Does Technology Reduce Social Isolation?
Hundreds of daily updates come from friends on Facebook and Twitter, but do people actually feel closer to each other? It turns out the size of the average American's social circle is smaller today than 20 years ago, as measured by the number of self-reported confidants in a person's life. Yet contrary to popular opinion, use of cellphones and the Internet is not to blame, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
In fact, people who regularly use digital technologies are more social than the average American and more likely to visit parks and cafes, or volunteer for local organizations, according to the study, which was based on telephone interviews with a national sample of 2,512 adults living in the continental United States.
The study found some less-than-social behavior, however. People who use social networks like Facebook or Linkedin are 30 percent less likely to know their neighbors and 26 percent less likely to provide them companionship.
Pew asked questions that would get at the heart of the link between social isolation in America and use of digital technologies, with an eye toward debunking earlier thinking that suggested technology caused people to hole up in their pajamas or lose some friendships.
Two years ago, a General Social Survey hypothesized that the average American was feeling more socially isolated because of the rise of the Internet and cellphones. That study found that from 1985 to 2004, the number of intimate friendships people reported dropped from three to two.
The Pew report confirmed those findings. But it also deflated other data in the previous study that indicated the number of people saying they had no one to confide in had nearly tripled from 1985 to 2004. Pew reported that only 6 percent of the American population fell into that category of isolation -- with no significant change over the last 25 years.
The circle of close friends for mobile phone users tends to be 12 percent larger than for nonusers. People who share online photos or instant messages have 9 percent larger social circles than nonusers.
Pew also confirmed that Americans' social networks were becoming less diverse, defined as relationships with people from different backgrounds. But on average, the social circles of cellphone and instant-message users were more diverse than those of nonusers.
"We identified Internet use, and especially using social networks, contributes to having more diverse social networks," said Keith Hampton, lead researcher for the report and an assistant professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania. The study also found that people still prefer face-to-face communication as the primary means to stay in touch with friends and family (people see loved ones in person an average of 210 days a year). Respondents said that they were in touch via mobile phone an average of 195 days a year.
I also think that Facebook users usually have real-life connections as well, but since Facebook has spread massively, my feeling is that the pre-existing real-life relationships are being sucked into Facebook too.
In the beginning, TV used to show and describe reality, and people would talk about what happened on TV. Starting around 20 years ago, I noticed that TV talked more and more about what happened on TV itself in a self-referencing way. I saw that mostly through other peoples' TV sets since I don't own a set myself. Seeing TV only rarely makes me more aware of the macro-changes. At a certain point, TV didn't just show and talk about reality any more, but made reality itself, which was then commented upon by TV itself and by other media.
The Net followed a similar but slightly different path. A few years ago, the Net was limited to a small percentage of the population and it was immediately self-referential, encouraged by the easy mechanism of the link system.
Then, as social networks spread, people populated Facebook and similar sites. Recently, I noticed that real-life conversations got more into "what happened on Facebook" and this in itself fuelled the growth of the social network itself. People didn't want to feel "left out" so they flocked to Facebook. Suddenly, people would feel left out if they weren't present on the Net and in its happenings, more than if they weren't present in face-to-face meetings.
The Net got priority. Without it, many real meetings can't happen anymore as they are organized as Facebook events. Since we spend more and more time online, without the Net, we could even become short of arguments in our real-life conversations.
Many people into technology welcome the interaction between the Net and real life, seeing that as something which balances both and which takes the Net out of a cage. The problem is that the process of digitalization of reality is quite greedy and tends to incorporate every aspect of reality, growing from the mental level to the wholeness of reality, representing it digitally as if everything could be translated into bytes. So in the end, reality becomes sucked into the Net, which has to be lifestreamed or lifelogged in order to become "realized".
