Has the internet revolution brought people closer or pushed them further apart?

[TheFifthElement]

Silas Thorne posted an interesting poem the other day in his blog (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?b=11055) and it got me thinking.

Most people feel that the internet is a great thing. It opens the world right up and gives us the opportunity to converse with people from all over the world. It helps to break down cultural differences, giving us a better understanding of how people in other parts of the world live, their similarities and differences to us. It broadens our horizons. It gives us access to knowledge and information easily. As well as misinformation, of course ;)

But at the same time, if we're going home and sitting in front of a computer screen chatting with the pixels on the screen, are we no longer going out into our communities and meeting with, bonding with, the real actual people we share our day to day space with. In the process of getting to know the 'virtual' world, are we losing touch with the 'real' world.

And does it matter?

In the words of the immortal Lote Tree: what say you?

[keilj]

You're going to get a lot of replies that say, "Some of each." But the Internet has made people even more socially isolated

There are plenty of good things about the Internet - but sticking to your topic about bringing people together or isolating them, the Internet has been one more piece of technology (cell phones, texting, Facebook) that has enabled, and created a culture, where people do not have to see and interact with each other face to face.

[Dodo25]

As with all technology, it is generally positive but has some dangers.

Oh one more thing: Facebook rocks!!

[Silas Thorne]

Thanks Fifth. I'm glad that that strange little poem provoked something in you.


There are plenty of good things about the Internet - but sticking to your topic about bringing people together or isolating them, the Internet has been one more piece of technology (cell phones, texting, Facebook) that has enabled, and created a culture, where people do not have to see and interact with each other face to face.

Exactly. People can exist more and more now moving through a number of self-created 'poses' or 'characters'. I think the concept of one individual identity that governs the way a person behaves is breaking down, and 'roleplay' and 'gameplay' is becoming a common way of life. I see many beneficial and detrimental aspects to this, psychologically, culturally, and otherwise.

But on the other hand if someone exists physically close to you for a long time, in your physical human world, as they also through cellphones or otherwise have access to the internet, or to other cellphones, does the person near you really exist in the way you conceive of them? Or is the self that the person you are with thinks is the 'real self' somewhere else and you are living with a character?

I'm not so good at discussing things really- (there are much better virtual characters around me ;)) , just throwing out a few ideas .

[Paulclem]

Anything can become a problem. I used to play more playstation games - though my wife is an early retirer, and I'm a late one. So I'd be watching TV, playing games on a console or using the internet either now or in the past. I don't use it whilst the family is around-just late as now, so it has broadened my horizons without isolating me from the family.



Exactly. People can exist more and more now moving through a number of self-created 'poses' or 'characters'. I think the concept of one individual identity that governs the way a person behaves is breaking down, and 'roleplay' and 'gameplay' is becoming a common way of life. I see many beneficial and detrimental aspects to this, psychologically, culturally, and otherwise.

But on the other hand if someone exists physically close to you for a long time, in your physical human world, as they also through cellphones or otherwise have access to the internet, or to other cellphones, does the person near you really exist in the way you conceive of them? Or is the self that the person you are with thinks is the 'real self' somewhere else and you are living with a character?
.

I'm not sure that it was ever a case of one person one identity - just think of how you are with different social groups. You behave differently with family to how you behave with friends, colleagues etc etc.

The pose idea is not new, but I think you make a good point about internet poses or character. You can pretend to be a knight in an online game, or an intellectual on litnet.

There's always a dark side to everything exploited by ... those who wish exploit others.

[Delta40]

Do you think the internet also widens the gap between the haves and the have nots? I mean in terms of division of classes as well as cultures and developing countries.

[OrphanPip]

Do you think the internet also widens the gap between the haves and the have nots? I mean in terms of division of classes as well as cultures and developing countries.

I think it might do the opposite. The internet, though it requires a certain access to electricity and computers, is a much more cost effective source of information than books. I'm not sure how it could widen the gap really. The internet is just another use of luxury time and wealth, but I don't see it in any way producing any negative effects on a socioeconomic level.

[Delta40]

I think it might do the opposite. The internet, though it requires a certain access to electricity and computers, is a much more cost effective source of information than books. I'm not sure how it could widen the gap really. The internet is just another use of luxury time and wealth, but I don't see it in any way producing any negative effects on a socioeconomic level.

you could be right orphan. I know in my job, despite people's claims of financial hardship, most still have access to the internet!

