Technology Discussion

I think the fact that I can talk to you right now is an incredible leap, and yet, I will never know who you are, your likes, dislikes; I will never know you outside of a personality housed within a wall of text.

[br]look at me, using a semicolon like a boss[/br]

 

Interestingly I met the two of my best friends through the internet. My social life is dead as dead gets right now, and not for lack of trying to meet people, so I'm glad I have the internet to let me talk to people.

 

Though there is only a certain level of friendship that can be reached through technology alone, I see how it can begin and even strengthen relationships between people, but I don't see how it could weaken them. Obviously, factors such as a lack of communication or unresolved arguements can have that effect, but those aren't factors that are only occur with relationships created through technology, if that makes sense.

In general, I don't think technology weakens relationships, but it does put a limit on how much they can be strengthened.

 

I think a lot of it matters whether you tare talking through text or actually using mics. Yes there is only a certain point you can reach in a friendship over the internet, but I think it matters how you use it.

Now, if you are using the internet to keep up with people you could be seeing in real life or you don't really know the people you talk to online I would agree that it discourages real social interaction, but I think there are a lot of cases where this is not the case. I know some people over the internet better than I know some friends in real life, friends I know pretty well in real life.

 

I am completely on the technology's side. The advancements make connections so much easier, and more casual. The only drawback from these things is seeing people texting during conversations, or just not paying intention to what is in front of them. (literally and figuratively) I mean, if it wasn't for it, we wouldn't be talking right now either, it connects people from great distances, making the world feel a lot smaller and bring us all together more. The only thing I would take away from this new era of social interactions would probable be young teens, and it'd be a much nicer place.

 

To rephrase that last sentence I wrote, I don't believe that weakened relationships are directly caused by technology but instead the people in said relationship. For example, if one ceases to resume contact with another because the single method to this is technology, that is simply the fault of the individual's lack of desire to do so.

Regarding that, I completely agree. Technology does divert an individual from performing their natural methods of socialization, but at the same time, I don't think those methods are necessary to effectively communicate with another individual. Technically, I'm effectively communicating with you using only one of those factors. Still, I agree that communication face-to-face should be the desired method over communication through technology.

 

I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone but if you're not in colleges and haven't had a significant move at any point it's hard to understand the other side about real life friendships turning into digital friendships. There are only two people from my high school within 500km of where I am now and I never talked to either. Most are on the east coast so just dealing with time differences is a pain but at least I can talk l them sometimes.
Also my college is basically run on email. If that didn't exist it would be so much more difficult.

 

4-5 hours a day on a computer; 28-35 hours a week on a computer

That means 19-20 hours off a computer; 133-140 hours a week off a computer

Discounting 8 hour sleep;
11-12 hours a day off of a computer; 77-84 hours a week off a computer.
More than twice the time on a computer.

People spend very little time actually ON facebook, as you said, he leaves it on.

But regardless, here are a few key points:

• Work on a computer is a lot more productive
• Entertainment on a computer is a lot more convenient
• The degree of seperation, socially, on a social networking site is much less so

In terms of social networking over the internet versus in person;

As aforementioned, the degree of separation is reduced.
On average, you can be connected to any person in the world through people you know through six or seven people. (I.e., a contact of a contact of a contact of a contact of a contact of a contact of a contact of yours probably means any single human being)
That's in person. Statistics from facebook and twitter suggest that for them, the average is four or five.

Yes, you are a lot less likely to meet new people over the internet. But I feel the ability to make new friends in person is not as great as described.
You don't make new friends every day, because you aren't constantly being put into new environments. When you are put into a new environment, it's unlikely to keep happening. You'll make quite a few friends the first few times, but it'll gradually taper off.

Social technology lets you stay in contact, maintain details and generally lets you communicate better.

As to where I stand, I like socialising in person more than over the internet.
However, without facebook or a phone I'd be pretty ****ed when it comes to social occasions. I live on effectively the other side of the city from half of my friends.
I feel like social technology is a great way to make socialising happen in person.

As to social networking being an excuse for distraction from socialising in person, I heavily disagree. Care to give an example?

 

I saw a fascinating article about how internet interactions affects us as social creatures.

The idea was that the internet allows us to filter and refine our choice in social interactions massively.

First, it allows us to seek out those with as much in common as possible, sites like this being a great example, so that people are less reliant on simply socialising with those they find around them in their day to day lives.

Secondly, it allows you to engage in socialising on your own terms. IM, facebook and tbh anything other than video or voice chat allow you to respond in your own time, or even not at all if you like. Even voice and video chats can be rejected without the connotations of rudeness associated with simply ignoring someone face to face.

Lastly, and most obviously, the removed nature of interaction changes the way we socialise on a fundamental level. Quite simply, the way our brains instinctively approach socialising is not based around doing so via text. Body language and tone of voice are removed, but our instinctive reliance on them still remains (hence the whole issue of not being able to discern sarcasm on the internet etc.). The removal of physical presence reduces our sense of responsibility in social interaction. People are less aware of the consequences of interaction when they can't relate to the reality of the person they are talking to in the instinctive, tangible way that face to face interaction brings.

One of the interesting conclusions this article came to is that we're actually less socially fulfilled as a result of this, particularly due to the streamlining of who we socialise with. It is argued that this can contribute to depression etc. There are positive chemical releases in the brain associated with what might be termed "slightly awkward/difficult social interaction." That is to say: socialising with people who you don't necessarily have that much in common with, or you may not connect with that comfortably in terms of personality. One can certainly see the evolutionary benefit in such a positive, chemical reward from the brain for these kinds of interaction. It makes sense that a chemical reward for moving outside of one's comfort zone in terms of socialising is of evolutionary benefit, as it encourages social groups to work together as a whole, rather than simply to segregate off in to smaller groups of similar interests and personality types.