Simple technology, we all take for granted, water and electricity. What does all this technology do for us ? It gives us independent comfortable lives, we have clean water, hot water, light and warmth. Then with the miracle of TV we can all watch the world go by, from the comfort of our homes, or the local bar whichever is our true home. We are now a global village as has often been said, but then we become anti social as its easier to watch tv than to interact with real people, we'd rather watch fiction on tv than have a real life. But with technology we can send an email to our neighbour across the road, with pictures and video, rather than leave our castle homes, rather than going over for a coffee and a bar of chocolate. That's one view the optimistic view says that we truly can break down barriers by using the miracle of email to keep us connected though we are thousands of miles apart. I have to hold my hand up and admit that I am an email Junky, I did send up to 5 emails a day to my friend in another part of the office, because we were both having fun. Then when I fell in love with my one true love it was ONLY because of the miracle of email that our love survived. I sent my girlfriend long long emails everyday for 6 months. She was in Shanghai while I was in Birmingham. My heart was breaking with love and hope until finally she came back to me. I'd come home from work at 3am and hit the keyboard, with luck because of the time difference we'd actually be live and talking almost in real time. You cannot imagine how heart rending it was to come home to an email, to get up in the afternoon and read an email before going on night shift. I think whoever invented email should be made a saint, without email our love would not have lasted. An exchange of letters takes 14 days from Birmingham to Shanghai, so thank God for email and God himself KNOWS just how much I mean that, Sainthood is not high enough reward for the inventor of email. Is it Saint Bill Gates ? The telephone is fantastic, but too expensive, I know my phone bill reached 4 figures, but an email can be read over and over again, and even printed off, so it is a letter.
So I confess email is the most important leap in technology of the 20th Century, as far as I am concerned.
Technology has moved social interaction to the point of ordering fast food. People can choose who to meet, invite, talk with, etc. based on looks or profiles alone. Has technology made society more isolated? I would argue yes. As a prior posted pointed out, people prefer to stay in their homes or castles. Look at the number of homes that have gyms, media rooms, gourmet kitchens, etc. People want to meet others on their time and agenda.
When technology first took off back in the Internet Relay Chat days, people had to have a fair amount of intelligence and patience to use it. As a result, like minded people often found themselves communicating with each other. Now, anyone can use IM, a social web site, or [cell]phone to communicate and connect with people. Has it allowed us to be closer to one another? Not really. Instead people hide behind the various forms of communication and use it as a way to be nasty towards others. It is much easier to be the anonymous person that makes snide, rude, and mean remarks to others online, than it is to risk saying it to their face. Social sites have allowed the cliques of high school to continue on.
That is not to say that there are not some groups that benefit from the technology, also previously mentioned above. In the end, one has to use technology as a tool and balance how it best fits in your lives. Social interaction online can never replace in person contact. It may enhance or augment it in a pinch, but real connections are made in person. Technology may allow people to share more about themselves with strangers, but we should share those moments for those closest to us.
Responses From Readers:
1. I post photos online, and I used to instant message, but the need to get home from work right away and instant message my friends actually prevented me from going outside, and getting out and about, and meeting new people.
About a year ago, I quit and just stopped signing on to my online MSN, AIM, Yahoo and Gmail accounts. Everyone who is important to me, my 2-3 friends and family, I can communicate with either in real life, through phone or through email (though I prefer real life and email; I dislike speaking on the phone). Since cutting down on my instant messaging, I have seen a near 90% increase of me getting out of the house and wandering around more, even if it means i'm going out alone.
Technology is wonderful, and fun, but there's nothing like getting outside and taking in things from a nature perpesctive. Hell, have your friends join you -- that's what makes outtings so wonderful, and why people always tend to be more happy when we get out!
2. Conclusion: no, technical doesn't reduce social isolation; it increases it, I know from experience!
Some of my observations, done by walking around at random but without "controls", so not acceptable as real science.
As I walk, I see people in cars talking on phones... two in the front seat, both on phones... one driving, on the phone, kids in back seats... no communication going on IN the car.
Other walkers, talking on phones, not even acknowledging other walkers with a look or a nod, completely self absorbed.
Visiting homes, where everyone in a family is using a phone or computer or watching TV (which may be always on)... communication is about reality (or not) as interpreted through media.
Sitting with a group in a coffee shop, I hear most of the talking is about "others", often sports figures or what some right wing commentator has said... little real world experience.
Let's see... I've probably seen and heard at least as many people, mostly encountered at random, as the Pew study.
While the leachate pH for the alkaline samples was high in all leachates, the cations tended to be more soluble in the acidic leachants. The maximum leachate concentrations of Fe, Ni and Zn were very high for the acidic IGCC samples, generated from a mixture of coal and petroleum coke. The maximum concentration of these elements, particularly Ni, was much higher than from the alkaline samples or from typical PC fly ashes.