The other day I asked somewhat tongue-in-cheek whether Tom Friedman had ever visited Silicon Valley. Today, I’m wondering if Lady Greenfield has ever used a social networking site.
The professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford and the director of the Royal Institution has the United Kingdom up in a tizzy about the idea that Facebook, Bebo and Twitter are warping their children’s minds.
She warned that social networking sites “are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.”
I’m not a psychologist, nor am I a parent, so let me start by saying she might be right that these sites are harmful in some cognitive way. But I think she’s wrong to assume social networking is devoid of a “cohesive narrative and long-term significance.” I can see where she’s coming from, but like a lot of people who don’t actually use these sites, she’s missing a fundamental shift from Web 1.0 chat room days to Web 2.0 social networks: Real identity.
We no longer “go to the Internet” to interact with some shadowy user name where we pretend to be someone we’re not. Ok, maybe people on Second Life do. But sites like Facebook and Twitter are more about extending your real identity and relationships online. That’s what makes them so addictive: The little endorphin rushes from reconnecting with an old friend, the ability to passively stay in touch with people you care about but don’t have the time to call everyday.
Facebook makes me a more considerate friend because I now remember people’s birthdays. Over Geni, I stay in touch with my niece who I used to see once a year, but is now helping me map out our family tree. Via Twitter, my parents and in-laws know everything happening in my life so that when I call home, we have substantive conversations, not the awkward, “So…..whatcha been up to?” variety. In dozens of cases, these sites have made my real human relationships longer lasting and more substantive. They have actually given me a longer narrative, because it has rekindled friendships with dozens of people with whom I’d lost touch.
Greenfield may well have a point when she argues that the young brain can’t handle over-stimulation of “fast action and reaction.” But isn’t that the same argument we’ve been making about all technology and entertainment for decades now? Indeed, I’m of the MTV generation and all those fast cuts and blaring sounds were supposed to warp my brain long ago. (I know some TechCrunch commenters who would argue it has…) Everything has a trade off, and I’d argue the benefits in communications, education and collaboration of the Web far outweigh the negatives, and indeed give us greater benefits than we get from TV or Guitar Hero.
I do share one concern with her: Whether over saturation online leads to a lack of empathy. This is something that is being debated throughout the blogosphere right now. As we all become public personas in our own sphere we’re increasingly subject to the same abuse, scrutiny and haters that actual celebrities have to deal with. Such anonymous venom is, after all, why you are reading a post from me on TechCrunch right now.
But I’m hopeful that the direction social networking is headed in is the answer to this, not the problem. As more of our social graphs move online, via Twitter or Facebook, the more the same social pressures of the real world come to bear. Compare anonymous YouTube comments with Twitter comments. Generally, Twitter is more kind and substantive, especially among users who Twitter under their real names. Now compare that to comments on Facebook. Almost all of the comments on someone’s photo, video, status are supportive and empathetic, because the site has mimicked real world relationships and with that real world pressures.
I agree with some points you’ve mentioned above and as a kid, I really love social networks especially Twitter as it helps me connect with new friends around the world and keeps me updated with the latest tech news…
I have not read the professor’s paper, so I don’t know the whole context, but if her conclusion is indeed it causes people’s minds to be “infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity”, I would have to strongly disagree that she speaks on behalf of the total social networking population.
There is no question that attention spans are getting shorter. But that is because we have so much information available to us than ever before. In the 1800’s in rural America, you were lucky if you were able to get a hold of 1 new book every six months. No radio, no TV, no email.
Yes you could talk with your family, but because their minds had also become dulled with lack of information and intellectual stimuli, you would mostly end up talking about the weather or about relatives.
The world changes. And while you should try always to preserve as many good aspects as possible, we also need to be realistics. We ARE living in a short attention span world, and social networks are one tool that allows us to effectively operate in this world.
Anjali Sen
Agreed. I also think that people are often lumped into black and white categories, where a short attention span in one area of life implies the inability to concentrate for long period of time in another.
For example, yes, I have a short attention span with email, my phone, social networks, the news, etc.
But I can easily spend a night talking with friends and family. I can spend an entire day working on various projects. Or concentrate for weeks when launching a new website.
So basically there are two things discussed here but there is a lot of gray area. First of all, the privacy implications of social networking are huge. People are basically filling out marketing databases with valuable data for free. Stalkers can easily find you, and stuff you post online can backfire in job interviews, etc. On the other hand, anonymous communities like 4chan or http://f2bb.com have a freedom of expression that cannot be rivaled by a site that knows your name. Some may even argue that anonymous communication really brings out the true personality in people, in place of the fakeness that they come up with on MySpace.
Beautifully written.
Sarah – you’re raising the bar in TC. Keep up the good job!
I feel asleep reading this.
Thanks
Here’s a shorter version:
“I don’t know what I’m talking about, but somebody made a generalization that all social networks are bad for kids. Since all generalizations break down under scrutiny, I’m going to counter her argument with example1, example2, and web 2.0 (which is kind of like cartoons in the old days). Facebook comments tend to be nice, which might mean that people still care about each other. The end.”
Violent video games. MTV. Rock n Roll. Comic books.
These same arguments have been put forth by the best and brightest as a counter to pretty much every new advancement in media. Their findings aren’t based on rigorous empirical science, but rather they are hypotheticals about what *may* happen.
The human mind isn’t a simple if-then-else machine. The very same inputs for a group of people will almost always result in slightly different outcomes for each individual.
I’m sure extreme, 12-hour a day Facebook use with no real-world contact with anyone might result in the symptoms they hypothesize, but that same person would probably be just as awkward even if Facebook didn’t exist…extreme introversion and a penchant for imagined experiences have been present in society since the beginning.
You feel asleep reading this?
If you hated the article this much, just stop reading it.
what an ugly comment.
when you comment on this blog, it’s like entering someone’s home. let’s show some courtesy to the host.
you can disagree, but don’t be disrespectful. start your own blog and host your own mob.
He said -thanks- for the sleepy content. Am I the only one who reads stuff at 3AM and needs a monitor that kind of goes to 30 lumens and warm colors around 2? Contrawise, DJ et al, do you only speak in platitudes with people whose home you enter as a guest? (And blogs…you know, it’s more like you wandered over their gazebo. Stumbled, in Reinertson’s case.)
Greenfield made a pretty lame case that I could see, but it’s right that wrong is rolling fat book of attention in MySpace and Facebook; critical thought is banned. How are your excellent skills in turning that around and making real identities? It’s a hideous loss.
Joke. I get it.
a good article, but i think its been obvious from the start that Arrington decided to step away from blogging to prove the site would succeed even without him in preparation for an acquisition that was not harmed by “key man risk”
i doubt a month proves that
Sarah:
I appreciate the attempt to protect the boss. But Make no mistake, Mr. Arrington has everything to do with the fact that he’s sitting on a beach today instead of running TC.
When you act as bully for most of the time, and fail to disclose your relationships with people whose companies you are endorsing, and condemning their competitors, the public will go after you if they discover this to be true.
He is an active participant in his own demise. Not a victim of any sort.
i doubt a month proves that
You can say that again.
I also disagree with billy bob as to why Arrington took a break. I think he did it for exactly the reasons he said he did it. He’s being accosted in public, he’s stressed out, and rapidly burning out. I think he did the right thing.
However, I would say that reducing the “key man risk” is a nice side benefit of the hiatus though, and I would agree with billy that Arrington at least fantasizes about getting out completely. That’s just not the reason for the furlough.
I’ll bet she’s already wearing an eye patch!
Zzzzz….. zzz….
Zzz…
The interwebs is relatively young. I think it’s asinine to defend it outright without looking at actual longterm studies, etc. I can’t speak too much for social networks harming kids but do you know what does? Blizzard! Blizzard and WoW! I think there’s no doubt there.
Blizzard doesn’t only harm kids. It harms every and anyone! As a *hugh* fan, I had to walk away as I realized (or my wife and friends did) that I was sending far too much time playing WoW instead of just getting out and living.
I’m glad I’ve always hated rpgs so the idea of an mmorpg never interested me. But you’re right. Blizzard = drug pusher. I’m not even kidding
.
Hugh Jackman? Hugh Grant?
You ever ask yourself if it’s not YOU who harmed the people around you? Ever heard of responsibility?
Your *parents* follow you on Twitter?
Worrying.
Maybe we lost some identity along the way but originally many of the “social networks” were very much tied to real identity. For example The WELL requires a real identity and the banning of avatars/pseudonyms was/is a common rule on many email lists.
An article in the Guardian today:
Facebook and Bebo risk ‘infantilising’ the human mind
Greenfield warns social networking sites are changing children’s brains, resulting in selfish and attention deficient young people
http://www.guar...hildrens-brains
That article could have been written a century ago (and probably was):
“Kids these days are doing things I don’t understand. They’re stupid and we can’t get through to them to convince them that they’re hurting themselves!”
Only difference is that they try to back up this claptrap with MRIs and psychologizing rationales. “See? The DSM says it’s a problem!” Science will never eliminate the generation gap.
Technology is always good. Everything that can be built should be built, widely adopted, and further touted as good by bloggers who seem to have a financial interest in it. Caution and critical thought are for pussies.
ALL OF THIS TALK ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORKING, TWITTER, ETC. WILL BECOME IRRELEVANT AS SOON AS WE AT EXTREME ENTERPRISES LAUNCH http://WWW.YOURNIGHT.COM, AN INTERACTIVE SEARCH ENGINE AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE THAT WILL PROVIDE A WEB PRESENCE FOR EVERY BUSINESS AND EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD.
RJ GARBOWICZ, CEO AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
EXTREME ENTERPRISE, INC.
RJ@EEIHQ.COM
even though i have disagreed with you (TechCrunch) many times in the past, i really *do* think you not only raised some strong well supported arguments, they are also ones with a positive viewpoint.
thanks for standing up for the rest of us social-webbers.
There are two things that bother me with your post that I feel strongly need to be said:
1> You said: ” We no longer “go to the Internet” to interact with some shadowy user name where we pretend to be someone we’re not.” – What I read you saying here is “Sarah Lacey is enlightened and uses the internet in a certain way. I thus believe that everyone, even kids, are as brilliant and insightful as I am…and thus what I do is how the everyone behaves” — you are making a blanket statement that I dont think is correct:
You should not make judgements on how anyone else uses the internet unless you have talked to every person on the planet with access (something tells me you have not done that). Because you are in the high class/ popular kids/ cocktail party crowd who does not use the internet for anything seedy, does not mean there is not a HUGE underbelly on the internet.
You are NOT a parent, so you do not NEED to concern yourself with how others behave, where they go onlline, or what really bad people ARE on line. You are just focused on YOU. But good parents all over the world MUST be concerend with more than just how they and their highly educated and enlightened buddies behave. They MUST have concerns for what touches the lives of their kids (and all kids). -your dismissal of any responsibility of this reality by stating “I’m not a psychologist, nor am I a parent” does not excuse you from caring about kids and all that can happen to them on line (bad stuff is out there!).
I realize and respect that you are an “entertaining journalist” which means you must have your “schtick” , but you are too dismissive of realities of the dark side in this post.
2> you open the post with “The other day I asked somewhat tongue-in-cheek whether Tom Friedman had ever visited Silicon Valley. ” If you need to come back and point out to people that you were being “tongue-in-cheek” as a justification… then you are not doing a good job of using sarcasm in the first post, but instead coming off as snarky. Readers should know when you are being sarcastic, or avoid sarcasm (less you just look bad)
I think you could do better, and that you are playing too much to the controversy popular “schtick” journalism in some of your posts. Way more people read your stuff than read mine… so there is the school of thought that I should not harp on you. Maybe that is true.
Oh, but you are right on. MTV did not rot the brains of my peers growing up….and “the experts” said it would. (God, or maybe it rotted them so much that we dont even notice?)
@thom singer — Obviously, Sarah hasn’t noticed… Your comment is interesting, with some good points. I could not find any *good* points on Sarah’s article, as usual.
I guess that MTV was/is somehow beneficial because of the music, which has been shown to help with our brain’s proper development. I am not talking about hip-hop, of course.
The online social networks are, by and large, a small step up from television, which actually takes over our minds… Seriously: there is early research that shows that watching hours of TV every day may contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s disease later in life… we alredy know that using our brains properly, reading meaningful material [good books, not People Mag --definitely *not* Tom Friedman's writings] and learning a foreign language could prevent the disease.
Bottom line: our brains are still in a developmental process until we reach the age of 25-26, which of course does no mean that we are “responsible grown-ups” at 26 1/2…
There is a price to pay for spending too many hours on the computer [in any activity] –isolation and deterioration of social skills that we may have, shallowness of thinking, depression, etc. This would affect our education and our ability to obtain good jobs in the future…
Yikes, are you really an MD?
Yes, I am.
The net is bursting with meaningful information- to the point where your local library will soon become obsolete.
And just because you are an avid book reader exposing yourself to meaningful information hardly translates into someone with excellent social skills who doesn’t struggle with depression.
I’ve known many bookworms who are quite introverted and difficult to bond with.
It comes down to individual states of excess. Our jobs as parents is to insure these kids can find balance in any activity, including eating their damn Oreos (where I’m at with one of mine).
@Agile Cyborg — Thank you for your comment and for supporting the validity of mine. A will assume without much risk that you spend a good many hours on the computer and maybe watching TV: no offense, but it shows…
Um, Holly, did you even read my post? Thought not.
I pretty much supported your basic premise of excess but added some caveats to discourage overly-broad generalization.
Stating that the mind becomes shallow by spending too much time in front of a computer is silly.
You have so many of these sites today it is hard keeping track of them all.
Really not worth responding to most of her claims, but there is one element which I do feel rather strongly about.
The whole misconception about “multitasking” What most of us do while using the web isn’t multitasking at all. It’s parallel processing.
I get into the differences in greater depth here: http://virtualw...g-is-all-wrong/
Until these researchers recognize the difference they really won’t attain any degree of coherent credibility.
“any degree of coherent credibility”
No such a thing as “coherent” credibility! Someone/something *IS* credible or *NOT*
Sorry, but you sound like a 14 year old kid still discovering –and twisting, the English language.
Thank you for sharing your brilliance.
An individual can be “credible” in various fields of expertise without being able to apply those skills in a “coherent” fashion when dealing with a specific concept or theme.
Thank you for sharing your *creativity* –Wrong again… Someone is *credible* or *not credible* similar to *reliable* or *not reliable*
No such a thing as “coherently reliable.”
An example of what makes a person “not credible” is your last comment. =)
People said the same thing about rock and roll, and television, and LSD.
Anything that breaks with the status quo, is new and the affects of which are largely unknown, is subject to scrutiny.
I’d be more concerned about hackers, the failing economy and horribly shabby curriculum in schools across the U.S.
-LA
How can we ever deal with hackers and school curriculum when we still haven’t solved the scourge of the telephone? Society has been shattered by the depersonalizing influence of the telephone and people just go about their daily lives as if nothing is wrong!
Interesting article. I wonder if
What were we talking about again?
Her reaction reminds me of Aristole’s reaction to the printed word. He feared it would result in the loss of memory and young people’s ability to recite long stories.
… and Aristotle was correct. Also, there is *no need* to learn math, all we have to do is learn to use a “calculator” and slowly stop using our brains…
If you do not understand this, you prove my point. Thank you.
Hey you, pais! Get offa my andron!
I think kids need to get out and play more. Build tree houses and forts. Climb shit. Break bones and just generally get soiled and involved in assorted physical realities that develop character and a desire to quest.
TV already encourages vegging out. ‘Excessive’ social networking can easily create similar tendencies even if the kids are interacting with meaningful intention, which is probably not entirely common.
I don’t give a shit about the horrors of Satan perverting my kids and turning them into moribund and pillaging evil people as much as I am about my kids losing touch with practical and formative realities that challenge and shape them.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘anonymous venom’. The slimebags who made Mike’s life miserable were all known to some extent I thought.
The effect mentioned here is FELT when dealing with people who are actively using social networks. This woman is a DOCTOR and deals with things by observation.
You may very well say it’s no problem but if the doctor tells you that you have a problem you should usually listen.
Ohhh Sarah – I am glad you have a thick skin – it is getting so old all these trolls throwing crap your way – you are doing a fine job and I for one am glad you are contributing to TechCrunch.
You bring up some very good points and I think that what also is missing in Tom Friedman and Lady Greenfield’s analysis is that we have forced kids online. The idea of a tween or a teen going out to hang out at the mall after school is considered downright dangerous. I have three kids and the standard response from most parents is – “back in our day it was safe now it is very dangerous”. Bahh it is not – however kids don’t hang out as much in person so they hang out online. They need to socialize and as you pointed out they socialize as themselves not as some character. They learn what was taught outside the Video Arcade back in my day that if you talk trash you get busted. When they are online they go through the ebb and flow of conversations and teenage drama.
In any event – thanks for starting this discussion – I look forward to more of your postings.
Cheers – Eric
I agree Eric.
I was starting to think I accidentally pulled up some hacker forum with a bunch of anti-social misfits getting into fistfights over CPU clock speeds.
that’s funny.
I think social networking is a great way to keep people in touch and also for new relationships to form around the globe that you never would be able to do without.
The only negative I see is that young kids will lose the ability to communicate clearly when speaking in person. I coach kids and their will be kids at my soccer camp who don’t say much but as soon as they see me on Facebook they are chatter boxes. That is the only thing I worry about, the lack or real world (face to face) communication skills.
“Blizzard doesn’t only harm kids. It harms every and anyone! As a *hugh* fan, I had to walk away as I realized (or my wife and friends did) that I was sending far too much time playing WoW instead of just getting out and living.”
Someone call whine-one-one?
Blizzard is bad because I can’t stop playing WoW WWAAAAAHHHHH.
No, YOU are bad. Typical modern subhuman, blame EVERYTHING possible for your shitty life instead of taking responsibility. Don’t breed. EVER.
Sickening. Idiots like you ruin it for the people smart enough to handle it.
My attention span wasn’t long enough to finish the article.
Speaking as a “non parent” Let me begin by saying If I wanted to hear the pitter-patter of little feet, I’d put shoes on my cat. I found the comments more interesting than the actual copy… but what’s amazing is how many different opinions there were one one topic.
I am not sure I agree with your post but at least you engaged your readers enough to comment including moi!
I agree that for someone of the Gen-Y this article lost me about 1/3 the way through just do to those darn 140 character limits im used too.
Kidding aside, most students dont use social networks beyond the extent of Facebook to actually make connections, just short communication bursts to show you’re still alive. I know thats a huge assumption and claim but most of the time is wasting just surfing aimlessly. While the heart of the 2.0 movement was to network and interact, it still isnt as prominent as everyone makes it out to be.
Search for your friends online, you will never find them. If anything, Facebook will come up which is useless. Unless you have an online presence, you’re just cruising along with everyone else and not using the 2.0 for it’s intended purposes.
Ill wave to you as you pass by.
I agree with much of what you say. The many discussions there have been recently about Facebook and social networks fail to recognise the fundamental shift that social networks and online communities bring to our concepts of friendship and the way we build relationships with other people. I think they allow us to do much more than has been possible in the past. Social networks allow us to maintain links with people where they would previously have been lost, and online communities allow us to form relationships with people around shared ideas, goals or interests (from a common medical condition, to a shared love of knitting). These tools extend our relationships rather than replace our offline connections.
I’ve written more about this if anybody is interested:
http://blog.fre...y-even-do-good/
Matt Rhodes
FreshNetworks
Sarah,
If you agree that there is a fundamental limit to the cognitive capability to the human brain, then maybe you are open to a discussion. The human brain can only handle a limited number of connections as per the “dunbar #”. Check this article out, you may find it very interesting.
http://online.w...=googlenews_wsj
In the end, the question really is whether you can connect with all the people all the time. Trying to keep up with a FB update stream with approximately a 100 “friends” is much like drinking fom a fire-hose. In the end meaningful and long term relationships between people (social and professional) are built because they do things together and participate in activities together. Relevance and common interests drive people towards each other.
Not saying that SN’s are bad, but there is certainly a tendency among people to get absorbed in the mundane.
Deepak, “fundamental limit to the cognitive capability to the human brain, then maybe you are open to a discussion. The human brain can only handle a limited number of connections as per the “dunbar #”
First, as we know at this time, there is no such a thing as the “fundamental limit to the cognitive capability to the human brain” –Even the most capable, superior minds use only a very, very tiny fraction of their brains. In other words, there is no limit for our ability/capacity to learn more and more and more… The “limit” theory is a sad myth, supported, naturally, by the lazy ones among us.
Second, the statement “The human brain can only handle a limited number of connections as per the “dunbar #” — This “#” is artificial and as such is bogus. It may refer to “connections” we have with other human beings, not to the “connections” between our brain cells, which, again, we cannot begin to guess what their limits are [usually formulated in the trillions.] My other point is that I would not trust an “anthropologist” making statements and predictions about actual brain physiology. Neurologists, neuroscientists, neuroanatomists, Physiologists, neurosurgeons trained in neurophysiology, yes, but *not* anthropologists quoted in the WSJ…
“Please turn the tv off and open a book. Just keep on learning…”
Walter, my point has nothing to do with the limits of human learning. It has to do with how much we can process and absorb at any given instant.
Deepak.
“Not saying that SN’s are bad, but there is certainly a tendency among people to get absorbed in the mundane” — You are sooooo politically correct!
SN’s are not intrinsically bad –What is *BAD* is the amount of time wasted at the computer by young minds, most of whom truly believe that it is “cool.”
We are already appreciating the negative effects of this activity on the learning abilities, language and behavioral deficits of millions of youngsters. “The world’s future leaders.”
My stepmother gets her mail once a day. She reads letters from old and new friends, then composes replies. She types them up on a typewriter, folds, seals, stamps, and mails them. It takes her about as long as it does me on my computer. Zero to four hours, that is.. Difference is, she only has one “account” (mailing address), so there are less missed connections. Too bad her system doesn’t support TCP/IP.
Really enjoyed the article. Some really good points raised.
Some more good reading relating to Facebook hysteria on
Mindhacks
http://www.mind...auses_marb.html
and
Bad Science http://www.bads...sigman-ignored/
The study is rather naive, as in naive realism.
“A culture filled with bloggers thinks differently about politics or public affairs, if only because more have been forced through the discipline of showing in writing why A leads to B…” (Lessig).
If blogging gets us thinking socially / conversationally, engaging in and through personal philosophies with others around us, microblogging (i.e. twittering) gets us thinking socially on-the-fly, encouraging us to cut through flourishes and decorations to get to the point.
What we need to watch out for of course is that we do not turn out into a culture of people walking around talking in elevator pitches.
http://pareidol...munication.html
We need more productive images of mixed reality – i.e. how virtual and actual lifeworlds mix and affect each other. Lady Greenfield simply fails to understand that such things as cognitions, affects, perceptions are quite easily distributed across the vast social territories of the Internet!
I agree with much of what you say. The many discussions there have been recently about Facebook and social networks fail to recognise the fundamental shift that social networks and online communities bring to our concepts of friendship and the way we build relationships with other people. I think they allow us to do much more than has been possible in the past. Social networks allow us to maintain links with people where they would previously have been lost, and online communities allow us to form relationships with people around shared ideas, goals or interests.
It could be even worse than she fears
http://nogoodre...of-kittens.html
I agree with your two core observations – social networking makes life more cohesive, because communication is more frequent, and your knowledge of what is happening in friends’ lives more complete. However, as an expert, she may have something in the impact of non-verbal communication replacing verbal and F2F communication. In linguistics, it’s estimated about 80% of communication is through non-linguistic aspects like visual cues and intonation.
I think facebook seems good to keep in touch with aquaintances who you would otherwise just loose track.
Personally I feel although social networks are a extension of my email, i do tend to not talk to my friends just because i know what they are upto on facebook but i think that sad in some way as I would rather pick up the phone and meet them as opposed to just updating my status and commenting on their stuff now a day thats hardly a substantial conversation and certainly not satisfying to the least – chat was better in that respect as at least you had a conversation.
talking with your parents and relatives and keeping them upto date via social networks to me would be an absolute low point.
Obviously it can’t be good for kids to spend too much time on the Internet, but the real problem…public schools. Kids can’t even play dodge ball anymore because they might get hurt. Recess is getting shorter, which is where kids often learn more about life than in the classroom. I told three kids yesterday that whoever built the highest tower of blocks would get $1. Two of them (not mine, who is the youngest) told me that wasn’t fair because everyone wouldn’t get a $1. What the hell happened to competition? Protectionism finding its way into too many aspects of society.
Here’s an idea: take your kids to the park, take them skiing, teach them to ride a bike, go camping, play in the dirt, wrestle with them, and get them involved in their real world community so they spend a little less time online.
I had the unfortunate opportunity to witness the power of Social Networking with teenagers over the past week. Last Thursday, one of 16 year old daughter’s best friend died unexpectedly. The funeral service was last night. In the 5 day span, the tributes, the prayers, the grief, the joy all came pouring out in hundreds and hundreds of posts on their Facebook pages. Was it good for the kids? Absolutely! It was the ultimate example of Web 2.0: Real Identity. We will all miss you, Marie.
At least It gets them out of playing games all the time. Children are meeting up friends online maybe making new ones instead of Gaming away most of their lives… Now they’re chatting… Some social life than none.. ???
I don’t think the issue is at all about social networking and whether or not it is good or bad for brain development. It’s a modern progressive social phenomenon that is growing. Can’t stop it because there is a social need for it.
What we can do is keep in step and a finger on the pulse of the digital security of it all.
Check out http://www.justaskgemalto.com which outlines alot of what I’m talking about.
We just need to play smarter.
ALL OF THIS TALK ABOUT SOCIAL NETWORKING, TWITTER, ETC. WILL BECOME IRRELEVANT AS SOON AS WE AT EXTREME ENTERPRISES LAUNCH http://WWW.YOURNIGHT.COM, AN INTERACTIVE SEARCH ENGINE AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE THAT WILL PROVIDE A WEB PRESENCE FOR EVERY BUSINESS AND EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD.
RJ GARBOWICZ, CEO AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
EXTREME ENTERPRISE, INC.
RJ@EEIHQ.COM
You’re such a retard. Why would you try to debate the professor on a subject matter that you don’t have the domain expertise to properly address?
I’ve wrote an article called Paparazzi of our own life, you can read it here:
http://pablocap...r-own-life.html
I think the future of social networking is going to be using it for specific interests. If you would look at a site like Build a Social Networking Business it offers the options to have your own social network. This would offer the owner that launched the site to be able to either keep it private or public to the user base knowing each other.
Why you are writing on a subject you know zero about?
Thanks, very interesting ! I’d also recommend the following article as a summary of social network’s impact on children:
http://www.myho...or-our-children
Great article Sarah. I think that the positives FAR outweigh the negatives. Here is an article about the social and educational benefits of Facebook. “Facebook can be good for kids, socially and educationally”
http://digg.com/d1uNPU