NationStates Jolt Archive

Specifically in relation to the Internet,

Real life conversations, Greenfield points out, are more perilous than cyber ones. They take place in real time, "with no opportunity to think up clever or witty responses, plus they require a sensitivity to voice tone, body language and perhaps pheromones". Speakers need to constantly adapt to what the other person is saying, or their expression. You don't have to when chatting online. In her most provocative simile, she compares these gaps between the types of conversations to the difference between killing and butchering an animal to eat, and buying meat from a supermarket.

Greenfield argues that a shorter attention span, a disregard for consequences in a virtual everything-is-reversible world, and most importantly, a lack of empathy may be among the negative changes. She quotes a teacher who told her of a change in the ability of her pupils to understand others. She points out that irony, metaphor and sympathy can all be lost in cyberspace.

I'm not sure if the only real difference with the Internet is that we have access to far wider opinions, some that surprise and shock us, yet those opinions were always there, we simply did not have access to them and did not realise how prevalent in society they are.

If nothing else, I feel this greater contact will, over time, lead to greater understanding and consensus as the extremes gain access outside of their immediate environment and the centrists understand that people have different points of view, and thus gain a little more empathy.

We know from neuroscience that the brain constantly changes, physically, depending on what it perceives and how the body acts. So Greenfield suggests that the world of Facebook is changing millions of people, most of them young.

First, do we think this is the case?

Second, is there an objective benefit or limitation to this given it's simply the world we live in?

Link for those link Nazis among you (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/digital-revolution)

tl;dr

tl;dr

:)

Ass!

I agree with Cpt. Obvious, with one exception: pheromones? I'm pretty sure it's been roundly debunked that humans have or can detect pheromones.

i think its great to get a wide variety of opinions from a wide variety of people. it broadens your outlook in a way that was impossible in the past without a great deal of money/gumption to go out into the world.

yeah you can certainly talk to people all over the world but its no replacement for actual human contact, hell your neighbours are probably far more interesting what with all the bodies in the basement

oddly enough this is the same woman who thinks that if there was more women in the banking system it would be more stable and that we need more old people working

i think its great to get a wide variety of opinions from a wide variety of people.

have we been going on the same Internet?

I agree with Cpt. Obvious, with one exception: pheromones? I'm pretty sure it's been roundly debunked that humans have or can detect pheromones.

Nope. Not conclusively shown that we do or do not have them/detect them.

have we been going on the same Internet?
yes yes we have.

I think it has its positive and negative sides. On one hand, yes, there is more access to other ideas (However, how often we actually encounter them, even in cyberspace is another story), but I do think that the online world does lose something as well in terms of language use. I'm not too sure that the Internet will tie us all together more than just providing a new communication medium for us to scream at each other on.

Nope. Not conclusively shown that we do or do not have them/detect them.

That's not what I heard/read. If I wasn't half out of my head on cold medicine right now, I'd fetch a source, but it'll have to wait. Point is though, don't believe those late-night infomercials. :tongue:

I think I've developed more balanced viewpoints on some issues because of the internet. On the down-side, I'm horrified afresh every single time a debate about what constitutes rape comes up. People never seem to run out of ways to make you terrified to leave your house.

yes yes we have.

the one full of 13 year old libertarians/communists who can't have a debate that isn't just them spouting their ideology? :tongue:

I think I've developed more balanced viewpoints on some issues because of the internet. On the down-side, I'm horrified afresh every single time a debate about what constitutes rape comes up. People never seem to run out of ways to make you terrified to leave your house.

Most of that comes from the number of college kids on some forums. I never lived in a dorm, but apparently there's a bit of scaremongering going on with college administrators telling freshmen that anything short of notorized written consent is "rape." The rest of us know damn well what rape means.

the one full of 13 year old libertarians/communists who can't have a debate that isn't just them spouting their ideology? :tongue:
yeah

and those that eviscerate them.

arent you surprised (or didnt you used to be surprised) at the way people from other countries see the UK? thats something that you wouldnt get if all you associated with was your neighbors.

