Real World Event Discussions

Technology: The Good and the Bad

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, August 13, 2011 06:57
VIEWED: 2489
PAGE 1 of 3

NIKI2

Monday, August 8, 2011 4:47 PM

I found this interesting, and when you think of it, not illogical:

Quote:
That Facebook is hugely distracting is hardly stop-the-presses kind of news, but parents might be dismayed to learn that the social-media site can hobble learning and make kids less healthy and more depressed.
Research has found that students in middle school, high school and college who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period got lower grades. Other studies have discovered that teens who use Facebook tend to have more narcissistic tendencies, while young adults who are active on the site display other psychological disorders. And daily use of media and technology — what teen doesn't use tech each day? — makes kids more prone to anxiety and depression.

The bad news was delivered over the weekend at the 119th annual convention of the American Psychological Association by Larry Rosen, a professor of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, who researches the psychology of technology.

There's good news too, of course. While Facebook and other technology has been blamed for hijacking childhood, they also help children develop their identities and hone their ability to empathize with others. In a study that Rosen recently wrapped up, he found that the kids most able to show “virtual empathy” — through supportive comments online — were those who spent more time online than other children. “We are finding that kids who are able to express more virtual empathy are able to expres more real-world empathy,” says Rosen. “They feel more supported socially by online and offline networks.” More at http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/08/kids-who-hang-out-on-facebook-do
-worse-in-school/

YINYANG

Monday, August 8, 2011 5:50 PM

Good grief, there are days when I really hate science journalism. It's so sloppy. I mean, "research has found," with no cite on what research exactly?* And paraphrasing one word (or even part of one word) wrong can change the meaning of something so much. For example, the Time article says:

Quote:
And daily use of media and technology — what teen doesn't use tech each day? — makes kids more prone to anxiety and depression.

- while the original press release ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-08/apa-sng072711.php) says:

Quote:
Daily overuse of media and technology has a negative effect on the health of all children, preteens and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders, as well as by making them more susceptible to future health problems.

Now, they don't define what qualifies as overuse, but that's different than just logging in every day, which the first quote implies.

I'd still like to see the actual studies all this info comes from, because I don't see why they concluded the causation goes from technology use to psych disorders, rather than from psych disorders to technology use (because it seems just as likely that kids who already have problems are using tech to self-medicate, find social support, etc.).

P.S. Hello! Long time no see.

---

*And as someone who spent a year working for a health magazine, I'm just as guilty of this as anyone. They didn't really pay me enough to care about citing my sources, but that's no excuse.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 8, 2011 6:41 PM

I'm with yin yang, that article is ugly.

And also, it's the same kind of sensationalized "the youngsters are out of control!" you see with EVERY generation. Like when it was music, "these kids are all lazy and on drugs and won't do well in school."

Replace facebook with "computer games," same story.

Quote:
Daily overuse of media and technology has a negative effect on the health of all children, preteens and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders, as well as by making them more susceptible to future health problems.

Oh gosh, and that has nothing to do with being in the information age when everything bad in the world is blasted from our screens at all times. And good point about self-medicating.

To the writer of this article: please.

EDIT: Um. Oops. Maybe I should finish reading a post before I go off.

YINYANG

Monday, August 8, 2011 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
EDIT: Um. Oops. Maybe I should finish reading a post before I go off.

Lol. I didn't see this before you edited it, but I assume it had something to do with my footnote, yeah? Whatever you said, I probably deserved it.

On the other hand, it's not like science writers are entirely to blame. If editorial policies regarding citations were better, then less crap articles like this would end up being published.

... And I'll stop myself there before I go on a rant about all the problems with journalism.

Agreed about the sensationalism and the information age in general. It's a downward spiral: the news puts out stuff on blood and doom that they think people want to see (and will make them money), people watch it because they think they need to know, then the news puts out more sensationalist pieces, which people watch despite and/or because of how disturbing it is, then the news ends up scouring the streets to find (or manufacture) even more shocking stuff, etc. And it's one of the reasons - aside from the endless bickering - why I haven't been lurking around here for a while; keeping up on the news is depressing.

