Twitter Leads to Immorality? C'mon!
Yesterday we heard Fox News reporting that Facebook may be responsible for lower GPA scores and now today a new study comes to light claiming that rapid-fire media - like that of Twitter for instance - can actually impact our moral compass. In fact, the study says the fast-moving nature of some online social spaces may not provide us with the time we as humans need to feel higher emotions like admiration and compassion.
You Twitter? Your Moral Compass May Be Broken
Yesterday's study about Facebook's impact on GPA scores was not a conclusive, comprehensive report. Instead, it was simply a set of preliminary discoveries that Ohio State researcher Aryn Karpinski said could be looked into deeper. In fact, she asserts that most media reports overstate her findings - she just found a connection and more should be done to study the matter. "What I found is so exploratory -- people need to chill out," she was quoted as saying.
But right on the heels of that news - exploratory or not - comes another report that may even be more damaging: social media could lead to amorality. At least that appears to be the overall takeaway from this new report.
In this case, a study from a neuroscience group led by Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, suggests that our digital media culture may lend itself better to some mental processes than others. And the ones it doesn't lend itself that well to? You guessed it: moral decision-making.
No Time for Reflection
According to first author Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, "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." Unfortunately, in our "real-time" web of information flow, some things happen too fast for us to process. This leads to us never being able to fully experience emotions about other people's psychological states. "That would have implications for your morality," said Immordino-Yang.
During the study, the researchers shared compelling, real-life stories with volunteers to induce emotions like admiration for virtue or skill or compassion for physical or social pain. Brain imaging scans showed the volunteers needed six to eight seconds to fully respond to stories of pain. Of course, when it comes to the rapid stream of news from TV, online feeds, Twitter, and definitely the new real-time interface of Friendfeed, 6 to 8 seconds could feel like an eternity - and a period in which a million new items floated past our field of vision.
We have the ability to sort this flowing information quickly, but developing deeper feelings - the social emotions that define humanity - takes much longer. And who has the time?
Fear-Mongering about Digital Media, Take 3?
Media scholar Manuel Castells, holder of the Wallis Anneberg Chair of Communication Technology and Society at USC went on to further interpret the findings saying, "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."
We can't help but feel we've heard similar strains of this same argument before. Doesn't it remind you of that old saying "TV will rot your brain?" Or maybe it's a throwback to the worrisome findings from the past decade about how violent video games supposedly lead to actual violence. It seems that our society is always concerned about how digital media will impact our humanity. And there's always a way to show that it has negative effects.
But is digital media really that bad? We think not. Maybe we can't properly feel the correct amount of compassion or pain when watching the Twitter stream update in TweetDeck, but is the Twitter stream really the place to go to experience these emotions anyway?
Case in point, watching the tweets about the Hudson River plane crash was exciting in the sense that we were getting the news first, all fresh, raw, and unprocessed. But it wasn't until later, watching TV interviews with the survivors telling their stories and speaking of the pilot's heroism that the emotions really kicked in. Is that not OK for some reason?
It seems to us that what should matter to humanity is that we do, in fact, still feel things...even if we might not feel them right away from a tweet.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Grossly boiled down, they're saying "you can't make moral decisions well if you have to do them quickly".
Haven't these people *seen* 24? Jack Bauer makes these decisions faster than the Twitterati can ever dream of and he still does it just fine and dandy.
But seriously, it's flawed premise. How long does it take to register a homeless person on the street and drop them a coin or two? Or to help someone pick something up when they drop it? Or to run over to someone who has fallen down? A few seconds, right - not that big a difference, surely?
I'm getting really fed up with these morons who use our tax dollars to come up with this kind of idiocy. First of all, the major ages of users of Twitter and FriendFeed are between 18 and 49. Our "morality" is already formed waaaay before now.
Secondly, 6 to 8 seconds is *not* an eternity for either Twitter or FriendFeed. Many of us use TweetDeck which polls Twitter every few minutes (mine does every 15 minutes). Plenty of time for me to "feel" what ever "fuzzies" these idiots think I should feel. FriendFeed real time may zip past me but I let many entries go without ever reading them in the first place. We are not *victims* of real time, we're *users*. We're active and select what we view, we don't try to read absolutely everything...it's not possible.
