Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

How To Take Back Your Life from Disruptive Technology

September 27, 2017

There have been twelve posts on “The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High Tech World” that documented the adverse affects of technology. There was an additional post demonstrating that just the presence of a Smartphone can be disruptive. The immediately preceding post documented the costs of social media per se. First of all they have disruptive effects on lives and minds. And these disruptive effects degrade your mind, which the blog posts documented affect many aspects of your life, including education. Hence the title of this blog post.

Unfortunately, social media make social demands. So removing yourself from social media is something that needs to be explained to your friends, whom you should let know you’ll still be willing to communicate via email. Review with them the reason for your decision. Cite the relevant research presented in this blog and elsewhere. Point out that Facebook not only has an adverse impact on cognition, it was also a tool used by Russia to influence our elections. Facebook accepted rubles to influence the US Presidential election. The magnitude of this intervention has yet to be determined. For patriotic reasons alone, Facebook should be ditched. You are also taking these steps to reclaim control of your attentional resources and to build a healthy memory.

Carefully consider what steps you need to take. Heavy users become nervous when they are not answering alerts. One can gradually increase the increments in answering alerts. However, going cold turkey and simply turning off alerts might be more painful initially, but it would free you from the compulsion to answer alerts earlier should you of cold turkey. It would also make your behavior clearer to your friends earlier rather than later. Similarly you can only answer text messages and phone calls at designated. Voice mail assures you won’t miss anything.

If asked by a prospective employer or university as to why you are not on Facebook, explain that you want to make the most of your cognitive potential and that Facebook detracts from this objective. Cite the research. You can develop a web presence by having your own website that you would control. Here you could attach supporting materials as you deem fit.

Doing this should make you stand out over any other candidates who might be competing with you (unless they were also following the advice of this blog). If your reviewer is not impressed, you should conclude that he is not worthy of you and that affiliating with them would be a big mistake. Hold to this conclusion regardless of the reputation of the school or employer.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements

The Happiness Effect

September 26, 2017

The subtitle to “The Happiness Effect” is “How Social Media is Driving a Generation to Appear Perfect at Any Cost,” a book by Donna Freitas. The book reports extensive research using surveys and interviews on the use of social media by college students. The subtitle could be expanded to “How Social Media is Driving a Generation to Appear Perfect at Any Cost Resulting In Unhappiness and Anxiety.’ The book focuses on the emotional and social costs and ends with suggestions regarding how to ameliorate the damage.

Although this is an excellent book, HM had difficulty finishing reading it. He kept thinking how stupid, moronic, and damaging social media are. How could new technology be adopted and put to such a counterproductive use? The reason that HM’s reaction is much more severe than that of Donna Freitas is that he is also considering social media in terms of how they exacerbate the problem of the Distracted Mind, which has been the topic of the fifteen healthy memory blog post immediately preceding this current one. So these activities that produce unhappiness and anxiety also assault the mind with more distractions.

They do so in two ways. First of all they subtract time from effective thinking. Social media also foster interruptions that further disrupt effective thinking. So consider the possibility that social media foster unhappy airheads.

Facebook pages are cultivated to impress future employers. Organizations and activities cultivate Facebook pages to provide good public relations for their organizations and activities. But remember the healthy memory blog post, “The Truth About Your Facebook Friends” based on Seth Stephens-Davidowitz’s groundbreaking book, “Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Reveals About Who We Really Are.” You should realize that anyone who believes what they read on Facebook is a fool.

The following post will suggest some activities for you to consider should you be convinced of what you have read in the healthy memory blog and related sources on this topic. These suggestions go beyond what was presented in the blog post “Modifying Behavior.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Workplace

September 19, 2017

This is the tenth post based on “The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High Tech World” by Drs. Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen.