Most of that comes from the number of college kids on some forums. I never lived in a dorm, but apparently there's a bit of scaremongering going on with college administrators telling freshmen that anything short of notorized written consent is "rape." The rest of us know damn well what rape means.

Er... frankly, I meant the ones where someone will assert that a given example wasn't rape because she clearly wasn't kicking or screaming hard enough, or was implying her consent by wearing a skirt, etc. Or where it's asserted that an underage boy abused by a woman wasn't raped.

I think I've developed more balanced viewpoints on some issues because of the internet. On the down-side, I'm horrified afresh every single time a debate about what constitutes rape comes up. People never seem to run out of ways to make you terrified to leave your house.

Indeed. You end up with comments like the one in response to this, from people who apparently think the really scary thing about rape is that you might not be able to get away with it.

Indeed. You end up with comments like the one in response to this, from people who apparently think the really scary thing about rape is that you might not be able to get away with it.
or those who have the notion that if you didnt think it was rape and have a really really good understanding of what is and isnt rape (in your opinion) then you wont go to prison for rape when it turns out that college administrators had a better legal opinion than you do.

Thought this was about Shakespeare.

Er... frankly, I meant the ones where someone will assert that a given example wasn't rape because she clearly wasn't kicking or screaming hard enough, or was implying her consent by wearing a skirt, etc. Or where it's asserted that an underage boy abused by a woman wasn't raped.

Yeah, that is pretty scary, and I've seen that too. That stuff should've have survived the 19th century, let alone the 20th. What I meant to say was, that it seems like the people who think rape is too strictly defined tend to be kids who've been threatened or heard (usually false) horror stories about two slightly-but-equally-buzzed college kids having sex, and the male being jailed for rape afterward. There seems to be some unfounded bitterness there.

Edit:

Indeed. You end up with comments like the one in response to this, from people who apparently think the really scary thing about rape is that you might not be able to get away with it.

Complete mis-interpretation, just for the record, if this is regarding my post.

Thought this was about Shakespeare.

It can be if you want, I don't really care where my threads go.

One could say that plays were the original Internet, disseminating thoughts and ideas in a shared medium.

Took time to write a good play, takes no time to write a post, well, relatively,

Do you have a habit of raping people every time you walk out the door? Do unwilling victims fall from the sky onto your penis? Do you have trouble meeting people who actually, expressly want to have sex with you?

I actually called the rape advice line the other day...apparently its only for victims

I actually called the rape advice line the other day...apparently its only for victims

I shall alert Conservapedia of this blatant government discrimination.

I actually called the rape advice line the other day...apparently its only for victims

*Rimshot* :D

Yeah, that is pretty scary, and I've seen that too. That stuff should've have survived the 19th century, let alone the 20th. What I meant to say was, that it seems like the people who think rape is too strictly defined tend to be kids who've been threatened or heard (usually false) horror stories about two slightly-but-equally-buzzed college kids having sex, and the male being jailed for rape afterward. There seems to be some unfounded bitterness there.

Edit:



Complete mis-interpretation, just for the record, if this is regarding my post.

Thanks for the clarification; that makes me less scared. Your first post certainly sounded like you were agreeing with the "bitter college kids," so I'm glad to hear otherwise. :)

Thanks for the clarification; that makes me less scared. Your first post certainly sounded like you were agreeing with the "bitter college kids," so I'm glad to hear otherwise. :)

No problem. My fault for posting under the influence of cough syrup - damned flu.

Yeah, that is pretty scary, and I've seen that too. That stuff should've have survived the 19th century, let alone the 20th. What I meant to say was, that it seems like the people who think rape is too strictly defined tend to be kids who've been threatened or heard (usually false) horror stories about two slightly-but-equally-buzzed college kids having sex, and the male being jailed for rape afterward. There seems to be some unfounded bitterness there.