[iRead]

Now I kind of wanted to vote for both - =(
Gamers (since I am one) are often glued to their computers at home and don't leave. While that's a sort of downside, you meet a bunch of different people online. Example; Facebook, Twitter, myspace .. Ect.
You can do so much on the internet nowadays it's a bit hard to choose just one side.

[papayahed]

It's a great way to connect with people who share the same interests (who knew a whole forum could exist revolving around curly hair) however, as with anything, somebody is always going to go to far.

[Wilde woman]

I voted for "pushes people apart", because in my personal experience, that's what happens. However, I can see how both answers would be viable.

But because the Internet makes things like shopping or banking so convenient, I feel like we interact less with actual people in doing these things. So I feel people tend to isolate themselves more when they have Internet access.

I'm part of the so-called Generation Y and I feel like my generation was one of the last (if not THE last) to not have high-speed Internet growing up. Most of my friends in high school did not own cell phones, and only got them when we left for college.

Having done some teaching of younger students, I feel like technology really does isolate them and slow down their socialization process. One of my students actually admitted to me that he would rather text his friends than call them up! He said he wasn't as comfortable talking to them as texting them! :yikes: And these were his FRIENDS, not authority figures or anything. That is the kind of behavior stemming from technology that scares me.

[Silas Thorne]

The internet, though it requires a certain access to electricity and computers, is a much more cost effective source of information than books. I'm not sure how it could widen the gap really. The internet is just another use of luxury time and wealth, but I don't see it in any way producing any negative effects on a socioeconomic level.

It might.
-If you need to be able to read English in order to get this information off the internet, and you have to pay a lot of money to get English classes.
-If the kind of job that you do is phased out due to new technologies.
-If a lot of useful information is put on certain websites and is only available by paying an entry fee or by invitation only.

Just a few ideas. There are probably many more.

[OrphanPip]

It might.
-If you need to be able to read English in order to get this information off the internet, and you have to pay a lot of money to get English classes.
-If the kind of job that you do is phased out due to new technologies.
-If a lot of useful information is put on certain websites and is only available by paying an entry fee or by invitation only.

Just a few ideas. There are probably many more.

Maybe, but some of the most popular websites in the world, by traffic, are operated in Japanese. English is very much a de facto language of use for internet sites, but it is not as if there is a dearth of websites operating in other languages.

I'm not sure many jobs have been phased out due to the internet, apart from bookstore clerks, compared to the benefits it has created.

The last is equally valid to the access of information off the internet. Print journals, for the sciences, are extremely expensive whether you have access to the internet form or not, and actually the internet has managed to make some online publishing much more cost effective, and has led to open source publishers like PLoS One. The Library of Science down in the US could not afford to publish an open source journal without the internet. Likewise, there are numerous programs for providing open access to scientist in developing countries that can't afford the fees universities in the West pay, this is made much easier by the existence of the internet. Could access to the amount of text, like those available on this site and over at Project Guttenberg, be possible for most libraries in the West even?

I don't see any reason to complain about the internet. Doing our banking online, rather than in person, can hardly be blamed for alienating us by freeing us up not to have to instead pay our bills through an ATM or, worse, through an insufferable bank teller. The apparent bad behavior doesn't stem from the technology, the behavior stems from our use of the technology. We can decry facebook pulling people apart, but no one is twisting your arm to use facebook. Nobody has put a gun to your head to make you buy that unlimited text-message plan for your phone.

I don't own a cellphone, and I don't use facebook regularly. I do do my banking online, and frankly that's really convenient because I don't own a car and its far easier to do my banking this way. Take what you find useful in the internet and leave the rest.

[Gladys]

The culture of greed endemic since Maggie Thatcher ruled the waves, deregulated working hours and rates, and the enticing of married women and teenage students into the workforce have pushed people further apart.

As for the internet, I don't know but am grateful for it.

[Cunninglinguist]

It has increased quantity and decreased quality, generally.


Do you think the internet also widens the gap between the haves and the have nots? I mean in terms of division of classes as well as cultures and developing countries.