A study of more than 200 employees at a variety of companies studied the facts that predicted employee stress levels. Although having too much work to do was the best prediction, it was only slightly stronger in predicting exhaustion, anxiety, and physical complaints than outside interruptions, many of which were electronic in nature. Gloria Mark summarized one study that “working faster with interruptions has its cost: people in the interrupted conditions experienced a higher workload, more stress, more time pressure and effort. So interrupted work may be done faster, but at a price. Clive Thompson, in a New York Times interview, summed up research results on workplace interruptions by asserting that “we humans are Pavlovian; even thought we know we’re just pumping ourselves full of stress, we can’t help frantically checking our email the instant the bell goes ding.”

Open offices settings further exacerbate this problem. Approximately 70% of US offices—including Google, Yahoo, Goldman Sachs, and Facebook, have either no partitions or low ones that do not make for quiet workplaces. Research has shown that open offices promote excessive distractions. HM personally testifies regarding the disruptive effects of these distractions. A content analysis of 27 open-office studies identified auditory distractions, job dissatisfaction, illness, and stress as major ramifications of this type of workplace.

The bottom line is that being constantly interrupted and having to spend extra time to remember what we were doing has a negative impact on workplace productivity and quality of life. One 2005 study, before the major increase in smartphone usage, estimated that when office workers are interrupted as often as eleven times an hour it costs the United States $558 billion per year.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

The Impact of Constantly Shifting Our Attention on Higher Education

September 17, 2017

This is the eighth post based on “The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High Tech World” by Drs. Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen. In one study by Dr. Rosen’s research team observed hundreds of middle school, high school, and university students studying something important for fifteen minutes in the environment where they normally study. Minute by minute observations showed that the typical student couldn’t stay focused on work for more than three to five minutes. Students were asked to provide their grade point average (GPA) on a four point scale. The predictors of a lower GPA from these extensive data were: percentage of time on task studying strategies, total media time doing a typical day, and preferences for task-switching rather than working on a task until it was completed. Moreover, by examining the websites that students visited during their fifteen minute sample, they uncovered a fifth predictor of a lower GPA. Only one website visited predicted a lower GPA: Facebook. It did not matter whether students visited it one or fifteen times. Once was enough to predict lower grade performance.

In another experiment by Laura Bowman and her colleagues at Connecticut State University, students were randomly assigned to three groups to read a book chapter and then take a test. One group simply read the chapter and took the test. The second group first completed an instant messaging conversation with the experimenter and then read the chapter and took the test. The third group started to read the chapter, were interrupted with the same instant messaging conversation, which was delivered in pieces at various times during reading, and then took the test. All three groups performed equally well on the test. But the third group took substantially longer even when the time spent instant messaging was removed. This result leads to two conclusions. One is that interrupted studying takes significantly more time. And the second conclusion answers why it takes more time. Each time one switches back to the primary task, time is lost switching and reorienting to where in the task one was when interrupted. In addition, working memory may also be compromised, as distractions degrade the fidelity of the information they are trying to maintain during the learning process.

Another study validating the negative impact of classroom multitasking interrupted students during a short video lecture and required them either to text the experimenter or post material on social media, under two conditions: one new text or post every minute, or one new text every thirty seconds. The control group simply watched the video, which was followed by a test. The results found that more texting or social media posting resulted in poorer lecture notes and lower test scores than the control group. A negative linear trend emerged in both lecture notes and test scores, where the highest scores and best notes demonstrated by those students who did not receive any interruptions, followed by lesser scores and notes of students who were interrupted every minute, and, not surprisingly the worst scores and notes of students who were interrupted every thirty seconds.

Several research studies have shown even more far-reaching effects of technology use by college students. One study showed that those students who used cell phones and texted more often during class showed more anxiety, had lower GPAs, and were less satisfied with life than students who used phones and texted less frequently. A different study of more than 770 college students discovered that students who used more interfering technology in the classroom also tended to engage in more high-risk behaviors, including using alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and other drugs, drunk driving, fighting, and having multiple sex partners. So it appears that college students who use inessential technology during either class sessions or while studying face difficulties on both an academic and personal level.

