So the next time you see a friend, or a child, spending too much of their day facing a screen, extend a hand and invite him back to the world of real social encounters. You’ll not only build up his health and empathic skills, but yours as well. Friends don’t let friends lose their capacity for humanity.
Barbara L. Fredrickson, professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, The New York Times. Your Phone or Your Heart?
Fredrickson poses a horrifying dilemma to the touch-screen generation: your phone or your heart. The more time we spend “bent over a digital screen, thumbing a connection to somewhere else,” Fredrickson argues, the more our biological ability to engage in “the world of real social encounters” withers away. In other words, with every <3 we type, we </3 a little inside.
Fredrickson came to this conclusion after conducting an experiment that tested how learning skills can affect a person’s capacity to connect with other humans.
Via The New York Times:
Half the participants, chosen at random, attended a six-week workshop on an ancient mind-training practice known as metta, or “lovingkindness,” that teaches participants to develop more warmth and tenderness toward themselves and others.
Frederickson concluded that mediators felt more socially connected and that their vagal tone was “altered.”
(Vagal tone background info: Your brain and the vagus nerve are connected. The stronger your vagal tone, the stronger the connection between the vagus nerve and the brain — meaning your body can better regulate itself internally.)
So people who engage in some new-age exercises enjoy some pretty trippy results. What does that have to do with your phone? Nothing, because Fredrickson didn’t enroll anyone in an iPhone-only lovingkindness regimen to compare vagal readings with the IRL set. She just assumes virtual communication is inherently less connected, friendly, and empathetic than the alternative.
Even though Frederickson says technological communication is diminishing our capacity to “<3” each other in real life, she also notes that the human body and its behaviors are “far more plastic or amenable to change than most of us realize.”
If human potential is so plastic or amenable, then can we assume that our vagal tone could evolve to work with tech communication? According to Slate’s Amanda Hess, it already has.
The more we flex our thumbs, the more satisfying the emotional rewards. Just the other day, a wave of good feeling rolled through two brains and bodies at once as [my friend] Nathan and I traded jokes about op-ed writers with a scientifically unsupportable fetish for the IRL. If Fredrickson can’t see the human potential of the online friendship, maybe it’s because she hasn’t been looking hard enough.
So, with such differing opinions and no real evidence that people become less or more empathetic with digital communication, whose side are we to take? Social media theorist, Nathan Jurgenson suggests: neither.
Via Society Pages:
I am proposing an alternative view that states that our reality is both technological and organic, both digital and physical, all at once. We are not crossing in and out of separate digital and physical realities, ala The Matrix, but instead live in one reality, one that is augmented by atoms and bits. And our selves are not separated across these two spheres as some dualistic “first” and “second” self, but is instead an augmented self.
Healthy human communication can occur through digital communication AND face-to-face conversation. Yeah? Cool.
FJP: Some of my longest, deepest conversations have happened through a cell phone or an IM window. I’ve spent more than half of my 23 years communicating digitally rather than face to face. Oh my God — I knew I felt more apathetic and cyborg-ish than I did as a child. Now I know why. Now, step aside and allow me to destroy your humanity, one evil “LOL” at a time. — Krissy
- sugarelectric likes this
- de-la-heem reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- ray54wtf likes this
- frompearlstoplugs likes this
- gabrielleawright reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- gabrielleawright likes this
- cbardeguez reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- cbardeguez likes this
- saarathakvi reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- clarkkampfe reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- clarkkampfe likes this
- nutranurse likes this
- sliverdemon reblogged this from maneatingbadger
- cultureintransit likes this
- musicforthemusicallychallenged likes this
- ambivalentaviary likes this
- paideia-ganesh reblogged this from maneatingbadger
- dimwittgenstein likes this
- maneatingbadger reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- onggiavu likes this
- monkeybuttocks likes this
- honeyjustice likes this
- honeyjustice reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- myaaaargh likes this
- artsmonkey reblogged this from blackrocket2000
- artsmonkey likes this
- splusx likes this
- howcloseis likes this
- hero-and-villain reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- mpedraja likes this
- ceci-est-a-moi likes this
- donttreadonbrooklyn reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- lifepiledonlife likes this
- deadend reblogged this from mythopoetic-monsterling
- leenyree likes this
- mythopoetic-monsterling reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- jennipurrr likes this
- dipyourpizza likes this
- blackrocket2000 reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- iswearimnotabadperson reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- indescribableme likes this
- moardepravity likes this
- laurenreneeflo likes this
- we8cheese reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- latimes likes this
- mamaatheist likes this
- municci reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
- mariashants likes this