Scientists warn that Facebook, Twitter compromises morals

[TithonusSyndrome]

I thought this fell under the M part of SLAM. Relocate if necessary.

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.

Children could be particularly vulnerable because their brains are still developing.

"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.

Their work, published next week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online Early Edition, involved studying the response of volunteers to real-life stories to induce admiration for virtue or skill, or compassion for physical or social pain.

Using brain imaging, they found that humans can sort information very quickly and respond in fractions of a second to signs of physical pain in others, but admiration and compassion - two of the social emotions that define humanity - take much longer.

The volunteers needed six to eight seconds to fully respond to stories of virtue or social pain, but once awakened, the responses lasted far longer than the volunteers' reactions to stories focused on physical pain.

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 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.

Digital media may direct users away from traditional avenues for learning about humanity such as literature or face-to-face social interactions, said Ms Immordino-Yang.

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."

FACEBOOK and TWITTER make people indifferent to suffering? It begs to be noted then that a lot of scientists don't know what 4chan is, do they?

[Darth Wong]

So they determine that it takes as much as 6 to 8 seconds to respond to stories about virtue or suffering, and conclude that Facebook is killing our morality? Is this a joke?

[General Zod]

Turns out constant exposure to the same thing leads to being jaded by it? Who knew!

[Nephtys]

This just in. The printed word makes people numb to suffering. There are multiple unrelated stories, that can be read immediately after learning of a disaster. Literacy is a fast-track to moral decay!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The translation of this article is "GIVE US MORE FUNDING."

[Ilya Muromets]

*checks link*

It's not an Onion article. In which case, what the flying fuck?

I mean, seriously, out of all of the sources of near-instantly updated information they go after Facebook and Twitter?

EDIT: Pressed "submit" instead of "preview".

[ArmorPierce]

Facebook and twitter are hot tpics right now. If they are going to go after something that old people don't really know about or understand for a research grant those are good targets. Like Going after television and then video games and now facebook and twitter.

[KrauserKrauser]

So I guess this indicative of Facebook, Twitter and other such technologies getting to the second step of acceptance, as they are being demonized by non-users.

Vastly generalizing but I have heard that tech goes through three distinct stages:
1) "Oh that's sooo cool!"
2) "Oh that's sooo dangerous!"
3) "Oh that's sooo yesterday's news!"

[Korto]

So they determine that it takes as much as 6 to 8 seconds to respond to stories about virtue or suffering, and conclude that Facebook is killing our morality? Is this a joke?

No, according to the Guardian, it's a media beat-up to sell 'papers

"Facebook and Twitter 'make us bad people' " said the Metro. The Telegraph was graver: "Twitter and Facebook could harm moral values, scientists warn." "Twitter can make you immoral, claim scientists" was the Mail headline. "Social networks such as Twitter may blunt people's sense of morality, claim brain scientists. New evidence shows the digital torrent of information from networking sites could have long-term damaging effects on the emotional development of young people's brains."

Egged on by a rather fanciful press release from the University of Southern California media office, and a quote from a sociologist, the story was unstoppable. I got hold of the research paper, with some hassle. In a sentence, the study finds that the brain bloodflow changes which are observed when a subject is experiencing compassion for social pain peak, and dissipate, at a slightly slower rate to those seen with compassion for physical pain.

It does not mention Twitter. It does not mention Facebook. It does not mention social networking websites. It makes - and I'm being generous here - a single, momentary, passing reference to the rapid pace of information in "the digital age" in the discussion section, but that is all.

Am I a lone pedant? I emailed Prof Antonio Damasio, the senior academic and "corresponding author" on the paper. "Thank you for your inquiry. As you can see if you read our study, we made no connection whatsoever with Twitter. Some writers did make that connection but it is not ours."

Where did it come from, I asked? He dug. "I found the press release from USC where the writer made, on his own, a connection to social networks. We, the authors, certainly didn't and don't.

"The connection to Twitter and other social networks, as far as I can see, makes no sense. I presume you will reach the same conclusion after reading our article."

(bolding mine)

[Darth Wong]

Apparently, the real problem is not Twitter; it is on-line news

[Sarevok]

While the article is completely off I do sometimes question the utility of automating the interesting parts of life (human interactions) while leaving behind the drudgery of everyday existence. It would be cooler if software could do at least the repetitive computer desk jobs leaving people time to socialize instead of the reverse where humans work hard and socialize via the internets.