The Psychology of Technology

September 16, 2017

At the centerpiece of technology is the internet. This is the seventh post based on “The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High Tech World” by Drs. Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen. There is a distinction made in human memory between information that is accessible in memory and information that is available in memory, but not at the moment accessible. A similar distinction can be made for information in transactive memory. Information that can be readily accessed, say via Google for instance, is accessible in transactive memory. However, information that requires more than one step to access is in available transactive memory. Obviously, the amount of information available in transactive memory is enormous, so only information that can be quickly accessed is in accessible transactive memory. So a hierarchy of information knowledge is
accessible personal memory
available personal memory (information that is personal memory but is currently inaccessible)
accessible transactive memory (information readily accessible from technology or a fellow human)
available transactive memory (information that can be found with sufficient searches)

This hierarchy can be regarded as an indication of the depth of knowledge.

Someone who can communicate extemporaneously and accurately on a topic has an impressive degree of knowledge.

Someone who refers to notes is dependent on those notes.

Whenever we encounter new relevant information we are confronted with the problem as whether commit that information to memory, or to bookmark it so it can be accessed when needed. Too much reliance on bookmarks can lead to superficial knowledge and unimpressive presentations.

Dr. Betsy Sparrow and her colleagues at Columbia University studied the ability to remember facts and unsurprisingly discovered that we were much better at knowing where to find the answers to our questions than we were at remembering the answers themselves. She dubbed this the “Google Effect.”

Social media began with email, but this is fundamentally one to one communication. Facebook is the medium for widespread communication. Moreover, there is the business of friending and liking. This tends to be taken to extremes. One cannot have hundreds of meaningful friends, and the continuous seeking of approval through likes can become problematic.

Smartphones are smart because the computer is in the phone making it smart. More than seven in ten Americans own one, more than 860 million Europeans own one, and more than half all cell phone owners in Asia have at least one smartphone if not more. More photographs are taken with smartphones than with digital cameras, and more online shopping is done via smartphones than through standard computers. Smartphone users pick up their phone an average of 27 times a day, ranging from 14 to 150 times per day depending on the study, the population, and the number of years that someone has owned he smartphone—and the number of years that someone has owned the smartphone—those who have owned a smartphone longer check it far more often than those who have recently obtained a phone. Frequently, there is no good reason for them to do so; 42% check their phone when they have time to kill (which rises to 55% of young adults). Only 23% claim to do so when there is something specific for them to do. Feelings of loneliness appear to underlie at least some of this apparently non-needed use of technology (see the healthy memory blog post “Loneliness”).

Multitasking, task switching, and continuous partial attention are serious problems. Remember that we cannot multitask. What is apparently multi-tasking is the rapid switching between or among tasks, and there are attentional costs in doing this switching. Multitasking occurs in every sphere of our world, including home, school, workplace, and our leisure life. Moreover, this is not just limited to the younger generation. One study followed a group of young adults and a group of older adults with wore biometric belts with embedded eyeglass cameras for more than 300 hours of leisure time. Younger adults switched from task to task twenty-severn times an hour, about once every two minutes. Older adults switched tasks seventeen times per hour, or once every three to four minutes. Former Microsoft executive Linda Stone termed this constant multitasking, “continuous partial attention.” This could also be termed half-keistered information processing. Attention is not being distributed optimally.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Truth About Your Facebook Friends

August 29, 2017

This post is based largely on the groundbreaking book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz “Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Reveals About Who we Really Are.” Social media are another source of big data. Seth writes, “The fact is, many Big Data sources, such as Facebook, are often the opposite of digital truth serum.

Just as with surveys, in social media there is no incentive to tell the truth. Much more so than in surveys, there is a large incentive to make yourself look good. After all, your online presence is not anonymous. You are courting an audience and telling your friends, family members, colleagues, acquaintances, and strangers who you are.

To see how biased data pulled from social media can be, consider the relative popularity of the “Atlantic,” a highbrow monthly magazine, versus the “National Enquirer,” a gossipy often-sensational magazine. Both publications have similar average circulations, selling a few hundred thousand copies (The “National Enquirer” is a weekly, so it actually sells more total copies.) There are also a comparable number of Google searches for each magazine.