On a day to day level, I can relate to this. When I compare how I feel after a day out and about, particularly at work, with how I feel after a day spent socialising on the internet, there's a marked difference. After the former, aside from physical feelings of tiredness and the increased sense of satisfaction that comes from this (a well documented phenomenon), the same is true in a mental sense. I may feel more mentally drained from having to make the effort to interact with people with whom I don't have much in common, and even somewhat tense from feelings of self consciousness about said interactions (perhaps this is more of a personal issue), but I feel distinctly more relaxed and fulfilled overall. In contrast, after a day spent socialising purely on the internet, I may end up more intellectually engaged since I engage in discussions honed to my interests, but I'm MUCH more prone to getting angry or sad.

It is, however, important to remember that this distinction actually contains within it two distinct variables. One is means of interaction, and another is physical place and effort. Regardless of interaction medium, a day spent inside my house is liable to leave me more agitated and tetchy than a day spent out and about, even if doing something I don't particularly enjoy. But that doesn't negate the role of interaction medium, it just means that, in the practical sense, the move towards technological communication has a compound effect formed of two complimentary processes.

It's also important to note why this happens, in terms of our gravitation towards something which results in a lack of mental, chemical reward. For me at least, the reward is retrospective. I may feel better after a day spent making social effort, but that doesn't mean I get the urge to do so when faced with the choice. When faced with said choice, my instinct is to gravitate towards the socially streamlined medium, as it seems like this decision takes place at a more conscious level. It is, if we accept the premises laid out in my above comments, a self destructive tendency. However, for many others it seems as if the urge to engage in more effortful, real life socialisation is present, and if we look at personality types there are clearly some people more drawn to streamlined social mediums and others who instinctively gravitate towards real world interaction, embracing the effort to begin with as well as seeing the rewards afterwards.

You can actually observe tendencies within certain people when you look at A) how they choose to spend their time, but also B) how they react in real world group situations. Those who are quicker to resort to their phone or laptop etc. when interacting with a group (either of acquaintances or even close friends) are demonstrating a strong instinct to socially streamline their interactions. A reliance on technology to feel more comfortable even in real world situations is, imo, telling of such a mental tendency when choosing how to interact at all. I know I'm certainly guilty of this, and it's something I've actively been trying to work against.

Good topic, btw. This has fascinated me for a long time.

 

I don't feel in a position to say. I'd love to be able to carry out studies, and even do so in a cross-generational level, moving in to the future multiple generations down the line. But right now I don't know how it will impact upon society as a whole. In this sense, it's important to remember that this is yet another aspect of disparity between developed and undeveloped nations. Such a reliance on technological interaction is, although potentially detrimental to our mental stability in the terms we currently understand it, still a luxury afforded to us by having such technology at our fingertips.

Also, I find your word choice here interesting. "Consequences" has directly negative connotations, whereas I generally prefer to (at least on a social rather than individual level) observe change rather than assigning value judgements to it. One could well have argued that the advent of cities would have "consequences," and many would argue retrospectively that it did. But, since I see no design to our existence, I similarly see no semblance of intended functional parameters for us as minds. It's fair to say that our minds evolved to suit the situation in which they developed, ie. our primitive social state and lifestyle, but even then an assumption of how we were "meant to" work in this situation assumes that we were perfectly suited to it. Evolution teaches us that all we needed to be was the best suited to that situation that we'd ever been up until then.

Either way, I think we've come so far from these beginnings that the idea of how we were "designed" to function (if you remove every element of design from the meaning of the word design, so to speak) is no longer strictly relevant when comparing the present to the future.

On an individual level? I think consequences may be a fairer term. As I said, increased tendency toward depression and anxiety. Reliance on a social medium which weakens our ability for and tendency to "real life" interaction may well leave those who suffer from it ill-equipped to deal with the remaining necessities of real world interaction (assuming such necessities remain indefinitely, of course). And, as said, general happiness may perhaps decline. But, on the other hand, our psyches may begin to account for this, or alternatively our social appreciation of what constitutes a "healthy mind" may also shift.

These are, I think, the closest to fundamental limitations upon our shifting perception of a normal, healthy mind. Once again, I don't feel equipped to speculate on whether or how we'll adapt as a society to account for these inescapable shifts. One could, as I said, argue that definitions of depression will change. And for something as fundamental as immune system, part of an increase in technology as a whole is increased medical technology, perhaps progressing to a level which renders the net increase in vulnerability to disease negligible. Who knows?

One thing I can say with a great deal of certainty is that we as a species will never consciously curb development of this kind, even if we empirically prove it to be detrimental to our mental or physical stability. We are born to develop, to progress, and tool use is so deeply programmed in to us that developing in technological terms is one of the greatest human imperatives to my mind.

That's the thing. It's not a strictly developmental tool. The internet as we experience it is a consumer tool. I don't mean that in terms of ecommerce, I mean that it's recreational in nature. It isn't approached with a conscious intention of intellectual development, or even personal benefit per se, but simply because it is appealing on this instinctive level. This is why I feel that we will never really be self limiting as a species in this sense. It is not necessarily within an individuals nature to reflect on such things (indeed, I think such a tendency toward self reflection in this sense is rare, pompous as I know that makes me sound), let alone actively self limit based on the fruits of that reflection.

This is why I'm so fixated with the idea of social norms shifting around this tendency, rather than the tendency being limited to stay in line with current social norms. I feel any assumption of the latter shows a profound misunderstanding of human nature.