Oh I see. And while it's unfortunate that that kind of anxiety exists, and might even get exacerbated in some online environments (a few MRA forums come to mind), I'd never realized the extent of men feeling personally threatened by false accusations of rape, or "overly strict" definitions of it. The gender-neutrality the internet can provide seems to make it a lot easier to get honest opinions and discussions about things like this, so that you can at least take them into consideration when dealing with people in real life. (Even if "dealing" still means "terrified to leave your house.")

"...She points out that irony, metaphor and sympathy can all be lost in cyberspace." She nailed that one, although she could have easily added 'the ability to comprehend a joke' as well.

I'm not too sure that the Internet will tie us all together more than just providing a new communication medium for us to scream at each other on.

Don't forget the porn. Porn did the same thing for the Internet that it did for VHS.

I actually called the rape advice line the other day...apparently its only for victims

This should also be entered on the T-shirt slogan thread, it might win.

Oh I see. And while it's unfortunate that that kind of anxiety exists, and might even get exacerbated in some online environments (a few MRA forums come to mind), I'd never realized the extent of men feeling personally threatened by false accusations of rape, or "overly strict" definitions of it. The gender-neutrality the internet can provide seems to make it a lot easier to get honest opinions and discussions about things like this, so that you can at least take them into consideration when dealing with people in real life. (Even if "dealing" still means "terrified to leave your house.")

I wasn't aware of it either, until my youngest brother started at University of Iowa several years back. When I was in college, about 3-5% of the students lived in dorms, with the rest of us just driving in and then going home like you'd go to work. But where he was, it was 30,000 kids packed into a couple buildings, flooded with booze and drugs, and with almost every underclassman living on campus. I can't even imagine being in such a place, and he had some wild stories. It's easy to understand why administrators would try to scare kids straight in that situation. Many of them probably hadn't even used drugs or alcohol befort arriving. The statistics on rape at college campuses are almost unbelievably grim even with all the warnings. The bitterness comes from the perception among male students that administration is trying to stoke paranoia in the female students, so that they won't associate with the men out of fear. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Dude, "link nazis"? Really?!?

I agree with Cpt. Obvious, with one exception: pheromones? I'm pretty sure it's been roundly debunked that humans have or can detect pheromones.I think it's (still) fully unsubstantiated rather than debunked. Plenty of people still researching it, though. And of course they did find in humans the equivalent of the organ that in other animals detects pheromones; the only problem is that it's not connected to the brain :P

Dude, "link nazis"? Really?!?

http://www.localseoguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sein_soup_nazi.jpg

NO LINK FOR YOU!

COME BACK! ONE YEAR!

NEXT!!!

I agree, somewhat. Speaking over the internet is ruining a generation or two of kids who will now lack vital interpersonal skills that otherwise they would have gained, will have difficulty with face-to-face conversations, et cetera.

On the other hand, I'm still typing this because without the internet I would have gone slowly insane without anyone to talk to. I use the internet because I have no interpersonal skills, not the other way around. <.< And I like being able to edit what I say before it goes out to the rest of the world. This is also why I don't like instant messaging, or telephone conversations.

I agree, somewhat. Speaking over the internet is ruining a generation or two of kids who will now lack vital interpersonal skills that otherwise they would have gained, will have difficulty with face-to-face conversations, et cetera.

On the other hand, I'm still typing this because without the internet I would have gone slowly insane without anyone to talk to. I use the internet because I have no interpersonal skills, not the other way around. <.< And I like being able to edit what I say before it goes out to the rest of the world. This is also why I don't like instant messaging, or telephone conversations.

This is slightly a pet subject of mine, I've previously put forward the idea that the Internet provides a platform for those who, for one reason or another, had no voice before.

We don't know if you're a dog, so we merely judge you by what we read rather than by your stuttering, your lazy eye, the fact you're in a wheelchair or that your incredibly handsome, have a wonderful way with the spoken word, all those visual cues that can affect our comprehension of what you're actually saying.

Where irony, sarcasm etc, can't be read, I somewhat disagree, I think it merely takes a certain understanding of context and familiarity, we're as much at danger of missing these due to visual effects on our comprehension compared to both learning to write in a way that clearly expresses out intent and also gaining the ability of discerning that intent.

