February 19, 2009 -- People's health could be harmed by social networking sites because they reduce levels of face-to-face contact, an expert claims.
Dr Aric Sigman says websites such as Facebook set out to enrich social lives, but end up keeping people apart.
Dr Sigman makes his warning in Biologist, the journal of the Institute of Biology.
A lack of "real" social networking, involving personal interaction, may have biological effects, he suggests.
He also says that evidence suggests that a lack of face-to-face networking could alter the way genes work, upset immune responses, hormone levels, the function of arteries, and influence mental performance.
This, he claims, could increase the risk of health problems as serious as cancer, strokes, heart disease, and dementia.
'Evolutionary mechanism'
Dr Sigman maintains that social networking sites have played a significant role in making people become more isolated.
"Social networking is the internet's biggest growth area, particular among young children," he said.
"Social networking sites should allow us to embellish our social lives, but what we find is very different. The tail is wagging the dog. These are not tools that enhance, they are tools that displace."
Dr Sigman says that there is research that suggests the number of hours people spend interacting face-to-face has fallen dramatically since 1987, as the use of electronic media has increased.
And he claims that interacting "in person" has an affect on the body that is not seen when e-mails are written.
"When we are 'really' with people different things happen," he said.
"It's probably an evolutionary mechanism that recognises the benefits of us being together geographically.
"Much of it isn't understood, but there does seem to be a difference between 'real presence' and the virtual variety."
Dr Sigman also argues using electronic media undermines people's social skills and their ability to read body language.
"One of the most pronounced changes in the daily habits of British citizens is a reduction in the number of minutes per day that they interact with another human being," he said.
"In less than two decades, the number of people saying there is no-one with whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled."
Dr Sigman says he is "worried about where this is all leading".
He added: "It's not that I'm old fashioned in terms of new technology, but the purpose of any new technology should be to provide a tool that enhances our lives."
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
Thread: Online networking 'harms health'
-
19th February 2009 14:39 #1
Super Moderator
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 289,376
Online networking 'harms health'
-
24th February 2009 19:56 #2
Super Moderator
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 289,376
February 24, 2009 -- 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.
The startling warning from Lady Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln college, Oxford, and director of the Royal Institution, has led members of the government to admit their work on internet regulation has not extended to broader issues, such as the psychological impact on children.
Greenfield believes ministers have not yet looked at the broad cultural and psychological effect of on-screen friendships via Facebook, Bebo and Twitter.
She told the House of Lords that children's experiences on social networking sites "are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilised, characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity".
Arguing that social network sites are putting attention span in jeopardy, she said: "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."
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."
Greenfield also warned there was a risk of loss of empathy as children read novels less. "Unlike the game to rescue the princess, where the goal is to feel rewarded, the aim of reading a book is, after all, to find out more about the princess herself."
She said she found it strange we are "enthusiastically embracing" the possible erosion of our identity through social networking sites, since those that use such sites can lose a sense of where they themselves "finish and the outside world begins".
She claimed that sense of identity can be eroded by "fast-paced, instant screen reactions, perhaps the next generation will define themselves by the responses of others".
Social networking sites can provide a "constant reassurance – that you are listened to, recognised, and important". Greenfield continued. This was coupled with a distancing from the stress of face-to-face, real-life conversation, which were "far more perilous … occur in real time, with no opportunity to think up clever or witty responses" and "require a sensitivity to voice tone, body language and perhaps even to pheromones, those sneaky molecules that we release and which others smell subconsciously".
She said she feared "real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf. Perhaps future generations will recoil with similar horror at the messiness, unpredictability and immediate personal involvement of a three-dimensional, real-time interaction."
The solutions, however, lay less in regulation as in education, culture and society.
Greenfield argued that the appeal of Facebook lay in the fact that "a child confined to the home every evening may find at the keyboard the kind of freedom of interaction and communication that earlier generations took for granted in the three-dimensional world of the street. But even given a choice, screen life can still be more appealing."
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."
-
12th March 2009 17:22 #3
Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 1,863
woooaaawww... maybe that's why our parents always complain about being behind the net for so long...

honestly i like the traditional face to face socialization- i'm not too happy with my cyber rush. although i have benefited in a lot of ways like education/awareness ...It seems as if one fails to conceive
The meaning my name strives to achieve
To a biological form you cannot relate-
Because a reproductive cell is a gamete not gamate!
It means to unite, -to become consolidated
So without me in a.com, is there hope we'd be amalgamated?








LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote

Bangladesh
Ecuador
Morocco
Nepal
Nicaragua
Puerto Rico
Russia
Scotland
South Africa
Ukraine
Virtual Countries