Does Technology Boost Social Isolation?
|
The Pew Internet & American Life Project sought answers to such questions through phone interviews with 2,512 adults in the U.S., and there are surprises in the survey results. I do wonder, though, how the results might skew differently if people under 18 had been included. Here are just some of the findings, with more results below the fold:
“We find that the extent of social isolation has hardly changed since 1985, contrary to concerns that the prevalence of severe isolation has tripled since then,” Pew researchers report. The survey, released yesterday, also found that the overall diversity of the average person’s social network — including close family and friends as well as acquaintances — is greater through usage of social networks such as Facebook: “For instance, frequent Internet users and those who maintain a blog are much more likely to confide in someone who is of another race.” Internet use does not pull people away from places such as parks, cafes and restaurants, Pew researchers conclude: “Internet access has become a common component of people’s experiences within many public spaces.” Also, in opposition to the conclusion that Internet usage primarily bridges gaps between people who are geographically far from each other, the survey found that there is little difference between local social usage of technology and distant communication. The following graphic based on the survey results shows that people who belong to a neighborhood online forum are much likely than the average person to have diverse interactions with neighbors:
Does mobile phone usage outpace face-to-face contact as a primary way for people to stay in touch with their closest family and friends? No, according to the survey results: “On average in a typical year, people have in-person contact with their core network ties on about 210 days; they have mobile phone contact on 195 days of the year.” The following graphic breaks out days of contact per year via various communication mediums, according to how far away others are:
Younger people are overwhelmingly more likely to belong to social networks than older people are, the Pew survey also finds, and it’s worth noting that all the people surveyed were over 18. Results could be different for teenagers and children. There are many more findings and graphics from the survey, found here. For the most part, although your smartphone still doesn’t make you the life of the party, the results argue against the long-standing presumption that technology usage is social poison.
|
We’re all familiar with the stereotype of the tech cave dweller, perusing a list of arcane Linux commands on a lonely Saturday night, no friends in sight. In the age of ubiquitous — and social — technology, though, can we conclude that the Internet, smartphones and new technologies isolate us and encourage cocooning, or the opposite?
A few miles outside of Los Angeles, in a business-tax-free haven of strip malls and strip clubs called the City of Industry -- under 800 residents and fewer than 100 voters -- ground is ready to be broken for an $800-million football stadium. The team to play there is yet to be determined. But the hope is that a wayward owner longing for luxury boxes will want to call it home.The deal was celebrated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as both environmentally friendly and fiscally responsible. Earlier this year, residents voted 60 to 1 to approve a $500-million bond package, with some of the funds going toward public improvements to support the stadium. But the stadium, we are told, will be built with private funds by billionaire real estate mogul Ed Roski Jr. All he will want in return is a 40% stake in whatever team makes its way to Industry.Environmentalists protested the waiver of state environmental laws, despite Schwarzenegger's assurances that a new stadium is practically a rain forest and despite Roski's repeated use of the word "green." But all of us, from coast to coast, should be looking at this deal with a jaundiced eye, particularly sports fans.As Neil deMause, coauthor of "Field of Schemes," told me: "It's a weird one, in large part because the City of Industry is so weird. Arnold's claim that it's entirely privately financed is a crock -- the land and infrastructure is being funded by property taxes -- but in a town with barely any actual people in it, you could legitimately argue that the industry in Industry is just voting to tax itself to bring the NFL to town."But this deal is destined to have a ripple effect across the country. Roski has made it clear that the plan will not be to push the National Football League for expansion but to lure an NFL team to move to the country's second-largest media market. Beware, fans of the San Diego Chargers, Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco 49ers, Minnesota Vikings and St. Louis Rams. You are all on the list. Not only is there a chance you might lose the home team, it's likely that your team owners will use the proposed Los Angeles Stadium as leverage for more tax breaks, more publicly financed construction and more corporate welfare.The Chargers have already started this process, meeting with local officials about getting new digs in Escondido. Roski, when asked about being used this way, said: "I can't worry about other cities and stadiums. We have been working to return the NFL to L.A. for a long time, and right now that is my sole focus."He should be worrying about it. Because NFL owners divide revenues evenly, there is no particular bang for your buck that comes with moving your team to Los Angeles. In addition, because of NFL blackout rules, which suspend local television coverage if tickets aren't sold out, an L.A. team could be shutting itself out of the local television market.But the main reason people should be up in arms is that building a stadium during an economic crisis to house a team that doesn't exist is bonkers. Selling it as a cure for the crisis is even worse.As studies from think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute have shown, stadium funding never brings an effective return on its investment. More than $30 billion has been spent on stadiums over the last 25 years. That includes publicly funded stadiums such as the Nationals' baseball park in Washington -- coming in at almost twice the projected budget -- and so-called privately funded parks such as AT&T Park in San Francisco. There's always a tab that taxpayers end up paying.Then there is the promise of jobs. One of the more noxious aspects of Schwarzenegger's signing ceremony last week for the bill exempting the project from environment laws was the staged presence of construction workers cheering him on. The governor, ostensibly a labor union foe when it comes to nurses or teachers, embraced the love of the camera-friendly hard hats.Both Schwarzenegger and Roski have also promised Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, that concession workers and parking attendants will be paid "middle-class wages.""This is true economic development," Durazo said. "It's going to benefit everyone in our community." The typical pay for these jobs is $7.65 an hour, which would be "middle class" if JFK were president.There were many who thought that 2009 would begin an era of change. But stadium sweetheart deals and poverty jobs are sadly just more of the same.
Comments [0]