The internet is a pretty cool guy. eh has loads of porn and doesn't afraid of anyone.

This is slightly a pet subject of mine, I've previously put forward the idea that the Internet provides a platform for those who, for one reason or another, had no voice before.

We don't know if you're a dog, so we merely judge you by what we read rather than by your stuttering, your lazy eye, the fact you're in a wheelchair or that your incredibly handsome, have a wonderful way with the spoken word, all those visual cues that can affect our comprehension of what you're actually saying.

Where irony, sarcasm etc, can't be read, I somewhat disagree, I think it merely takes a certain understanding of context and familiarity, we're as much at danger of missing these due to visual effects on our comprehension compared to both learning to write in a way that clearly expresses out intent and also gaining the ability of discerning that intent.

*shrugs*

I use irony and sarcasm a lot on the internet, and people usually catch on, despite it lacking smilies and in some cases being actually plausible. I use irony and sarcasm a lot in real life, and people usually catch on, despite it usually being said in a deadpan near-monotone with no particular facial expression. Most people have a sense of humour, online or off.

And no, I'm not a dog. Obviously. I'll be back to continue this discussion a little later though, because I have to go play with my squeaky bone and then go outside to pee.

Wasn't it debunked that people on social network sites have fewer social contact in real life?
*too lazy to look it up*

I'm not sure if the only real difference with the Internet is that we have access to far wider opinions, some that surprise and shock us, yet those opinions were always there, we simply did not have access to them and did not realise how prevalent in society they are.

While it's true that we have access to a wider range of opinions, that is a side effect of the overabundance of information available to us. I see precious little evidence that we are suddenly more interested in understanding the viewpoints of people different from us than we were before the Internet. If anything, the flattening of information distribution systems means that we are now free to ignore what emanates from the elite as a whole ("the elite" here meaning publishing houses, broadcast media, government, and people who can string more than one sentence together) -- it's much easier to pick and choose the voices we agree with, since there are now so many of them, and ignore all the rest.

If nothing else, I feel this greater contact will, over time, lead to greater understanding and consensus as the extremes gain access outside of their immediate environment and the centrists understand that people have different points of view, and thus gain a little more empathy.

It's not enough to encounter people of different views. The context of the encounter matters, which is why circus freak shows weren't spectacles of mass empathy. One of Susan Sontag's points in On Photography (written pre-Internet) was that the overabundance of images meant that we were likely to see an image before understanding its context and thus to be desensitized not only to the meaning of that particular image, but to similar images. The Internet extends that experience beyond photographs to everything.

First, do we think this is the case?

Second, is there an objective benefit or limitation to this given it's simply the world we live in?

That our brains are changed by what they're exposed to? Absolutely. Look at the history of film. Is there anything we can do about it? No, of course not. I suspect we'll simply become less empathetic and less reflective over time.

the problem w/ the internet isn't whether information is exchanged - it's how it is exchanged.

I have no problem w/ someone disagreeing w/ me. I have no problem w/ someone occasionally making a joke at my expense. But frequently, the internet is an excuse for behavior that is beyond rude.

some of the pompous jerks on this site who enjoy verbally bashing Christians and mocking people like me... I don't engage them on line, cuz there is no point. But I know for a fact such people won't engage me face-to-face, cuz they know I'll serve them their butt on a platter.

the internet is a place where "virtual pheromones" are sprayed around like cheap perfume. "Oh, I'm so clever, oh, I'm so adroit! Look at how well I make fun of people who I think are inferior to me." Yeah -It's been my experience that people like that WON'T and CAN'T say it in person. The internet simply creates wanna-be bullies. As long as they have the cover of anonymity, they are verbally abusive.

*shrugs*

I use irony and sarcasm a lot on the internet, and people usually catch on, despite it lacking smilies and in some cases being actually plausible. I use irony and sarcasm a lot in real life, and people usually catch on, despite it usually being said in a deadpan near-monotone with no particular facial expression. Most people have a sense of humour, online or off.

