4 ms·

The data is pretty clear that the only time social media is beneficial is if it leads to the formation/maintenance of long term relationships. Without that it's

The data is pretty clear that the only time social media is beneficial is if it leads to the formation/maintenance of long term relationships. Without that it's just entertainment, and entertainment that is not "happy" making for most.

_carbyau_ 5y ago
Ok. But social media use itself has to be placed in context of the larger attention economy. For example, is it worse than watching TV/cable/netflix/gaming/multiplayer gaming/crafting hobbies/reading books etc etc? To answer my own question, I think Social Media is worse than the other options mentioned above and so I have long drifted off FB. And most of my friends on FB are continuing longstanding relationships. But I don't know the studies on that and I am willing to accept that different people do things differently. For example, on this site, I like the intelligent responses, thought provoking discussions, sometimes amazing recommendations on any number of topics. But I don't feel I need to be friends with any particular individual to benefit from that nor contribute to it.
- thelettere 5y ago
  The difference between liking/enjoying and gaining benefit I think is crucial here. It's akin to the difference between pleasure and happiness. No doubt the vast majority of people (if not everyone) on social media gains some pleasure from it. But as far as increasing happiness, aiding in quality of life and well-being and similar measures, it - in general - does not move the needle and not infrequently pulls in the opposite direction (in the absence of personal bonds). The other important difference is between using social media sites as "literature" (i.e. not interacting with it but just consuming its thought-provoking and useful content, as you mention) and as a conversational medium. The former - in the absence of obviously harmful content like people showing off and then comparing oneself to them, or outrage porn, ect - is as far as I'm aware harmless and has a similar profile to reading in general. But the constant one-off interactions, like this? It hits different. We know that consistent interaction with the same person - even if it is light meaningless interaction - has benefit. One study that comes to mind is of the daily interaction between customer and cashier every morning at the coffee shop. Believe it or not that has a statistically significant (though by no means large) positive effect on a person's mental state. Deep personal one-off conversation in person also have a significant benefit, at least in the short term. But this - whatever this is - generally doesn't. Of course everyone is different, and obviously not everyone uses it exactly the same way, so there are outliers. But also human beings are talented at lying to themselves about the effects of things on them, often in the direction of exaggerating or inventing a benefit (and also failing at the afore-mentioned differentiation between pleasure and happiness). That's one of the big problems that researchers in outcomes studies on any number of things have to deal with. Objective observer and close other ratings of a person's happiness after say therapy or anti-depressants are often wildly less rosy than the person's self-report. We humans are often not good at being honest with ourselves. But you are right about the "attention economy" context. We - near worldwide it seems - have little perfected the art of leisure. Our institutions have failed us, and we in turn have created little to take the place of the old ways. Our choices are too often between similarly poor options. That's probably why work and over-work have remained as popular as it has - what lies outside of it is too often stupefying. Which is one reason why I'm here now, talking with you, embracing (or stomaching) this momentary pleasure in what is perhaps a trade-off with a bit of my happiness.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    I largely agree with you. You make a compelling case for meaningful interactions over the trite. You make good points as to like vs benefit, the possible detriment of a battery of one-off interactions, the failures of humans to recognise their own state/risk. I feel we could go listing more things around social media and this post could go on forever. But I won't, because of the below. Every person is acting in their own perceived self interest. Including me. So for myself, because of many of the reasons you state, I largely gave up on FB. I think I am better off for it due to more meaningful real world interactions. But then with a social group in the real world space do I need to continue adding friends all the time via HN? Not really. Cue Seinfeld "I'm sure you're a very nice person you seem to have a lot of potential, but we're just not hiring right now." Maybe I am doing myself a disservice by not "socially climbing" but honestly at some point, I can only do so much. I love the people I do, and I am content with that. But - like the world in general - HN as a site has some amazing people. And what I glean from this site through "literature like" reading I feel benefits me. And then, like you, I comment occasionally - in the vein of HN trying to make it a positive contribution - so as to try to return to someone else a similar benefit as I feel I have received. I try not to be trite. I try not to worry as to whether a comment is well received as long as I have tried to make a decent contribution. I don't always succeed of course, and maybe that's where the detriment sets in. But - despite the evidence that social media is only good for pursuing deeper and more meaningful relationships - I don't feel I need to be a particular friend of yours to try add a thoughtful reply. It doesn't mean I love you any less however. Hell, maybe a meaningful relationship will develop of it's own natural accord as we both live on. But it's not my aim. Have a great day, whether you celebrate Xmas or not.