Thirdly, remember this is a University scholar who's doing the study at a University. They've got to keep coming up with this kind of crap in order to keep their funding alive. In a publish or perish world like USC (or actually all universities), you're going to find 90% of these studies to be nothing but junk.
Please, people. Twitter destroys morality. Oh, my God. Can anything be more hilarious? These people are NUTS!
Excellent post, Sarah. You're right, Twitter is really not the place for emotive activity to begin with. That aside, the assumption of Damasio's study that rapid-fire media compromises a person's ability to feel compassion is an irresponsible generalization. Every brain works differently. Some people are naturally more sensitive than others. Some people can easily detach from emotions and crises happening around them, while others can't.
People who are sensitive will feel the impact of information and will most likely go off on the tangent to explore, while people who are naturally less sensitive will let the emotional stimuli roll off their back. This phenomenon would have occurred regardless of whether the viewer was on Twitter or watching 30-second segments on the evening news.
The big question is how anyone validated the study, given the complexity of emotional sensitivity and its exponential range within any given population. Sounds like some assumptive psychology was in practice on this one. Or more like Damasio's group is linking their study to social media to juice up some immediate page rank relevance.
@michelletripp
Nonono. Not immorality. IMMORTALITY!
Posted by: Bec Rowe @d0tski
|
April 14, 2009 8:27 AM
"The telegraph will be the end of all us good Christian people." - July 1866
"Radio is the tool of the Devil!" - September 1940
"Television is causing the collapse of the moral authority." - February 1955
I was having this same conversation with a friend not too many days ago. He argued that twitter couldn't be a tool for reflection with just 140 characters. I replied that while 140 characters are not enough to write an essay, it certainly is enough to write a link to it.
If we look at most of the twitter updates, most of them have a link with a small comment or are part of a conversation. Therefore we managed to add a lot more content in those 140 characters.
Two things: One, I would argue that SM simply charts human reactions rather than doing all that much in the forming of them; two, my guess is that more adept writers can indeed make that 140-character essay when desired. And what makes an adept writer? The same things that always have. I don't see SM changing that particular territory all that much.
Posted by: Heather
|
April 14, 2009 9:06 AM
If Fox News said, it must be true. After all, they are the "fair and balanced" news station.
Only if they don't lose our tweets.
Posted by: Ahsan Ali
|
April 14, 2009 9:09 AM
What is this Fox News and how can I get one?
Just to be devil's advocate here:
"The telegraph will be the end of all us good Christian people." - July 1866
Isn't good Christianity on a decline?
"Radio is the tool of the Devil!" - September 1940
Rush Limbaugh.
"Television is causing the collapse of the moral authority." - February 1955
I think this is pretty much truth.
Just because we're still alive doesn't mean that these forms of communication haven't led to weaker moral beings. We're collectively pretty selfish and narcissistic.
Harmuph! My grandmother (born 1911) felt the same way about "computers." My mother's grandmother (born 1865) was quite concerned about the influence of the telephone. Too bad neither of them were able to capitalize on their opinions with research grant funding and free publicity on, um, Twitter.
In response to the *anonymous* post playing the Devil's advocate:
1. There are a number of reasons why Christianity is in decline. I doubt, seriously that the Telegraph is one of them. Try post-modern mentality and rational thought for a couple of sources here.
2. Rush Limbaugh is not the Devil. He's an entertainer that appeals to a niche audience (albeit a large one). Radio, again has little to do with creating the mentality of that audience as much as affirming it. The same thing could be said of Ariana Huffington, another entertainer who re-enforces the mentality of her niche audience. Neither are the devil. Both are pretty much irrelevant to *thinking* people.
3. Television, again, is an entertainment medium. It rarely creates a mentality, as much as re-enforces it. A cause? Hardly. Try un-involved parents and educators who promote moral relativism and you're much, much closer to the *cause*.
Just my 2 cents worth.
I can go you one better. Socrates posited that the written word would spell the end of conversation. Hey, a lot of his OTHER observations were spot on.
