Twitter and Facebook may damage our sense of morality
Dear Mary Helen Immordino-Yang,
My initial reaction when I saw the headline suggesting that digital media such as Twitter and Facebook might damage our sense of morality was that it was another bunch of scientists desperate for their 15 seconds of fame who had come up with some crackpot evidence to support their ideas. While this may indeed be the case, you and your research team at the University of Southern California might have inadvertently stumbled across a fascinating debate.
You are claiming that today’s fast-paced media could be making us indifferent to human suffering as it leaves us with no time to reflect. Your research 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. The research iteslf 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, you 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. You concluded 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 and that digital media may direct users away from traditional avenues for learning about humanity such as literature or face-to-face social interactions.
As I said at the beginning, the media-friendly headline made me a bit skeptical but on second thoughts I wonder if this is something worth worrying about. Never before in human history have we had so much information available to us at a moment’s notice (if not faster). If we have a Twitter page sending us hundreds of snippets of information a day, the BBC website sending us constant updates on the news, our RSS feed picking up all our favourite blogs and – dare I say it – a life to lead and a job to do at the same time, where do we fit in time to think, to consider, to reflect? Sure, we could all react pretty damn fast to ‘Smeargate’ because it hit a basic moral nerve but what about if something required more time for contemplation? The Ian Tomlinson case elicited an astonishingly fast array of responses once the video footage hit the media but how many of us were able to resist the temptation to react immediately rather than hold back, consider, reflect and ponder? I’ve always wondered about software such as instant messengers, which seem to be used by many people (mostly children and teenagers) as a replacement for human interaction instead of complementing it, although I don’t see Twitter and Facebook necessarily performing the same function.
The speed at which we now receive a breathtaking volume of information every hour of every day is something that should be both praised and damned in some respects. As an adult who was brought up on the crest of the digital wave, I don’t think Facebook or Twitter or anything of the same ilk represents a threat to my sense of morality or ethics. However, the prospect of someone developing and maturing in a world where instant reactions are the rule rather than the exception raises some interesting questions, particularly for parenting. No doubt some idiots along the way will call for digital media outlets to be banned or curbed but it is impossible to fight the tide. With the greatest of respect, I hope that your predictions are found to be completely inaccurate – I’m just not sure they will be.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
How lucky for beleagured Gordon that the papers are happy to present ‘OMG! Innernets makes yr kidz psychopaths!’ stories this morning, isn’t it?
Right after the weekend when he found out how dangerous the internet can be…
Still, merely a coincidence, I’m sure.
Not sure I agree with that. After the complete failure that is Labourlist, I’m beginning to think that anything vaguely technical is way beyond the few brain cells in 10 Downing Street.
“If we have a Twitter page sending us hundreds of snippets of information a day, the BBC website sending us constant updates on the news, our RSS feed picking up all our favourite blogs and – dare I say it – a life to lead and a job to do at the same time, where do we fit in time to think, to consider, to reflect?”
I’ve heard this sort of argument before, but I think it’s more than adequately combatted by two things: firstly, all of the social networking is opt-in. Hence, if you want time to think or read a book, you just put it all down and wonder off to reflect and think. Easy.
Secondly, a quote from Steve Jobs: “”You watch television to turn your brain off and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.”
The internet has an overall positive impact on thought. I think.
Social networking might be opt-in but peer pressure doesn’t leave the individual with all the power. Picking up a book is fast becoming secondary to spending time at the computer and flicking through vast amounts of information.
Messenger is more natural,you either type or speak through a microphone/cam.I use it to keep in touch with family abroad,can see them on cam too,makes hell of a difference.You can leave messages offline as well as send files,even chat all night for free.I’ve met a lot of friends with the same interest worldwide too,something you couldn’t do locally.
Twitter is more soundbite,no substance,no time to react before the next message is there.To me it is more of an ego thing whereas messenger goes at a natural pace.
I agree not so many read books now,but then i was lucky to be brought up before the electronic age took off.I still read a lot but surf a lot too.So many wonderful things to find out about.
So many wonderful sleaze scandals to discuss…..
Amazing how quick some are to reply to a mere headline and mainstream news coverage before the full report is even out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This is exactly what the study is talking about. Take some time to reflect and get informed before you bash “another bunch of scientists” and their “crackpot evidence”.
It’s how the whole world works these days. Our meagre brains evolved when we were more tribal and would travel only to neighbouring tribes. Our poor wee noggins can’t keep up with the pace of life in the modern world, which is probably one of the reasons for so many mental abnormalities – such as schizophrenia. We have created a completely abnormal world for ourselves. This may not be out in PNAS yet but it is not all that a surprising result.
I think that software tools are definitely what you make of them. We can access more information in a day than people in the 1800s could access in a week. The problem, as this article and the comments note, is processing that information. Luckily, online networks can help us with that, offering discussions and related links. Taking the time to choose what’s important and process all the additional ideas yourself is your choice–but sharing your results and getting (relatively unlimited) feedback on your reflection is something that the Internet makes possible.
Linda, the online world does offer a lot of possibilities for discussion but I think it’s fair to say that the ‘feedback’ can sometimes be a little, shall we say, coarse?