scumble on 6/4/2015 at 08:33
I came across this and skimmed over a bit: (
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/01/future-of-loneliness-internet-isolation)
It's a curious article that sounds intelligent with references to other intelligent sounding stuff, but it looks like mostly nonsense to me. I don't feel pressure to be "perfect" online or that everyone's nastier than in 2005. Also the usual abuse of the royal "we" to make it sound like the opinion applies to all people.
Still there seems to be some need to moan about the internet stopping us interacting "properly". I remember similar people moaning about people with mp3 players being in their own world instead of talking to each other, as if people used to be striking up conversations in the middle of the street all the time.
This is probably why I don't usually read "opinion" articles.
Briareos H on 6/4/2015 at 10:24
The author starts by describing Hopper's Nighthawks as "a disquieting scene of disconnection and estrangement", an emotionally loaded statement which already sets up solitude/loneliness to be something to avoid at all costs. She then follows by describing online interaction and friendship as foreign to intimacy without feeling the need to back the idea up. Physical intimacy, surely, but psychological, social intimacy would certainly require a deeper analysis. The context I take from that article is that being alone isn't good and whatever you do online won't stop you from being alone, especially with the increasing social pressure of internet media, publicity and trolls; The rest of the paper seems to be idle (and, frankly, self-aggrandizing) banter about films.
I agree with none of that. My experience and the experience of others around me is that our online existence -- whether separate from real life or not -- has made us better, both from its 'loneliness', and also from the increased proximity of online friends. We have grown with the medium and accept that its social codes are different than in the physical world. Furthermore, we realise that being alone at times is a prerequisite for making interesting things.
I can't pinpoint exactly what this author appears to be afraid of, but I can't shake the feeling that they brought it on themselves. That increasing pressure and negativity they talk about isn't something I'm familiar with in my close circles, oh of course Twitter trolls and online wars revolving around 'social justice'-like motivations get a lot of people's knickers in a twist, but no one ever forced them to participate in those pointless exchanges. No one asked them to build a glass castle around them rather than wandering around from interesting community to interesting community.
That considered, I will say one thing about the current state of media, the internet and the effect it has on physical matters: if one was to completely erase Twitter from existence, and do the same to any attempt to restart a similar platform, the world would be a better place.
scumble on 6/4/2015 at 20:32
I give zero attention to twitter as there are better ways of interacting. I'm not convinced that removing twitter from the world would necessarily improve things.
It's just technology and can't be blamed for the way its used. It's just annoying to me to see columnists generalising their opinion to sound wise. Then again it could just be entertainment for the sort of people who might read the guardian. Another vague grumble about modern technology making the world worse than some unknown time in the past.
heywood on 6/4/2015 at 21:54
I think there is a kernel of truth in there. The interactions between friends on online social networks are shallow, terse, and unsatisfying compared to getting together IRL. Facebook in particular allows one to maintain a large circle of "friends", but most people I know have fewer real friends than our parents did. It seems like we've traded quality for quantity. Personally, I get more social enjoyment and satisfaction from a night out with some good friends than a year's worth of emails and Facebook updates.
And at work, it is far easier to get people on the same page and reach agreements when we're meeting face to face than meeting online or teleconference. The productivity difference is like 4x.
Yakoob on 9/4/2015 at 02:27
I agree with heywood and the main point of the article (even if half of it is meandering and overly dramatic) - interaction via social media is not a replacement to physical interaction, but may create the illusion of it. Anecdotal and personal evidence follows:
I can relate growing up and having many "Internet friends" and belonging to few communities/gamig clans, yet having no real social skills. The online community made it easier to cope with loneliness, but did little to fix it. Likewise today, working from home, i realize how much i miss the watercooler conversations and human contact. Skype meetings, emails or facebook distractions dont fill that slight but crucial social need.
Loners always existed, yes, and some remained alone, some were forced to change to get out of the bubble. While the former benefit from the internet interaction, the latter may miss out on becoming more outgoing thanks to the comfort of internet.
Tony_Tarantula on 9/4/2015 at 07:05
Quote Posted by heywood
I think there is a kernel of truth in there. The interactions between friends on online social networks are shallow, terse, and unsatisfying compared to getting together IRL. Facebook in particular allows one to maintain a large circle of "friends", but most people I know have fewer real friends than our parents did. It seems like we've traded quality for quantity.