As Sarah took pains to point out, this was an exploratory study. But, exploratory or not, it seems pretty dopey. Every new technology elicits cries of "Shut it down!" from those who are not yet well versed. Best to ignore it.
I submit that there is a more interesting POTENTIAL problem afoot: the difference between knowledge and information. Knowledge implies experience, study, debate and the constant acquisition of data. Information is just data.
Twitter, blog posts, TV and radio news- they all traffic in the dissemination of INFORMATION, but I often wonder if we've increased our KNOWLEDGE base.
So back in the Good Old Days of Kumbaya before we had Twitter, no one was ever forced to make a moral decision on the spot in "real-time"? Didn't life happen in real-time before the advent of Twitter?
Funny, I just wrote a blog post comparing Twitter to a cult: http://www.livedigitally.com/2009/04/14/its-official-twitter-is-a-cult/
One amazing aspect of cults is how their members are utterly unwilling to accept any possibility of criticism about the cult.
Just something to think about...
Air Max 96
What the heck are "GPA Scores"? The grade in grade point average means what you mean by score, no?
I love how technophobes are quick to point out every benefit and advantage that technology offers, but will fight to the death to even entertain the fact that it causes problems as well.
I am a realist, and intelligent enough to recognize that technology is profit-driven, it will always be pushed on us no matter how good or bad it is. We have no societal restraint because there is money in marketing technology, but there's no money in marketing against it.
The we're still alive doesn't mean that these forms of communication haven't led to weaker moral beings
That is good staff Sarah.Not only twitter even though iphone,e-mail,messenger,chatting room etc,and the strongest is bringing you out to temptation. I believe in the future Technology Conference is turning to more flirting and more breaking ups marriage just because of the short time of fun and happiness just gonna realize later on is wrong but is too late.
Twitter is growing so well and so terrible busy but lots of fun too ,but we need to realize there is a real life.
OUR FAMILY ! : ) WHO BEEN WITH US IN A LONG TERM OF LIFE !
just remember one thing that immortal is such a word that don't match with any human being life history.it's just a imagination.
The future Technology Conference is turning to more flirting and more breaking ups marriage just .
It is not that any specific news channel or media outlet that makes you Immoral you do immoral things because that is what you are to being with. People do tons of immoral things after listening to the rants of fox news media anchors, its not that fox is make immoral people although they are pretty bad at spewing hate and incorrect news, but it is that the cater of people following the fox news are immoral to begin with (well I am talking about the ones that do immoral things after listening to the news) There are sane people who listen to these news as well, why I do not know maybe to get a few giggles...
The we're still alive doesn't mean that these forms of communication haven't led to weaker moral beings.
Tim, the "Community Principles" page of Google's Wave Federation Protocol site explains some of the senses in which the word "open" is used.
It is not that any specific news channel or media outlet that makes you Immoral you do immoral th yerdss
anywhere in this blog are really very good about not coincide resdd
The we're still alive doesn't mean that these forms of communication haven't led to weaker moral ya işte öle
hii all thank you
thanks for article very
I think more harmful technology. abuse is increasing
How about plans that most of history lessons in schools should be replaced by learning how to 'communicate with people' using modern digital tools such as twitter or facebook? It is not really an issue of immorality but modern digital media help people forget how to socialise in a normal way or that you are not really supposed to tell everyone whatever you like - well, you can (still not always should) in the Internet.
daha güzel olabilirdi...
great post there Sarah. I personaly think Twitter is very over hyped! I cant see the point in it.
"It seems to us that what should matter to humanity is that we do, in fact, still feel things...even if we might not feel them right away from a tweet."
Yes, but have you ever looked at a Facebook,Twitter,...(add here any social site) addict looking at computer monitor? Although they may still have feelings when disconnected, they are more like zombies than human beings. What will the world look like in 10 years time?
Is it really about higher emotions? Web users, behind their computer monitors feel safe and secure to the point where they are likely to lie or call somebody names or threat somebody without any particular reason. It is obviously more common on social networks or forums. Many seem to forget what netiquette is.
more this type blog where we can get more knowledge. and any one tell me how can I find this type