However, on Facebook, roughly 1.5 million people either like the “Atlantic” or discuss articles from the “Atlantic” on their profiles. Only about 50,000 like the Enquirer or discuss its contents.

Here’s an “Atlantic” versus “National Enquirer” popularity compared by different sources:
Circulation Roughly 1 “Atlantic” for every 1 “National Enquirer”
Google searches 1 “Atlantic” for every 1 “National Enquirer”
Facebook Likes 27 “Atlantic” of every 1 “National Enquirer”

For assessing magazine popularity, circulation data is ground truth. And Facebook data is overwhelmingly biased against the trashy tabloid, making it the worst data for determine what people really like.

Here are some excerpts from the book:
“Facebook is digital brag-to-my friends-about-how-good-my life-is-serum. In Facebook world, the average adult seems to be happily married, vacationing in the Caribbean, and perusing the “Atlantic.” In the real world, a lot of the people are angry, on supermarket checkout lines, peeking at the “National Enquirer”, ignoring phone calls from their spouse, whom them haven’t slept with in years. In Facebook world, family life seems perfect. In the real world, family life is messy. I can be so messy that a small number of people even regret having children. In Facebook world, it seems every young adult is at a cool party Saturday night. In the real world, most are at home alone, binge-watching shows on Netflix. In Facebook world, a girlfriends posts twenty-six happy pictures from her getaway with her boyfriend. In the real world, immediately after posting this, she Googles “my boyfriend won’t have sex with me.”

 

In summary:
DIGITAL TRUTH                          DIGITAL LIES
Searches                                        Social media posts
Views                                             Social media likes
Clicks                                             Dating profiles
Swipes

(Dis)connected

July 20, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Kirsten Weir in the March 2017 issue of “Monitor on Psychology.” This article reviews research showing how smartphones are affecting our health and well-being, and points the way toward taking back control.

Some of the most established evidence concerns sleep. Dr. Klein Murdock, a psychology professor who heads the Technology and Health Lab at Washington and Lee University followed 83 college students and found that those who were more-attuned to their nighttime phone notifications had poorer subjective sleep quality and greater self-reported sleep problems. Although smartphones are often viewed as productivity-boosting devices, their ability to interfere with sleep can have the opposite effect on getting things done.

Dr. Russell E. Johnson and his colleagues at Michigan State University surveyed workers from a variety of professions. They found that when people used smartphones at night for work-related purposes, they reported that they slept more poorly and were less engaged at work the next day. These negative effects were greater for smartphone users than for people who used laptops or tablets right before bed.

Reading a text or email at bedtime can stir your emotions or set your mind buzzing with things you need to get done. So your mind becomes activated at a time when it’s important to settle down and have some peace.

College students at the University of Rhode Island were asked to keep sleep diaries for a week. They found that 40% of the students reported waking at night to answer phone calls and 47% woke to answer text messages. Students who were more likely to use technology after they’d gone to sleep reported poorer sleep quality, which predicted symptoms of anxiety and depression.

FOMO is an acronym for Fear Of Missing Out. In one study, Dr Larry Rosen a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University and his colleagues took phones away from college students for an hour and tested their anxiety levels at various intervals. Light users of smartphones didn’t show any increasing anxiety as they sat idly without their phones. Moderate users began showing signs of increased anxiety after 25 minutes without their phones, but their anxiety held steady at that moderately increased level for the rest of the hour long study. Heavy phone users showed increased anxiety after just 10 phone-free minutes, and their anxiety levels continued to climb throughout the hour.

Rosen has found that younger generations are particularly prone to feel anxious if they can’t check their text messages, social media, and other mobile technology regularly. But people of all ages appear to have a close relationship with their phones. 76% of baby boomers reported checking voicemail moderately or very often, and 73% reported checking text messages moderately or very often. Anxiety about not checking in with text messages and Facebook predicted symptoms of major depression, dysthymia, and bipolar mania.

When research participants were limited to checking email messages just three times a day, they reported less daily stress. This reduced stress was associated with positive outcomes including greater mindfulness, greater self-perceived productivity and better sleep quality.