[Darth Wong]

While the article is completely off I do sometimes question the utility of automating the interesting parts of life (human interactions) while leaving behind the drudgery of everyday existence. It would be cooler if software could do at least the repetitive computer desk jobs leaving people time to socialize instead of the reverse where humans work hard and socialize via the internets.

As opposed to the situation in which particular rose-coloured memory of which imaginary past? The bucolic country lifestyle where rustic farms coexisted in perfect harmony with happy forest animals? Where people would work from sunup till sundown on the farm and only talk to neighbours on Sunday in church?

[ArmorPierce]

There was actually a study contrary to popular opinion that modern technology was driving families apart. Rather, the internet, cell phones, texting, were actually bringing families closer together than they had been in the past.

[Singular Intellect]

There was actually a study contrary to popular opinion that modern technology was driving families apart. Rather, the internet, cell phones, texting, were actually bringing families closer together than they had been in the past.

I have a strong suspicion that this perception was brought on by religious sources, irritated that improving communications and travelling infrastructure allowed people to socialize outside of their churches, to paraphrase what Mike said.

[Darth Wong]

This study is a classic example of people trying to fit a scientific study into their preconceived social prejudices and assumptions. The actual study says that empathy is mentally complex emotion which takes more time to process. That science seems solid. But then people leap to these bizarre conclusions about social networking, based on ... what? Their assumption that every hour people spend on social networking would otherwise be spent on face-to-face communication if these networks did not exist? That's bullshit. I remember growing up in the 1970s. There was no social utopia of constant social gatherings in public places. People spent much of their time isolated in their homes watching TV. Kids would do their homework and then they might call a friend on the telephone.

[Lusankya]

There was actually a study contrary to popular opinion that modern technology was driving families apart. Rather, the internet, cell phones, texting, were actually bringing families closer together than they had been in the past.

That makes sense. Most of the contact that I have with my mum is through texting and facebook, and the rest is Skype. Without them, I'd probably only talk to her once a month or so, if that.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, none of what I'm saying should be interpreted as a defense of Facebook or Twitter. I think there are other venues for electronic communication which are far less gimmicky. A typical Facebook profile is so goddamned cluttered with eye-catching trivial shit that it gives me a headache, and I don't see the point of Twitter at all.

[ArmorPierce]

BTW, none of what I'm saying should be interpreted as a defense of Facebook or Twitter. I think there are other venues for electronic communication which are far less gimmicky. A typical Facebook profile is so goddamned cluttered with eye-catching trivial shit that it gives me a headache, and I don't see the point of Twitter at all.

Yeah I liked the original facebook the current facebook has become more an more gimmicky and a cash cow forcing users to click through a million things in order for them to generate ad revenue.

[General Zod]

While the article is completely off I do sometimes question the utility of automating the interesting parts of life (human interactions) while leaving behind the drudgery of everyday existence. It would be cooler if software could do at least the repetitive computer desk jobs leaving people time to socialize instead of the reverse where humans work hard and socialize via the internets.

I take it you've never actually had one of these desk jobs? Even in the small corner of the office world I work in, while we can automate a lot of our tasks we still need humans to make sure everything was properly processed and to make judgment calls computers just aren't capable of doing. We simply don't have that kind of technology yet.

[Civil War Man]

Vastly generalizing but I have heard that tech goes through three distinct stages:
1) "Oh that's sooo cool!"
2) "Oh that's sooo dangerous!"
3) "Oh that's sooo yesterday's news!"

I heard a variation that went "Anything invented before you were born is an integral part of how the world works. Anything invented when you are young is a cool new thing that you can possibly use to further your career. Anything invented when you are old goes against the natural order."

[[R_H]]

So they determine that it takes as much as 6 to 8 seconds to respond to stories about virtue or suffering, and conclude that Facebook is killing our morality? Is this a joke?

A similar study was done by German scientists with violent and nonviolent video games. The subjects that had been playing violent games responded slower to the sounds of a violent confrontation in a room next to them. (Naturally this was used to demonised violent games, in the aftermath of the shooting in Winnenden).

[Vendetta]

This study is a classic example of people trying to fit a scientific study into their preconceived social prejudices and assumptions. The actual study says that empathy is mentally complex emotion which takes more time to process. That science seems solid. But then people leap to these bizarre conclusions about social networking, based on ... what?

The press release from the university that publicised it (before the study had even been published for peer review, so no-one could check what it actually said).

Somewhere in between the people doing the study and the press office, some popular names that might grab headlines got magically associated with it.

Of which more fun here.

Remember, if you read about science in the mainstream press, you're probably reading bollocks.