zeeed 5y ago
Where can I see that data?
- thelettere 5y ago
  Google scholar is the easiest source, but I can help by sharing a few (there is no single paper I know of that sums everything up). It's a difficult topic because so few solid studies have been done - but everything we know suggests that its effects are - on average - weak. In other words, online time appears to neither add to nor detract from the lives of most people (at least directly). It's just time filled up with vanilla. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21002293 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X2... And: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-... https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr407158 https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr407158 But there are a minority of folks on either end of the spectrum. On the negative side, specific types of personalities, attachment styles, and so on can suffer significantly on the internet and especially on social media. The media loves these studies, there’s a ton and they are easily found so I’ll just refer you to scholar. Then there are groups of people that gain from the internet. The few studies that have bothered to investigate how people use their time online and in social media in detail have found that talking to internet randos in one-off fashion does not help, but that - and I’ll quote here: “When people use social media in a truly social manner (i.e., actively interacting with meaningful social relations in a way akin to in-person social interactions) it was positively associated with psychological well-being. We propose this is because truly social usage promotes meaningful social relations, which result in positive psychological consequences such as reinforcing one’s identity, feeling valued, and mitigating stressful situations. Yet, when people use social media in other ways (e.g., passively engaging with weakly connected others, celebrities, brands, companies, or strangers typically for entertainment purposes) it does not influence psychological well-being. Therefore, how and how much people use social media has implications for their psychological health.” (in https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MSI_Report_21-120-1.pdf https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MSI_Report_21...) Of course this is but one study, and an as-yet unpublished one (though it appears well-designed). A meta-analysis from 2017 using this as a frame though backs this up here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721417730833 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09637214177308... - and a more recent though poorly written one generally mirrors it: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678766/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6787.... Another recent study - this time on the 60+ crowd - found “answering questions online were positively related to depressive symptoms” and looking at photos of non-family members on social media was associated with anxiety (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14614448211054377 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/146144482110543...) Then there’s the work of Alexander J. A. M. van Deursen, in which he focuses on who exactly gains from their time on the internet and how - and how this in turn perpetuates inequality. You can find his work here: https://research.utwente.nl/en/persons/alexander-jam-van-deursen/publications/ https://research.utwente.nl/en/persons/alexander-jam-van-deu... But the foundation of the argument for me lies more in the research on what contributes to happiness and well-being, and which of those variables can be realistically gained from time on the internet and social media. What in the long term will make a difference in a person’s life? And invariably the most impactful outcome is the formation of an offline friendships and so-called "social capital". Which appears to generally be a rare thing - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691180802635430 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118080263543... - though it does happen, and it seems self-disclosure is a key to that (among other things) - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444819858749 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/146144481985874.... There’s more research that can be brought to bear on this, but that at least may provide a start for your own inquiry.