In another study participants were asked to keep all their smartphone notifications on during one week. In the other week, they were asked to turn notifications off and to keep their phones tucked out of sight. At the end of the study participants were given questionnaires. During the week of notifications participants reported greater levels of inattention and hyperactivity compared with their alert-free week. These feelings of inattention and hyperactivity were directly associated with lower levels of productivity, social connectedness, and psychological well being. Having your attention scattered by frequent interruptions has its costs.

The article also stresses the importance of personal interactions, which are inherently richer. The key to having healthy relationships with technology is moderation. We want to get the best from technology, but at the same time to make sure that it’s not controlling us.

 

Media Multi-tasking

February 4, 2017

Media multitasking is another important topic addressed by Julia Shaw in “THE MEMORY ILLUSION.”  She begins this section as follows:  “Let me tell you a secret.  You can’t multitask.”  This is the way neuroscientist Earl Miller from MIT puts it, “people can’t multitask very well, and when people say they can, they’re deluding themselves…The brain is very good at deluding itself.”  Miller continues, “When people think they’re multitasking, they’re actually just switching from one task to another very rapidly.  And every time they do, there’s a cognitive cost.”

A review done in 2014 by Derk Crews and Molly Russ on the impact of task-switching has on efficiency concluded that it is bad for our productivity, critical thinking and ability to concentrate, in addition to making us more error-prone.  Moreover, they concluded that these consequences are  not limited to diminishing our ability to do the task at hand.  They also have an impact on our ability to remember things later.  Task switching also increases stress, diminishing people’s ability to manage a work-life balance, and can have negative social consequences.

Reysol Junco and Shelia Cotton further examined the impact of task-switching on our ability to learn and remember things. Their research was reported in an article entitled ‘No A 4 U’.  They asked 1,834 students about their use of technology and found that most of them spent a significant amount of time using information and communication technologies on a daily basis.  They found that 51% of respondents reported texting, 33% reported using Facebook, and 21% reported emailing while doing schoolwork somewhat or very frequently.  The respondents reported that while studying outside of class, they spent an average 60 minutes per day on Facebook, 43 minutes per day browsing the internet, and 22 minutes per day on their email.  This is over two hours attempting to multitask while studying per day.  The study also found that such multitasking, particularly the use of Facebook and instant messaging, was significantly negatively correlated with academic performance; the more time students reported spending using these technologies while studying, the worse their grades were.

David Strayer and his research team at the University of Utah published a study comparing drunk drivers to drivers who were talking on their cell phones.  It is assumed here that most conscious attention is being directed at the conversation and the driving has been relegated to automatic monitoring.  The results were that “When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or a hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone.’  HM believes that this research was conducted in driving simulators and did not engender any carnage on the road.  Strayer also concluded that driving while chatting on the phone can actually be as bad as drunk driving, with both noticeably increasing the risk for car accidents.

Unfortunately, legislators have not understood this research.  Laws allow hand-free use of cell phones, but it is not the hands that are at issue here.  It is the attention available for driving.  Cell phone use regardless of whether hands are involved detracts from the attention needed during driving when emergencies or unexpected happenings occur.

Communications researchers Aimee Miller-Ott and  Lynne Kelly studied how constant use of our phones while also engaged in other activities can impede our happiness.  Their position is that we have expectations of how certain social interactions are supposed to look, and if these expectation are violated we have a negative response.
They asked 51 respondents to explain what they expect when ‘hanging out’ with friends and loved ones, and when going on dates.  They found that just the mere presence of a visible cell phone decreased the satisfaction of time spent together, regardless of whether the person was constantly using it.  The reasons offered by the respondents for disliking the other person being on their cell phone included the involution of the expectation of undivided attention during dates and other intimated moments.  When hanging out, this expectation was lessened, so the presence of a cell phone was not perceived to be as negative, but was still often considered to diminish the in-person interaction.  Their research corresponded to their review of the academic literature, where there is strong evidence showing that romantic partners are often annoyed  and upset when their partner uses a cell phone during the time spent together

Marketing professor James Roberts has coined the term ‘phub’— an elision of ‘phone’ and ‘snub’ to describe the action of a person choosing to engage with their  phone instead of engaging with another person.  For example, you might angrily say, “Stop phubbing me!”  Roberts says that phone attachment  leading to this kin of use behavior has ben lined with higher stress, anxiety, and depression.