In my opinion it would not. To sensibly think about it, the internet facilitates the fluidity of information, which has proven consistantly reliable at increasing equal opportunity.

[keilj]

Having done some teaching of younger students, I feel like technology really does isolate them and slow down their socialization process. One of my students actually admitted to me that he would rather text his friends than call them up! He said he wasn't as comfortable talking to them as texting them! :yikes: And these were his FRIENDS, not authority figures or anything. That is the kind of behavior stemming from technology that scares me.


Yes. There was a study just last week that showed that teens in particular drive much less now. The teens explained that they do not need to drive to see their friends becasue they can interact with them online. This again shows how technology has led to increased physical isolation.

[Paulclem]

Having said that, my son got to know some of fellow students this year through Facebook groups. That was never an option previously. it certainly helped my son make new friends even before he went. It took away the uncertainty that's felt by unconfident people. Confident people wouldn't have a problem.

[Virgil]

I'm with those that think it has brought people closer. Without it I would have been limited to my circle of flesh and blood contact. It has definitely expanded my horizons. I agree if it consumes too much of your time, it could have isolate yourself from immediate life, but so does television. Hey i would never have known you guys without it. :D
[I assume that's a good thing. :p]

[keilj]

Without it I would have been limited to my circle of flesh and blood contact. It has definitely expanded my horizons.

Craigslist Casual Encounters do not count

[Silas Thorne]

I agree with Wilde Woman and keilj in many respects.

I put down that the internet 'did both' on the poll. But recently I have been more concerned with texting, since I have heard several occasions when texts are being used to do things like break up with someone, or to quit a job or a course of training. These things can cause a lot of anger (creating more distance between people than carefully worded words in person might), and could be very disadvantageous to a person's social development.

[Virgil]

Craigslist Casual Encounters do not count

I've been on Lit Net five years and have known some of these guys most of that time. I would not consider this a casual encounter.

[Leland Gaunt]

Might just be the area I live in but internet, and cell phones are used more to just make contact with people so you can establish when your hanging out. They also optimize party time (you can effectively know what 20 of your friends at one time or another). Personally I only get on forums after a particularly long day at work, and I don't have the energy to read. Otherwise it is just a research tool. No Facebook, Myspace or anything like that.


I've been on Lit Net five years and have known some of these guys most of that time. I would not consider this a casual encounter.Your just making it worse.:)

[litera9]

I think that the internet is simply whatever you make it. The World Wide Web has the power to emphasize your strengths (your relationships, your beliefs, etc) as well as your weaknesses (your shortcomings, your fears, your anger, etc.). So, if you are introverted, you may rely on the internet for relationships. But you could also use the internet to connect with others, and build deep friendships.

[Paulclem]

My lad was able to get to know other students on his course before he went to Uni. He's not an outgoing extrovert, and I was worried - as parents do - about him making friends. In the few weeks before he went the group on his course had swapped stories and arranged a meal together in their freshers week. They had shared their interests, declared their carniverousness or otherwise, and stated what their social preferences were - drinking eating out etc. I'm not saying he wouldn't have et them anyway on his course and got on with them, but it would have taken that bit longer and been that bit more down to chance and first impressions. It worked really well for him and his mates. It was quite an unforseen effect of facebook. I must say I was impressed with the process he went through.

[Shalot]

The internet can get you in a **** ton of trouble. You can meet people online and have an online love affair, meet up wtih that person in real life and then ruin your life forever. Or you can meet the love of your life and get married.

[JBI]

Thanks Fifth. I'm glad that that strange little poem provoked something in you.



Exactly. People can exist more and more now moving through a number of self-created 'poses' or 'characters'. I think the concept of one individual identity that governs the way a person behaves is breaking down, and 'roleplay' and 'gameplay' is becoming a common way of life. I see many beneficial and detrimental aspects to this, psychologically, culturally, and otherwise.

But on the other hand if someone exists physically close to you for a long time, in your physical human world, as they also through cellphones or otherwise have access to the internet, or to other cellphones, does the person near you really exist in the way you conceive of them? Or is the self that the person you are with thinks is the 'real self' somewhere else and you are living with a character?

I'm not so good at discussing things really- (there are much better virtual characters around me ;)) , just throwing out a few ideas .