_carbyau_ 5y ago

Ok. But social media use itself has to be placed in context of the larger attention economy. For example, is it worse than watching TV/cable/netflix/gaming/multiplayer gaming/crafting hobbies/reading books etc etc? To answer my own question, I think Social Media is worse than the other options mentioned above and so I have long drifted off FB. And most of my friends on FB are continuing longstanding relationships. But I don't know the studies on that and I am willing to accept that different people do things differently. For example, on this site, I like the intelligent responses, thought provoking discussions, sometimes amazing recommendations on any number of topics. But I don't feel I need to be friends with any particular individual to benefit from that nor contribute to it.

thelettere 5y ago
The difference between liking/enjoying and gaining benefit I think is crucial here. It's akin to the difference between pleasure and happiness. No doubt the vast majority of people (if not everyone) on social media gains some pleasure from it. But as far as increasing happiness, aiding in quality of life and well-being and similar measures, it - in general - does not move the needle and not infrequently pulls in the opposite direction (in the absence of personal bonds). The other important difference is between using social media sites as "literature" (i.e. not interacting with it but just consuming its thought-provoking and useful content, as you mention) and as a conversational medium. The former - in the absence of obviously harmful content like people showing off and then comparing oneself to them, or outrage porn, ect - is as far as I'm aware harmless and has a similar profile to reading in general. But the constant one-off interactions, like this? It hits different. We know that consistent interaction with the same person - even if it is light meaningless interaction - has benefit. One study that comes to mind is of the daily interaction between customer and cashier every morning at the coffee shop. Believe it or not that has a statistically significant (though by no means large) positive effect on a person's mental state. Deep personal one-off conversation in person also have a significant benefit, at least in the short term. But this - whatever this is - generally doesn't. Of course everyone is different, and obviously not everyone uses it exactly the same way, so there are outliers. But also human beings are talented at lying to themselves about the effects of things on them, often in the direction of exaggerating or inventing a benefit (and also failing at the afore-mentioned differentiation between pleasure and happiness). That's one of the big problems that researchers in outcomes studies on any number of things have to deal with. Objective observer and close other ratings of a person's happiness after say therapy or anti-depressants are often wildly less rosy than the person's self-report. We humans are often not good at being honest with ourselves. But you are right about the "attention economy" context. We - near worldwide it seems - have little perfected the art of leisure. Our institutions have failed us, and we in turn have created little to take the place of the old ways. Our choices are too often between similarly poor options. That's probably why work and over-work have remained as popular as it has - what lies outside of it is too often stupefying. Which is one reason why I'm here now, talking with you, embracing (or stomaching) this momentary pleasure in what is perhaps a trade-off with a bit of my happiness.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  I largely agree with you. You make a compelling case for meaningful interactions over the trite. You make good points as to like vs benefit, the possible detriment of a battery of one-off interactions, the failures of humans to recognise their own state/risk. I feel we could go listing more things around social media and this post could go on forever. But I won't, because of the below. Every person is acting in their own perceived self interest. Including me. So for myself, because of many of the reasons you state, I largely gave up on FB. I think I am better off for it due to more meaningful real world interactions. But then with a social group in the real world space do I need to continue adding friends all the time via HN? Not really. Cue Seinfeld "I'm sure you're a very nice person you seem to have a lot of potential, but we're just not hiring right now." Maybe I am doing myself a disservice by not "socially climbing" but honestly at some point, I can only do so much. I love the people I do, and I am content with that. But - like the world in general - HN as a site has some amazing people. And what I glean from this site through "literature like" reading I feel benefits me. And then, like you, I comment occasionally - in the vein of HN trying to make it a positive contribution - so as to try to return to someone else a similar benefit as I feel I have received. I try not to be trite. I try not to worry as to whether a comment is well received as long as I have tried to make a decent contribution. I don't always succeed of course, and maybe that's where the detriment sets in. But - despite the evidence that social media is only good for pursuing deeper and more meaningful relationships - I don't feel I need to be a particular friend of yours to try add a thoughtful reply. It doesn't mean I love you any less however. Hell, maybe a meaningful relationship will develop of it's own natural accord as we both live on. But it's not my aim. Have a great day, whether you celebrate Xmas or not.

zeeed 5y ago

Where can I see that data?

thelettere 5y ago
Google scholar is the easiest source, but I can help by sharing a few (there is no single paper I know of that sums everything up). It's a difficult topic because so few solid studies have been done - but everything we know suggests that its effects are - on average - weak. In other words, online time appears to neither add to nor detract from the lives of most people (at least directly). It's just time filled up with vanilla. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21002293 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X2... And: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-... https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr407158 https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr407158 But there are a minority of folks on either end of the spectrum. On the negative side, specific types of personalities, attachment styles, and so on can suffer significantly on the internet and especially on social media. The media loves these studies, there’s a ton and they are easily found so I’ll just refer you to scholar. Then there are groups of people that gain from the internet. The few studies that have bothered to investigate how people use their time online and in social media in detail have found that talking to internet randos in one-off fashion does not help, but that - and I’ll quote here: “When people use social media in a truly social manner (i.e., actively interacting with meaningful social relations in a way akin to in-person social interactions) it was positively associated with psychological well-being. We propose this is because truly social usage promotes meaningful social relations, which result in positive psychological consequences such as reinforcing one’s identity, feeling valued, and mitigating stressful situations. Yet, when people use social media in other ways (e.g., passively engaging with weakly connected others, celebrities, brands, companies, or strangers typically for entertainment purposes) it does not influence psychological well-being. Therefore, how and how much people use social media has implications for their psychological health.” (in https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MSI_Report_21-120-1.pdf https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MSI_Report_21...) Of course this is but one study, and an as-yet unpublished one (though it appears well-designed). A meta-analysis from 2017 using this as a frame though backs this up here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721417730833 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09637214177308... - and a more recent though poorly written one generally mirrors it: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678766/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6787.... Another recent study - this time on the 60+ crowd - found “answering questions online were positively related to depressive symptoms” and looking at photos of non-family members on social media was associated with anxiety (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14614448211054377 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/146144482110543...) Then there’s the work of Alexander J. A. M. van Deursen, in which he focuses on who exactly gains from their time on the internet and how - and how this in turn perpetuates inequality. You can find his work here: https://research.utwente.nl/en/persons/alexander-jam-van-deursen/publications/ https://research.utwente.nl/en/persons/alexander-jam-van-deu... But the foundation of the argument for me lies more in the research on what contributes to happiness and well-being, and which of those variables can be realistically gained from time on the internet and social media. What in the long term will make a difference in a person’s life? And invariably the most impactful outcome is the formation of an offline friendships and so-called "social capital". Which appears to generally be a rare thing - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691180802635430 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118080263543... - though it does happen, and it seems self-disclosure is a key to that (among other things) - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444819858749 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/146144481985874.... There’s more research that can be brought to bear on this, but that at least may provide a start for your own inquiry.