Designed to Addict

September 8, 2016

Designed to Addict is the title of the second chapter in “The Cyber Effect” by Dr. Mary Aiken.  Although the internet was not designed to addict users, it appears that it is addicting many.  Of course, humans are not passive victims, they are allowing themselves to be addicted.  Dr. Aiken begins with the story of a twenty-two year old mother Alexandra Tobias.  She called 911 to report that her three-month old son had stopped breathing and needed to be resuscitated.  She fabricated a story to make it sound as if an accident had happened, but later confessed that she was playing “Farmville” on her computer and had lost her temper when her baby’s crying distracted her from the Facebook game.  She picked up the baby and shook him violently and his head hit the computer.  He was pronounced dead at the hospital dead from head injuries and a broken leg.

At the time of the incident “Farmville” had 60 million active users and was described by its users in glowing terms as being highly addictive.  It was indeed addictive so that “Farmville” Addicts Anonymous support groups were formed and a FAA page was created on Facebook.    Dr. Aiken found this case interesting as a forensic cyberpsychologist for the following reason:  the role of technology in the escalation of an explosive act of violence.  She described it as extreme impulsivity, an unplanned spontaneous act.

Impulsivity is defined as “a personality trait characterized by the urge to act spontaneously without reflecting on an action and its consequences.”  Dr. Aiken notes “that the trait of impulsiveness influences several important psychological processes and behaviors, including self-regulation, risk-taking and decision making.  It has been found to be a significant component of several clinical conditions, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, borderline personality disorder, and the manic phase of bipolar disorder, as well as alcohol and drug abuse and pathological gambling.”  Dr. Aiken takes care to make the distinction between impulsive and compulsive.  Impulsive behavior is a rash, unplanned act, whereas compulsive behavior is planned repetitive behavior, like obsessive hand washing.  She elaborates in cyber terms.  “When you constantly pick up your mobile phone to check your Twitter feed, that’s compulsive.  Then  you read a nasty tweet and can’t restrain yourself from responding with an equally  nasty retort (or an even nastier one), that’s impulsive.”

Joining an online community or playing in a multiplier online game can give you a sense of belonging.  Getting “likes” meets a need for esteem.  According to psychiatrist Dr. Eva Ritvo in her article “Facebook and Your Brain” social networking “stimulates release of loads of dopamine as well as offering an effective cure to loneliness.  These “feel good” chemicals are also triggered by novelty.  Posting information about yourself can also deliver pleasure.  “About 40 percent of daily speech is normally taken up with self-disclosure—telling others how we feel or what we think about something—but when we go online the amount of self-disclosure doubles.   According to Harvard neuroscientist Diana Tamir, this produces a brain respond similar to the release of dopamine.”

Jack Panksepp is a Washington State University Neuroscientist who coined the term affective neuroscience, or the biology of arousing feelings or emotions.  He argues that a number of instincts such as seeking, play, anger, lust, panic, grief, and fear are embedded in ancient regions of the human brain built into the nervous system as a fundamental level.  Panskepp explains addiction as an excessive form of seeking.  “Whether the addict is seeking a hit from cocaine, alcohol, or a Google search, dopamine is firing, keeping the human being in a constant state of alert expectation.”

Addiction can be worsened by the stimuli on digital devices that come with each new email or text to Facebook “like,” so keep them turned off unless there is a good justification for keeping them on, and then only for a designated amount of time.

There is technology to help control addictive behavior.  One of these is Breakfree, an app that monitors  the number of times you pick up your phone, check your email, and search the web.  It offers nonintrusive  notifications and provides you with an “addiction score” every day, eery week, and every month to track your progress.  There are many more such apps such as Checky and Calm, but ultimately it is you who needs to control your addictions.

