THE LONELY NET
A two-year, $1.5-million study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon
University, funded by the National Science Foundation and major
technology companies, has concluded that Internet use appears to cause a
decline in psychological well-being. A director of the study says, "We
are not talking here about the extremes. These were normal adults and
their families, and on average, for those who used the Internet most,
things got worse." One hour a week of Internet use led on average to an
increase of 1% on the depression scale, an increase of 0.04% on the
loneliness scale, and a loss of 2.7 members of the subject's social
circle (which averaged 66 people).
Thomas: Boy, am I impressed with these statistics. Imagine, a whole 1%
increase on the depression scale! Them social scientists are really getting
accurate - not even the old plus or minus 5% disclaimer. And shucks, a
whole 0.04% on the loneliness scale. I'm beginning to feel that 1%
depression sneaking up on me right now as I think of the results of this
study. I phoned my best friend, but he had his cell turned off and now the
loneliness is really hitting, I think, no mind you this is just a subjective
opinion, I must be topping out at 0.05% and I'm even afraid to check out my
social circle for fear it will increase my depression scale. Nice to know
that all these things I am experiencing are scientifically validated by
scientist of the wonderful mathematic discipline called statistics!
Although the study participants used
e-mail, chat rooms, and other social features of the Internet to
interact with others, they reported a decline in interaction with their
own family members and a reduction in their circles of friends. "Our
hypothesis is, there are more cases where you're building shallow
relationships [on the Internet], leading to an overall decline in
feeling of connection to other people."
Thomas: Now Jay and Eva and Brad and all those other FW's, I'm sorry to
have to finally admit that ours is a shallow relationship. Why them
scientists have even formed a "hypothesis". The next step is a full blown
theorem and then we really are condemned to becoming a fact.
Since the 169 study
participants, all from the Pittsburgh area, were not chosen in a random
selection process, it is not clear how the findings apply to the general
population, but a RAND Corporation senior scientist says, "They did an
extremely careful scientific study, and it's not a result that's easily
ignored." (New York Times 30 Aug 98)
Thomas: Whoops, I wonder if these stats hold true for Ottawa, perhaps they
will form the baseline for a whole group of supporting studies. Them folks
in Bangladesh better stop fighting floods and check out their depression
meter, there will be lots of grants given in Harvard and Yale to prove or
disprove this vitally important new set of insights.
Defined by science,
I remain your shallow correspondent,
Thomas Lunde