And no, I'm not a dog. Obviously. I'll be back to continue this discussion a little later though, because I have to go play with my squeaky bone and then go outside to pee.

sarcasm is wonderful, when done well.

good sarcasm, even more so.

but a lot of people, I think, equate sarcasm w/ verbal abuse. That's over-the-line, imho.

Here's the follow up..

Social network sites risk infantilising the mid-21st century mind, leaving it characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity, according to a leading neuroscientist.

Is this the same argument against video games, or different?

"If the young brain is exposed from the outset to a world of fast action and reaction, of instant new screen images flashing up with the press of a key, such rapid interchange might accustom the brain to operate over such timescales. Perhaps when in the real world such responses are not immediately forthcoming, we will see such behaviours and call them attention-deficit disorder.

"It might be helpful to investigate whether the near total submersion of our culture in screen technologies over the last decade might in some way be linked to the threefold increase over this period in prescriptions for methylphenidate, the drug prescribed for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder."

Video games have been shown to increase spatial awareness as well as being helpful for doctors performing microscopic surgery, yet they also say they lead to increased violence due to lack of consequences, again, is this the same?

She also warned against "a much more marked preference for the here-and-now, where the immediacy of an experience trumps any regard for the consequences. After all, whenever you play a computer game, you can always just play it again; everything you do is reversible. The emphasis is on the thrill of the moment, the buzz of rescuing the princess in the game. No care is given for the princess herself, for the content or for any long-term significance, because there is none. This type of activity, a disregard for consequence, can be compared with the thrill of compulsive gambling or compulsive eating.

"The sheer compulsion of reliable and almost immediate reward is being linked to similar chemical systems in the brain that may also play a part in drug addiction. So we should not underestimate the 'pleasure' of interacting with a screen when we puzzle over why it seems so appealing to young people."

Can the reasonable person differentiate between online and offline or do we risk punishing many for the faults of the few?

She quoted one user saying they had 900 friends, another saying the fact "that you can't see or hear other people makes it easier to reveal yourself in a way that you might not be comfortable with. You become less conscious of the individuals involved [including yourself], less inhibited, less embarrassed and less concerned about how you will be evaluated."

But Greenfield warned: "It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations. We know that the human brain is exquisitely sensitive to the outside world."

Thoughts, ye dark denizens of NSG?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/social-networking-site-changing-childrens-brains)

But Greenfield warned: "It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations. We know that the human brain is exquisitely sensitive to the outside world."

Yeah man, I wanna be EXACTLY like the generations that gave us World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Crimean War, the Seven Years War, the War of Austrian Succession, the War of Spanish Succession, the Hundred Years War, the War of the Roses, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the American Civil War, the English Civil War...

Yeah man, I wanna be EXACTLY like the generations that gave us World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Crimean War, the Seven Years War, the War of Austrian Succession, the War of Spanish Succession, the Hundred Years War, the War of the Roses, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the American Civil War, the English Civil War...

War has never gone away, the means in which we wage war has, I don't think this is relevant.

Can the reasonable person differentiate between online and offline or do we risk punishing many for the faults of the few?

I don't think anybody but alarmists and Law & Order writers are claiming that people who spend a lot of time online are unable to distinguish between online and offline in the common understanding of the phrase, any more than people other than Jack Thompson are trying to draw one-to-one connections between violent video games and violent real-world acts. What is being claimed is that 1) online interaction is different than offline interaction and 2) our brains develop differently when exposed to different environments. If someone spends most of their social time online, their habits of mind will leave them ill-prepared in some respects for offline interaction, in the same way that someone trained exclusively on the djembe will have trouble playing Mozart on the violin. This says nothing about the intelligence of the hypothetical djembe player or the musical worth of the djembe, only that it is less than ideal training for the Viennese Philharmonic.

What punishment do you think is being suggested?

This is a pretty funny take on the immediacy of society..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus