There have been a number of reports published within days of each other about technology and our ability to relate to others, both online and in the real.
One report suggests that New Technology is Making us more Socially Isolated and yet we have another report saying that the Internet is Leading Us to Become more Diverse in our relationships. We have (somewhat dogmatic) reactions from Mashable titled, Myth Busted: Internet Doesn’t Lead to Isolation and then another from the NYTimes that would suggest the opposite, that people that use these technologies are more socially diverse.
So, what’s the call? Does the internet and new web technologies make us (or help us be) more social or does it simply make more apparent the gross lack of basic social skills that many of us have?
Here’s what I think:
I’d say both.
It’s obvious that both the introvert and extrovert can thrive in the online environment: The former being able to now express themselves more comfortably and the latter simply doing what they did in meatspace but now online.
On the other hand the reaction and experience could be the complete opposite: The former can find the internet even more lonely than anything they’ve ever experienced and the latter could simply find it boring and not as good as their in-the-flesh community.
And this doesn’t surprise us, right? What’s more surprising is the “I told you so!” and the “I knew it!” mentality with either camp that’s being passed around.
Who cares. Really. Seriously. Who cares.
The internet either accentuates the fact that you lack social skills or it proves that you’re far too good at it (or so it seems). But whatever you do, do it for the Lord (Thanks @JeffHenderson and his new @Work Series!)!
That is all.
I’m going to now go crawl back into my dimly lit office hole and cry more because I’ll only get 2 comments on this post.
[Image from CV]
Phillip Gibb says
I didn't think of the Introvert – Extrovert thing – good insight.
but I always thought that the online experience tends to more open and free (after breaking thru the initial barriers of fear and suspicion) to the sacrifice of real life experience. Kind of like what Chris and Julian mean in their book Trust Agents on the subject of Transparency and Anonymity – that ppl just open up a little bit more, which is true even when using real names. Perhaps the consequences of making a 'fool' of yourself online does not feel as real as in Real Life?
just arb thoughts
dannyjbixby says
"I’m going to now go crawl back into my dimly lit office hole and cry more because I’ll only get 2 comments on this post."
I like this.
Go light some black candles and listen to dashboard confessional.
Phillip Gibb says
at least, now you don't have to cry.
ha ha ha ha
human3rror says
😉
Nate Beaird says
I think we're commanded to be online. Jesus said "Go out into ALL the world…" and I think He created people to take his message to the print, video, and online worlds too. This is part of the great commission, and I think regardless of what different reports say- we still need to move forward.
my 2 cents…
thyrkas says
I wonder why people need to determine wheter the internet is a good or bad thing? I remember my oldest sister telling me that each new innovation has the potential to be used to glorify God, or to be used to sin against God. Either of these 'uses', whether personal or viral, is dependent on our relationship with God. The internet isn't going away – let's use it to glorify God.
PS – It is a little hard to find the 'comments' button on the blog page. It is at the way-bottom, below the blog entry AND any ad that may appear, and the size of the font is really, really small. I didn't find it for a long time, and sometimes was confused as to which blog entry it went with. Might this be affecting the number of comments?
human3rror says
we're going through a redesign. great thoughts!
Graham Brenna says
I read the Mashable article you mentioned too and was determined to blog about it. You pretty much said everything right here though. I don't like it when people bash everything we're doing here in the online world and say that we're not connecting with the people around us. They don't know that because there isn't a way to get the same quantitative data on the "meatspace" connections as there is for the online connections. It's a scare tactic that doesn't sit well with me.
I think you're right though on your introvert/extrover analysis. In some ways I'm an introvert in the "meatspace" but in other ways I'm definitely an extrovert. It depends on the setting. If I'm with my high school kids… extrovert all the way. I act completely goofy around them and they all think I'm weird but I do it because it puts them at ease and makes them feel that their church is a place where they can be themselves…
See… now this is becoming a blog post and I think I'll just continue this thought on my blog. haha
Kyle Reed says
Where I have to catch myself is putting some self worth in stats. I often think that the more readers and unique visitors that I have the more people like me. I often can get pretty discouraged if I spend 20 minutes writing something and I get 1 comment (from my grandpa usually). I think this is where the conversation picks up some steam. Are people basing their self worth in how many twitter followers they have, or how many blog visitors and page views they have? If so, their can be a big problem. Because outside of the small community of bloggers, people have no clue what you write and what you read. It is is amazing how we can mention a guy like Carlos Whittaker to somebody on the blog and everyone knows who we are talking about but then can go to a church event, a friends house, etc….and they have no clue who that is. I try not to get to wrapped up in my online identity, and more importantly I try to be myself online as I would be in person (which from what I understand I am a little different online then and I am in person). But I also know that it is very hard to give someone a picture of who you are and what you are about online.
dannyjbixby says
I agree with what you're saying here….but I don't think this mentality has anything to do with the internet.
I think these things like blog stats/twitter followers/name dropping Christian online "celebrities" are not the problem in themselves. They become an easily viewable symptom of a larger problem.
We would be doing the same basic thing (attempting to cover for our own insecurities/fears) through some other outlet if we weren't doing it through the online one.
People put value into how many conferences they attend, membership numbers at their church, the % of people who volunteer, the % of people who are in small groups, the tithe income, how much money is donated out to missions, the # of hands raised at service that weekend.
We can attach our own personal pride onto everything in an attempt to assign ourselves value or comparative worth.
It's just a bit more viewable online….because it's in your face.
Kyle Reed says
You are right. I will say that it even goes way beyond the web, church, and into everyone in the world. But that is exactly what you were saying.
Faye says
Seems to me that the Internet and relationships are rather like Wal-Mart and relationships or church and relationships.
Some people suck at relating to others. Some people excel at it. Some people are annoying, others are enjoyable. Some feel lonely in a crowd, some revel in that.
People are people. The places and ways we choose to develop relationships has been broadened by the advent of the Internet, but sometimes, it's kinda like Bill Cosby said in "Himself" — A friend had told him that cocaine was so wonderful because it intensifies your personality. Bill's response: "Yeah, but what if you're an a$$hole?"
dewde says
Best. Line. Ever.
I have totally used that same exact example, substituting "the Internet" for "cocaine".
peace | dewde
human3rror says
walmart ftw… 😉
Stuart says
Interesting. I hadn't come across those articles but like yourself I agre, it is both.
But I don't think it has anything to do with being introverted or extroverted. I think it is a modern maliase of not being able to connect – is that the fault of the internet or social media I just don't know.
What I do know is that making "real connections" seem very hard to come by. Unless you're lucky.
Or unless you happen to have the right face or you're in the right place then connections just don't seem to get made. Maybe a superficial connection is all that we can make – sure, not all of us can connect with all of us – but there has to be more that can be made from all.
So yes our connections are more diverse but equally they have become so superficial that we can feel isolated. I guess the big names or the big faces have more of an onus on them to make relationship things happen – but I have no idea how they'd do that or even if they can (or care to).
Meanwhile – I shall continue to keep pursuing connections and trying to establish more than a fleeting knowledge of these folks.