Another contributing factor is that while blatant show boating and attention whoring are generally punished in face to face interactions, social media tends to reward them with a barrage of likes. As a result it facilitates shallow, image driven interactions. Getting a picture of yourself holding up the leaning tower of Pisa is now more important than the history and culture you learn while visiting Italy. For guys your judgement is no longer on whether your functional in a relationship but in your ability to post up tons of pictures of yourself with "hotties" hanging off your arm, while women feel free posting provocative lingerie and bikini pictures in order to compete for online attention.
Tony_Tarantula on 9/4/2015 at 07:07
I also dug up an old blog post from an (admittedly troll) website that talks about this issue:
Quote:
But smart phones, texting and social media create huge obstacles for moral growth, in other words, to becoming a moral human being. For they allow us to deal with others only when its convenient. In fact, by their very nature, they seem to promote this. And more and more, there is effectively no difference between a person and the image of that person, or between a person and the sense of him one gets via text or email, both quite limited forms of language which lend themselves readily to misunderstanding.
We cannot overestimate the significance of this fact: that today, more and more, people are perceived and their value is determined in mediums in which they are not physically there. Hence our perception of and regard for them is bound to be quite limited. Who cares about other people’s feelings when, for the most part, other people amount to nothing but texts, profiles and images? Hence today people flake, where in the past a person kept his word or promise simply because you’re supposed to. The notion of being supposed to do something certainly was much more meaningful in only the recent past, when people as such were not filtered through technology.
bjack on 9/4/2015 at 15:51
Even before social media went "viral", there were lots of BBS out there. Isn't that where the troll was born? Yes, the internet allows one to be an ass, a clown, anything they wish to be with few if any consequences. At least it used to when it was littered with forums like this one. Facebook and its kind are different though. You are no longer some funny sign on name, you are really the person you are - at least the side you choose to show. It is much more personal.
Want to see fireworks? Read discussions between a liberal and a conservative. Things are said to each other that would normally result in a punch to the face. Or discuss religion or the lack thereof. How about oil change intervals? That's always good for a laugh. The best for laughs are Yahoo and other "news" comments.
I will say that this site is unique to all of the chat boards I belong to. It is sometimes extremely harsh and profane. Sometimes in a good and funny way, but outright nasty in others. Some bold posts here would get the speaker a nice broken nose if they said the same thing to the wrong guy at a bar. This is why people tend to be a little nicer in public, but even that is waning.
What is most disturbing though about social media is the zombie effect. It seems many under 40 have their faces buried in their smart phones. Conversations are now stilted into quips between Google lookups. Few are aware of their surroundings. Few really talk anymore. Simple texts. Simple lives. Shallow.
Tony_Tarantula on 9/4/2015 at 22:24
True, but it wasn't so much what I was talking about. I'm referring to how the internet rewards blatantly obnoxious, attention seeking behavior that would have gotten you shunned before the internet. It even encourages a perverse form of sexism as women engage in a race to post the most provocative pictures of themselves they can get away with in order to garner "likes".....which is no defended as "empowering" by those who conflate "empowerment" with the emotional high you get from being the center of attention.
bjack on 9/4/2015 at 23:14
Yes, and unfortunately I know a few of those women. They tend to be under 30. Yes, it has a lot to do with being the center of attention at all times.
I don't see the same age guys doing much of the same though, although I guess pictures at bars and clubs surrounded by "hoze" or "hoes" is similar. I guess everyone wants more than their 15 minutes of fame. Call it is Kardashian Model if you want. Be famous for being a tramp.
Hey those tramps can be fun to look at and even party with, but they are not the marrying type. Way back, we used to call them the party girls. They didn't have a venue to show off, except for frat parties, meat market bars, and stripper clubs. The demure girls sometimes acted like them in very private settings, much to the pleasure of their boyfriends. Now, it seems it is OK to be a stripper at all times.
If it is any consolation though, lots of the younger generation are finding all this excess hedonism is really lame and empty, just like their grandparents and parents did back in the 60s and 70s after a while. It will pass, as all fads do, but "the bar of acceptable behavior" will be lowered. There will be a back lash though.
Remember what that back lash was against the coke snorting 1970's "me generation"? It was the advent of the coke snorting yuppy and the moral majority. Be prepared for another swing with that type of change. For me, I am NOT looking forward to chicks in high collared flowered prairie dresses. I see enough of that when I infrequently visit Utah. :joke:
