How is new technology affecting ... our social relationships?
How does technology affect…our social relationships?
Imagine a world where so many people spend their lives immersed in a virtual reality that laws are passed stipulating that a user must be unplugged at least one hour in every 24.
That hasn’t come to pass, though science fiction writers love imagining the scenario.
Even so, some people are addicted to Second Life, devoting hours and hours to their lives there. Others can’t get enough Facebook, chatting and connecting with people they’ve never met. And others need regular hits from their CrackBerry, no matter where they are.
How common are those examples? Has technology created cyber-hermits?
Has it increased social isolation?
Not for most people. It turns out that technology is a social facilitator. Consider, for example, some of the findings from the Pew Internet & American Life Project. (These findings are true even after the effects of age, education, income and so forth are taken into account.)
People who use instant messaging have larger social networks, compared to those who do not.
People who participate in a variety of activities on the Internet have larger social networks than those who don’t.
Bloggers are more likely to visit a park—or belong to a voluntary association, youth group, or church—compared to others who use the Internet, but don’t blog.
Internet users are more likely than non-Internet users to go to a coffee shop, café, public park or plaza.
People who regularly use Email are more likely to have friends of different races and to have them over to their homes, according to a study I did in the three-county Detroit region.
However, those who use social networking media tend to rely less on neighbors for companionship, for help with caring for themselves or a family member, or to borrow things, helps with repairs, and so on.
What’s your experience? Do you find technology to be a social facilitator for you? Has it enabled you to do things you couldn’t otherwise? Or, have you experienced the downside of technology?
Comments
Add a Comment
See All Comments
The US Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion. I wish they had been smart enough to include freedom FROM religion. We talk about how there is separation of church and state, to which I say, baloney. If there was separation of church and state you wouldn't be asking today's question - what do I think of this particular new guy with a religious agenda.
May answer to that question should be clear... I am opposed to him, as I would be opposed to any him or her candidate who thinks it necessary to stand on the steps of a church, any church, to run for office.
We just can't seem to grow out of those bible thumping religious zealots who came here from Europe and started the genocide of the Native Peoples, can we? Those were "Pilgrims", but still zealots. Religon has NO place in politics, if we have separation of church and state. From where I sit, its obvious we don't.
Ahhh Dr Baker like a good lawyer (or in your case a good social scientist) you ask a question that you already know the answer to. I say that because based on the empirical research presented in your 2007 book: America's Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception we (Dems and Reps) at our core are not so different. Prior to reading it I thought I was TOTALLY different than THEM. But what I had to admit, was that in general we are very similar. I would like to tell you that since reading it I have had more patience in dealing with the game of politics. Or that I could laugh at the childish pronouncements from both sides attempting to convince the constituencies about how different WE are from THEM. Actually it frustrates me immensely to see what I believe is a deliberate attempt to polarize our nation for the self serving aggrandizement of "the party". I often feel helplessly incapable of attempting to deal with such vitriol. And yet in my, some say naive optimistic way, I can only hope that if we continue to dialogue, we will continue to see how much we are alike as opposed to how much we are different. Thank you for your efforts to encourage that with this blog.
Yes, I am fed up with the gridlock in Washington. I am also fed up with all the amendments and riders that wind up being attahced to bills.
If, as you suggest, the Ds & Rs are now polar opposites and there is no centrist party, then we need more political parties. Italy, for one extreme, has about 20.
There does exist other parties, but the political machines have made certain people don't understand that. If someone goes in and punches or pushes a party name, and then pushes a candidate within or outside that party, the entire vote is void.
Instead of letting people get elected by party name, let them get elected by reputation. End the one vote for all candidates, make people be informed to vote.
And next time, skip the Ds and the Rs. Vote for someone else, surprise them. Me? I vote libertarian or egalitarian (if any are running) and always NO on anything that raises taxes.
Perhaps there was a day when the Democrats really stood with the people, but that ended with Jimmy Carter. Now they have both sold out to Wall Street and corporate greed. I'm a retired financial advisor and I won't put our money back into the market until Glass Steagll is re-instated. I've never been angrier at my government, even during Vietnam, than I am now.
Why do we put up with it? Just heard the term 'Stockholm syndrome' used to describe the American people still siding with the crooks. works for me
We should all be used to the "blame the victim" mentality of the Republicans by now, but the unmitigated gall continues to astound me. People are out of work and hurting because of 30 years of Republican policies --- and now when those policies nearly bring down the entire country the perpetrators continue to prate about deadbeats and "let them eat cake." I never get it that this is what they do best and they never stop. So every time I am just amazed and dumbfounded and disheartened. They never learn, but apparently I don't either!
There's a fascinating new book out - haven't bought/read it yet but browsed it in Borders. One of the chapters explains how God implemented and loves the Free Market System. They see Him as the Ultmiate Entrepreneur cuz he created the Universe or some such BS.
When it comes to the Republicans and the Democrates if it wasn't because others die to give me a person of color the right to vote.
I would not waste my time .There is "no" moral campus for Republicans or Democrates.Is all about how much power they can get and who they are going to have sex with come next week. We The People are the last thing on their minds no matter how much trash comes out of their mouths or the GI tract.It all smells the same to me come election time.
The days of WE THE PEOPLE ARE DONE!!
I tend to believe that the more the Republicans the Democrates are distinctive from one another the better. In terms of representing well the many points of view in the general populace, a broadly varying multi-party democracy (as in Sweden) is more, well, democratic.
When the limited two-party system engages two parties that hold very similar views (especially with the role of money in Washington and elections), then the danger is that we have a de facto one-party system.
Whether or not these two (or more) parties work together in healthy and constructive ways is a product of far more than whether they take similar stands. If all parties believe in the good goverance of democratic institutions and the rule of law, they can work together whatever their differences. If not, they will continuing fighting for power even if they are fully identified with the same moral universe.
Different moral universes? Yes. The assumption that persons without work are lazy is an im-moral premise. I have three post-graduate degrees, and have been looking for work for over a year. Lazy. No. Likewise, I worked 10 years full-time with one company, but as contract status, now I am refused any unemployment. This is im-moral, a disgrace. Yes, for all the talk of "God" and "faith," the Republican party just does not "get it." We try to police the world, and refuse to help adequately our own.
Very few that possess a moral compass will ever succeed in American politics. To identify and support such individuals would require characteristics that most Americans simply don't have. Among these are the willingness to look for truth, the acceptance that most other people regardless of race, or whatever you detect that makes them "other," have the same hopes and dreams that you "we" have. Republicans have done very well by convincing large numbers of people that only "they" are moral, right, and deserving, while the "others" are lazy, sinful, freeloaders. The irony of course is that the typical republican voter is the "other" whose interests they are voting against.
That is not to say that dems are a lot better but at least they try to pretend to be so. By the time a democrat reaches the national level in politics they have long since sold their souls. The question is whether this is the nature of people attracted to politics or simply what we require by abdicating our responsibility, not to mention our moral grounding, to be informed voters.
Democrats are mostly hypocrites, but republicans are just plain evil.
I read Mr. Krugman's column on Friday in the NYTimes and was amazed that anyone could justify not extending benefits to the unemployed in this economy. Mr.Krugman pointed out that extending unemployment will benefit the economy,as a whole, which vitally important but, also, I don't understand how a party that tries to identify itself so strongly with religion can justify not helping our neighbors where issues like unemployment and health care(sometime with life and death consequences) are at stake.
Different moral universes for Ds vs Rs? Nope, not from where I sit.
It is all about wheeling and dealing, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on. Why do they all manage to come back millionaires? I'd love to do a job for four to six years and retire, with a pocket full of money as well.
I think there are simpler issues to understand, and I don't understand them: Democrats believe in redistribution of wealth, Republicans believe in getting what you earn. But there is a cost to governing and government. Democrats believe the rich should pay, Republicans believe the rich should only pay up to a (low) ceiling.
If you get what you earn, why wouldn't a rich person be willing to pay the same percentage as a poor person?
If redistribution of wealth is your goal, why would you allow a cutoff to be set?
Neither side likes the flat tax (a fixed percent), why is that? If churches preach tithing is your duty to the church, why isn't tithing to the government also adequate or necessary? "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."
Hi Everyone,
The reason I purchased my first Toyota (an '87 Camry) and my '95 Avalon and most recently '04 Avalon, was because my first car, a Ford Mustang Ghia '76, whose looks I loved, was a complete and total lemon. Twice, the master brake cylinder failed while I was on the highway. At least three times going 60 mph on the highway the engine just shut off. I swore I would never buy American again and would buy what was then considered the safest car around -- a Toyota.
Now? I hope not to ever need to buy another car (I'm 68). And I pray daily no 2004 Avalons will start racing on their own down the road. And I also pray daily for every other Toyota owner -- we need it.
I liked it when there were more moving attached parts and fewer computer software components. In retrospect, maybe that was safer.
Do I notice other Toyotas more on the road? Oh yes. And I also pray that we won't uncover similar software problems in other cars. For quite a few decades, car manufacturers knew about safety glass before it was ever used in cars. People suffered needless injury and death because of the bottom line back then. Is it truly any different now?
See my previous comment: The software is the problem, not the gas pedal.
I recently wrote a series of articles and blogs on the Rebuilding of Trust in the Finance industry (www.erikahayesjames.com/blog/), and there many parallels here.
As human beings with emotions and passion, betrayal in any form is devastating, and worse, is extremely hard to recover from. Once our trust is betrayed we immediately put our guard up and are reluctant to trust the individual, company, or industry again. We experience feelings of despair, hurt, anger, and potentially a desire for revenge. Betrayals hit at the core of what is important—a set of firmly entrenched values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations (VABEs) about how people, organizations, or industries should behave. In the case of Toyota, its rise to the forefront of the automobile industry based on its integrity and quality product was evident in its sales.
For any company to be perceived as trustworthy, ethical, and high performing in light of this fall from grace it must develop the capacity to respond to, learn from, and generate positive outcomes even if the crisis is perceived to be one of its own making. To do so requires that the industry demonstrate integrity- act in accordance with a set of core values and beliefs; positive intent- demonstrating genuine care and concern for those affected by one’s actions; and clear capabilities- pairing the talents that the company has with positive intent and integrity will create fertile ground for trust to grow.
Add a Comment
See All Comments