Mindfulness is a prevalent theme in the healthy memory blog.  It is a Buddhist term “to describe the state of mind in which our attention is directed to the here and now, to what is happening in the moment before us, a way of being kind to ourselves and validating our own experience.”    As a way of staying mindful and keeping track of time online, Dr. Aiken has set her laptop computer to call out the time, every hour on the hour, so that even as she is working in cyberspace, where time flies, she is reminded very hour of the temporal real world.”

Internet addictive behavior expert Kimberly Young recommends three strategies:
1.  Check your checking.  Stop checking your device constantly.
2.  Set time limits.  Control your online behavior—and remember , kids will model
their behavior on adults.
3.  Disconnect to reconnect.  Turn off devices at mealtimes—and reconnect with                  the family.
Some people find what are called internet sabbaths helpful and disconnect for a day or a weekend.  Personally HM believes in having a daily disciplined schedule to prevent a beneficial activity from becoming a maladaptive behavior.

Much more is covered in the chapter, to include compulsive shopping, but the same rule applies.  To be aware of potential addiction monitor your behavior, and make the appropriate modifications.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Ann Applebaum’s Column on Facebook

December 14, 2015

The title of her column was Undoing Facebook’s damage.  Anyone who has read any of my sixteen previous posts about Facebook should be aware that I am not a fan.  However, I must applaud Mark Zukerberg and his wife on their pledge to give away $45 billion dollars.  Nevertheless, I also applaud Anne Applebaum for her column.  Here is her advice “…use it to undo the terrible damage done by Facebook and other forms of social media to democratic debate and civilized discussion all over the world.”  She goes on to say that weak democracies suffer the most.  Given the extensive damage done in the USA, that is an extraordinary amount of damage.  Just let me cite one example, the conversion of Moslems to radical jihadism.  This is a problem most acutely felt by Moslems, in general, and by the parents of those converted, in particular.

Of course, this was not Zukerberg’s intention. Rather it is an unintended and rather extreme consequence.   Applebaum goes on to write, “The longer-term impact of disinformation is profound:  Eventually it means that nobody believes anything.”

Readers of the healthy memory blog should be aware that it is extremely difficult to disabuse people of their false beliefs.  Moreover there are organizations who produce false information.   This has become an activity with its own name, agnogenesis.

So an activity is needed to counter agnognesis. Disagnogensis?  Please help, Mr. Zukerberg.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Organizing Our Social World

December 10, 2014

“Organizing Our Social World”is the title of another chapter in Daniel J. Levitin’s book The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, when I completed my Ph.D. in cognitive psychology one of the leading problems was information overload, and that was in the era before personal computers. Now we have the internet aided and abetted by mobile technology so technology is omnipresent. It is apparent from this chapter that longstanding problems in social psychology and human interaction have been exacerbated by technology. I find it amazing when I see a group of four people dining together each preoccupied with their smartphones. And when I attend professional meetings where the objective is for direct interactions between and among human beings most people appear to be interacting with their smartphones.

The intention for social media is that they are not a replacement for personal contact, but a supplement that provides an easy way to stay connected to people who are too distant or too busy. Levitin hints that there might be an illusion to this, writing “Social networking provides breadth but rarely depth, and in-person contact is what we crave, even if online contact seems to take away some of that craving. ..The cost of all our electronic connectedness appears to be that it limits our biological capacity to connect with other people.”

Lying and misrepresentations become a much larger problem in the online world. A hormone has been identified with trust. It has been called the love hormone in the popular press because it is especially pronounced in sexual interactions. In such mundane experiments as having research participants watching political speeches rate for whom they are likely to vote. The participants are under the influence of oxytocin for half the speeches. Of course they do not know when they are under the influence of the drug. They receive a placebo, inert drug, for the other half of the speeches. When asked for whom they would vote for or trust, the participants selected the candidates they viewed while oxytocin was in their systems. [to the best of my knowledge such techniques have yet to be used in an official election].

