2, Interesting)
social crisis ahead (Score:2, Interesting)
Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:it's just laziness (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure why Americans in particular are shallow and selfish as the internet is catching on comparatively slow here. If the article premise is true, and the internet is tearing apart human social fabrics, then you'd think Koreans or Chinese would be the most shallow and selfish. Not something I've personally experienced
To be slightly polemic (and borrowed slightly from Asimov), if you extropolate technological advancement to the end state, where anything can be had, what would you consider to be utopia? Some people envision the perpetual party state, having fun with friends and living closely with their peers, bound together by social laws and manners. Others might envision complete self-sufficiency, the anti-society, with no undesired external contacts and absolute freedom. I'm not sure that anything is wrong with either end state, we could site pro's and con's to either one, I personally favor the latter.
Misreading of the report? (Score:2, Interesting)