Perhaps, or one can look at the opposite, and see how the internet allows some to bring out their real personalities and express their own thoughts without feeling marginalized or out of place. For all the inventing of personalities, I think people are more honest on the internet than off it - hence why there is so much hate and crime online - it is the world of the unrestrained human being.

Then again, some people like myself are the exact same in person as online (just as arrogant in person too, thank you very much) so perhaps it is all a generational adjustment that occurs.

[OrphanPip]

Then again, some people like myself are the exact same in person as online (just as arrogant in person too, thank you very much) so perhaps it is all a generational adjustment that occurs.

I think I'm pretty much the same person offline as well. Apart from the fact that I don't usually carry on conversations with people while perusing porn. Except at that one gay bar downtown where they happen to show porn on the tvs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFoMfYe0DRU&feature=fvst

[Paulclem]

I was thinking about this the other day, and I think it does allow people to express themselves without the effects of social conditioning - deferring to certain types of people or ages, being unafraid to speak in groups, or feeling marginalised. It makes a more level playing field. Of course fools will still be foolish etc etc, but at least things like physical prescence - which can be unfairly influntial in interpersonal exchanges - don't get in the way.

[faithosaurus]

I was thinking about this the other day, and I think it does allow people to express themselves without the effects of social conditioning - deferring to certain types of people or ages, being unafraid to speak in groups, or feeling marginalised. It makes a more level playing field. Of course fools will still be foolish etc etc, but at least things like physical prescence - which can be unfairly influntial in interpersonal exchanges - don't get in the way.

I agree with this. When I see fights among friends, it always seems to be through online or text messages.

I can see both; on one side, friends will just contact each other through the internet instead of actually visiting them. But then on the other side, the internet makes keeping in contact with old friends easier, as well as making new friends (such as on forums like this one).

[Jozanny]

For me, online access is a double edged sword. I tend to feel alienated fairly rapidly, feel frustrated by the sense of alienation, and in turn, alienate others. I post about this on LiveJournal, and perhaps my willingness to do so only reinforces my sense of virtual isolation in a virtual crowd. Or maybe this is a fancy way of saying I engage in tirades, and spare little, if anything, in doing so-- including this community and my on and off again interaction-- the only caveat being I have not damned the LN forums all that badly. The worst of my scorn is reserved.

And yet, like the rest of you, I am still adapting to the digital age, how it has effected my life, and even had a direct impact on it, and here I am, a banshee of a disabled woman on a bad hair day, grateful for all that to still be able to type among thousands of other voices.

Still, on the whole, I think social networking will ulitimately have a negative impact on human socialization. The sheer mass of Facebook I find alarming rather than encouraging, and twitter's success absolutely baffles me, whether as an aggregate of information, as a chat site, or a form of celebrity stalking that is palatable. At the same time, that I am able to interact with Roger Ebert, with scholars like Niall Ferguson, or badly fan-gush @ Kevin Spacey, this leaves me mildly thunderstruck. Just because they do not tweet back at me doesn't mean they couldn't--and I know Ebert has lent me an ear on one occasion.

But this comes back again to what is acceptable and what isn't, how much we are actually included, or not, what it means for others to ignore users, or hear them, be unkind, or nice, or innocuous. In fifteen years of online access, I am still astonished, still bored to tears, still frustrated that I could not captalize to further my economic security beyond a certain point.

[Paulclem]

The thing is it is not a static medium. Facebook for example is used by lots of different types of people now. I use it and can keep in touch with my wider dispersed family, and I know that others do too.

Of course there are going to be negative effects such as some of my younger relatives squabbling online. Having said that, they would only squabble in realtime if they weren't on the net.

At the end of the day I can keep in touch with people on a daily basis with whom I wouldn't speak to for months, plus lots of others on forums like this if I want.

[Dark Passenger]

My first novel, a satire, at the moment half done, is dealing with this exact theme.

[Lote-Tree]

In the words of the immortal Lote Tree: what say you?

LOL :-)

I see you have taken up the mantel of polling!

Yes. I love the internet.

Yes. It connects people.

Is virtual connections same as real connections?

Not yet perhaps.

But I am working on the technology where you can enter the virtual world like you enter a pub for drinks with your mates and thus it wouldn't be virtual anymore. It would be real as it can get :-)