Twitter and Facebook could harm moral values, scientists warn

[T_i_B]

Is it me or does this story just reek of bullshit?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5149195/Twitter-and-Facebook-could-harm-moral-values-scientists-warn.html

Today's fast-paced media could be making us indifferent to human suffering and should allow time for us to reflect, according to researchers.

They found that emotions linked to moral sense are slow to respond to news and events and have failed to keep up with the modern world.

In the time it takes to fully reflect on a story of anguish and suffering, the news bulletin has already moved on or the next Twitter update is already being read.

As activities such as reading books and meeting friends, where people can define their morals, are taken over by news snippets and fast-moving social networking, the problem could become widespread, researchers warn.

[I Have A Dream]

1. I think that there's some truth to this. nt

[canetoad]

3. Look what I found just before reading this post

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/TV-soundbite-culture-leaves-.5166569.jp

TEACHERS are increasingly struggling to motivate pupils in a culture of "sound bite" television, according to experts.
Children no longer have the attention span to listen to in-depth lessons, said Julian Chapman, the new president of the teaching union NASUWT.

His comments were backed by a leading child-development expert, who said schools needed to rely less o
ADVERTISEMENT
n television and computers to teach children.

Sue Palmer, a former headteacher and the author of Detoxing Childhood, said a major problem was that children were tuned in to screen-based entertainment and found it difficult to listen, because they expected visual stimulus and instant gratification. "It means attention spans are not as good as they were," she said.

-------------------------------------

Goes on to speak about shortened attention spans etc.

[ima_sinnic]

6. that reminds me of how annoying a show like Bill Nye the Science Guy is

and I do know that some people love that show, but I find all the bells and whistles and patronizingly silly crap downright stupid and unwatchable. Children can't learn scientific concepts without flashing lights, "special effects," and dumb gags that simply call attention to him rather than the concept?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Actually, when I was a kid, it seemed like they went out of their way to make math & science boring

EXTREMELY boring.

It wasn't until years later that I discovered, much to my delight, that those subjects are endlessly fascinating. I'm ECSTATIC that now they try to present things like science in an interesting light to kids-- because they ARE interesting, and I'd much rather have bells and whistles than have my kids' innate love of learning quashed by the sorts of boring-ass repetition and dull, dry presentation that I got.

[cobalt1999]

14. I'm skeptical

Mostly because there have been complaints about the next generation of schoolkids not being as disciplined or having the same attention span for centuries. You can go back to Roman times and hear teachers/parents complaining about the next generation.

I have to laugh that for centuries each generation is worse at learning than the previous. I suspect some adults don't remember how fleeting their own attention span was when they were kids and how undisciplined their behavior and study habits were.

Also, I see how well my own kids and their friends are doing in school and what/how much homework they have.

I don't buy it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. You would easily find 100 articles from 1890 saying the exact same thing

The newspaper writers of the late-nineteenth century were particularly harsh on the inability of Harvard freshmen to write coherent sentences.

[NashVegas]

12. I Think There's a LOT Of Truth To This

The average Twitter post is either All About Me or All About the Person/Web Article I'm promoting in order to market myself.

Also worth noting is the malice that gets directed at people who attempt to take a stand for ethical / moral behavior.

[sakabatou]

2. I say mostly BS.

[Skittles]

4. convincing argument there

[frylock]

15. more convincing argument to be found here -->>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5452110#5452386

so, it's not mostly BS, but entirely BS.

[Hannah Bell]

5. "'The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,'

said Syme. 'We're getting the language into its final shape - the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. You think our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words - scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone.

In the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. The great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself....In the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. The whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word.

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.'"

[Political Heretic]

7. I'm not sure how you scientifically measure this, but it certinaly seems accurate to me

[seabeyond]

8. works for me. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Reeks of BS spin by the old media - I highly suspect Twitter or Facebook weren't in the study at all

Actually looking at things in genuine quotes, we have:

"If things are happening too fast, you may not ever fully experience emotions about other people's psychological states and that would have implications for your morality," said Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, from the University of Southern California, and one of the researchers.

Ms Immordino-Yang said: "For some kinds of thought, especially moral decision-making about other people's social and psychological situations, we need to allow for adequate time and reflection."

She added: "We need to understand how social experience shapes interactions between the body and mind, to produce citizens with a strong moral compass."

Manuel Castells, a leading sociology expert at USC said: "The study has extraordinary implications for the human perception of events in a digital communication environment.

"Lasting compassion in relationship to psychological suffering requires a level of persistent, emotional attention."

He said he was most concerned about fast-moving TV or virtual games, adding: "In a media culture in which violence and suffering becomes an endless show, be it in fiction or in infotainment, indifference to the vision of human suffering gradually sets in."

Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, who led the research said: "What I'm more worried about is what is happening in the abrupt juxtapositions that you find, for example, in the news.

"When it comes to emotion, because these systems are inherently slow, perhaps all we can say is, not so fast."

He said the research was vital because admiration, "gives us a yardstick for what to reward in a culture, and for what to look for and try to inspire".

Mr Damasio said that Barack Obama, who was inspired by his father, showed how admiration could drive a person onto great things, adding: "We actually separate the good from the bad in great part thanks to the feeling of admiration. It's a deep physiological reaction that's very important to define our humanity."

Note the absence of 'Facebook' or 'Twitter' there. The nearest you get is one bit of indirect speech:

She also said that the study raises questions about the emotional cost - particularly for the developing brain - of heavy reliance on a rapid stream of news snippets obtained through television, online feeds or social networks such as Twitter.

There's no guarantee she actually mentioned Twitter herself; the Telegraph may well have inserted that (a) because it's flavour of the month (b) because it wants to knock another medium.

[Bucky]

10. This new fangled "heliocentric universe" malarkey will destroy faith in the Bible

Radios will destroy the family. Comic books will turn boys gay. Haley's comet will poison us all with cosmic gasses.

[Lex]

11. 24 hour Cable News is far worse.

nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Here's the actual USC press release

Before the Telegraph introduced Facebook, emphasised Twitter far too much, and left out some important quotes:

Tweet this: Rapid-fire media may confuse your moral compass

The study raises questions about the emotional cost—particularly for the developing brain—of heavy reliance on a rapid stream of news snippets obtained through television, online feeds or social networks such as Twitter.
...
Immordino-Yang did not blame digital media. "It's not about what tools you have, it's about how you use those tools," she said.

Castells said he was less concerned about online social spaces, some of which can provide opportunities for reflection, than about "fast-moving television or virtual games."

"In a media culture in which violence and suffering becomes an endless show, be it in fiction or in infotainment, indifference to the vision of human suffering gradually sets in," he said.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/uosc-ttr040909.php

So, actually, they blame TV and video games more. After all, they set the pace - online networks allow you to go at your own pace.

[T_i_B]

29. "online networks allow you to go at your own pace"

And that's one of the big reasons why I called bullshit in the OP, because you can spend a lot of time (far too much time in fact!) looking in depth at your friends profiles, groups etc on Facebook. There's more to social networking sites then just glancing at the top three status updates.

And on that note I might as well do another plug for the DU Facebook group.

http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?id=545583372#/group.php?gid=2426871461

[NeedleCast]

16. Just the newest version of "(insert technology here) is evilllllll"

Been around since the invention of the wheel, if not prior to that. Luddites will be Luddites.

[surrealAmerican]

17. The same has been said about television ...

... and radio, and newspapers if you go back far enough. There is a particle of truth here, but throughout human history a majority of people have lacked any real contemplation of their morals. (Isn't that why we have religions?)

[Warren DeMontague]

18. No, the story reeks of bullshit.

Nevertheless, the neo-luddite reflex of some humans to go "Oooog! Technology bad! Technology scary!" is probably as old as technology itself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. "emotions linked to moral sense"...the new phrenology

This is like the clowns who do supposedly meaningful "brain scans" of serial killers and so-called 'sociopaths." It is modern day Lombrosism, and deeply stupid stuff.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. My favorite was the Bush Administration "scientist" who said pictures of people having sex

produce evil 'erotoxins', thereby proving that porn is as dangerous as crack.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Verily, if GOD had wanted you to be able to stay in touch with your friends from 5th grade,

he never would have invented the horse-drawn carriage, the automobile, the train and the airplane.

[Odin2005]

23. YAWN, just the newest version of the "technology is causing moral degeneration" BS.

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Smoke signals, that was what fucked everything up.

Before that, kids were perfect.

[Such a Bird]

24. I think that there is some truth to it, but...

There are many advantages in having instant access to information. In some ways, people may feel even MORE connected to the outside world now than they did when information was slower to reach them.

Parents should be the ones who are responsible for giving their children moral compasses to navigate through the world. If parents do a good job of raising their children, "Facebook" and "Twitter" become non-issues in regard to this article's claim.

[SidDithers]

26. Whose moral values?...

The authors? Mine? Yours?

I'm immediately suspicious of any argument based on moral values.

Sid

[MedleyMisty]

28. Right, because humans were so moral before Facebook and Twitter

I always wonder if people who bemoan the downfall of society based on the latest technology know a damn thing at all about history.

[Tutankhamun]

30. So let me get this straight. Twitter actually has staying power?