When it comes to health articles specifically, most of them can be boiled down to "everyone is doing something wrong and it will kill you" and here's the specific, impossible-to-follow routine/diet/whatever you NEED to fix it. And so many of these articles contradict each other, even from the same sources - I've seen Yahoo homepage articles almost right next to each other that are giving out mixed messages. If it was so hard to stay alive that we need all these drugs and guides and products, the human race would not have survived. But the media doesn't profit from relaxed, well-adjusted people, so they create anxiety and sell the cure.

Oops. Ended up with a bit of a rant anyway. I'm sure you already know all this stuff, too. It's just so aggravating.

BYTEMITE

Monday, August 8, 2011 9:38 PM

Nah, it wasn't an attack on you, actually I had complained that most of these youngster technology scare articles don't look at the positive impact the technology has on kids, then I noticed the article happened to have a few lines about it.

YINYANG

Monday, August 8, 2011 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nah, it wasn't an attack on you, actually I had complained that most of these youngster technology scare articles don't look at the positive impact the technology has on kids, then I noticed the article happened to have a few lines about it.

Oh, okay.

It's interesting how they bury that info, though, and only focus on the bad in the headline and lede. The writer or their editor could argue that the bad is more newsworthy, but I'd point out that people are generally prejudiced against Facebook and other places, so wouldn't "Facebook increases empathy in kids" be the more attention-grabbing title? I certainly didn't expect it, and I don't hate Facebook like most people seem to.

KWICKO

Monday, August 8, 2011 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nah, it wasn't an attack on you, actually I had complained that most of these youngster technology scare articles don't look at the positive impact the technology has on kids, then I noticed the article happened to have a few lines about it.

But that's kind of the problem - the way this stuff is spun. It wasn't long ago that letting your kids play Grand Theft Auto was certain to lead them straight to death row - until some enterprising doctors found out that playing video games actually INCREASES manual dexterity, a fairly important thing for a surgeon to have...

It seems like you get articles like this all the time: 99 lines about how evil and bad this or that latest thing is for kids, and then a little half-assed semi-rebuttal printed in the journalistic equivalent of an under-your-breath mumble, along the lines of "Oh. And it also cures 100% of all cancers in clinical studies."

Point being, it doesn't matter what the *good* effects are, the media sells more copy when it reports the bad news in a rush-to-judgment, stop-the-presses, out-of-breath rush of excitement.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

RIONAEIRE

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 12:00 AM

Like most things, I feel that moderation is the key. I see nothing wrong with videogames, facebook, computer time, pretends, sugary foods, sports, art, eating out, having something to drink, all of this can be good and nice, it just needs to be done in moderation. I think that moderation solves a lot of the world's problems really.
So yeah, articles like this don't mean much to me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

KWICKO

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 12:03 AM

Bingo, Riona. My kryptonite is cheese enchiladas. I know this. I know they're unhealthy. As a result of this knowledge, I don't let myself eat them very often at all, and I make damned sure I *earn* them when I get them! A 30-mile bike ride *might* buy me a couple cheese enchiladas, but I feel like I need to make that right about a half-dozen times before I've really EARNED 'em. :)

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Like most things, I feel that moderation is the key. I see nothing wrong with videogames, facebook, computer time, pretends, sugary foods, sports, art, eating out, having something to drink, all of this can be good and nice, it just needs to be done in moderation. I think that moderation solves a lot of the world's problems really.
So yeah, articles like this don't mean much to me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I agree with also. Unfortunately we don't seem to be a species that practices moderation all that well. Hence junk food, sugary food, soft drinks (what do you call em again - fizzy stuff like cola) are all consumed in massive amounts and large chunks of the population of the western world have asses that you could trampoline on, should you be so perverse. Same goes for alcohol and drug use, including prescription drugs. We're like five year olds in a lolly/candy/sweet shop with a twenty dollar note burning a hole in our shorts.