Interestingly, levels of oxytocin also increase during gaps in social support or poor social functioning. Recent theory holds tht oxytocin regulates the salience of social information and is capable of eliciting positive or negative social emotions, depending on the situation of the individual. In any case, these data support the importance of direct social contact by identifying biological components underlying this type of interaction.

I was surprised that little, if any, attention was spent on Facebook the premier social media. As I like to periodically rant regarding Facebook, and considerable time has passed since my last rate, I’ll try to fill in this lacuna. I detest Facebook, although I understand that many find I convenient for keeping in touch with many people with little effort. Apparently, businesses also find Facebook to be necessary and find it profitable. I use Facebook for a small number of contacts, but I am overwhelmed with notes of little interest. At the outset I did not want to refuse anyone friending me out of fear that this someone might be somebody I should but don’t remember. Similarly I find it uncomfortable unfriending people, although at times that seems to be a better course of action. Perhaps there is some way of setting controls so that the number of messages are few and few people are offended, but I have no way of knowing what they are.

I find Linkedin much more palatable and even useful. Still one must regard endorsements and statements of expertise with some caution. That is, they are useful provided one looks for corroborating information. I like email and email with Listservs. However, I’ve learned that younger folks have developed some complicated and, in my view, unnecessary protocols for using email, texting, and social media. I’ll quit before I start sounding like even more of a cranky old man.

Blogging Buddhists

October 2, 2013

Yes. Buddhists do use technology and they blog. This post is so titled because of the third principle of contemplative computing1, Be Mindful. We need to learn what being mindful feels like and to learn to see opportunities to exercise it while being online or using devices.

Buddhist monastics use the web to test their beliefs and objectives, that is their mindfulness, capacity for compassion, and right behavior. In the digital world it is easy to forget that we’re ultimately interacting with our fellow human beings rather than Web pages. Damchoe Wangmo recommends that you “investigate your motivation before each online action, to observe what is going on in your mind,” and stop if you’re driven by “afflictive emotions” like jealousy, anger, hatred, or fear.2 Choekyi Libby watches herself online to “make sure I’m doing what I’m doing motivated by beneficial intention.”3 Others argue that we need to bring empathy to technology, to have our interactions be informed by our own ethical guidelines and moral sensibility. If we can be a positive presence online, we can be an even better one in the real world. “Approaching your interactions with information technologies as opportunities to test and strengthen your ability to be mindful; treating failures to keep focused as normal, predictable events that you can learn from; observing what helps you to be mindful online and what doesn’t—in other words engaging in self-observation and self-experimentation—can improve your interactions with technologies and build your extended mind.4

The following Rules for Mindful Social Media are taken from Appendix Two of The Distraction Addiction:

Engage with care. Think of social media as an opportunity to practice what the Buddhists call right speech, not as an opportunity to get away with being a troll.

Be mindful about your intentions. Ask yourself why you’re going onto Facebook or Pinterest. Are you just bored? Angry? Is this a state of mind you want to share?

Remember the people on the other side of the screen. It’s easy to focus you attention on clicks and comments, but remember that you’re ultimately dealing with people, not media.

Quality, not quantity. Do you have something you really want to share, something that’s worth other people’s attention? Then go ahead and share. But remember the aphorism carved into the side of the Scottish Parliament: Say little but say it well.

Live first, tweet later. Make the following promise to yourself: I will never again write the words OMG, I’m doing doing x and tweeting at the same time LOL.

Be deliberate. Financial journalist and blogger Felix Salmon once lamented that most people believe that online content is not supposed to be read but reacted to. Just as you shouldn’t let machines determine where you place your attention, you shouldn’t let the words of others drive what you say in the public sphere. Being deliberate means that you won’t chatter mindlessly or feed trolls. You’ll say but little and say it well.

The remaining five principles of contemplative computing will be discussed in subsequent healthymemory blog posts. The first two principles were discussed in the immediately preceding posts.

1(2013) Pang, Alex Soojung-Kim. The Distraction Addiction

2Ibid. p. 219

3Ibid. p.219

4Ibid. Pp 221-222.

Are Facebook Users More Satisfied with Life?

September 15, 2013

This question has been answered in a study published in the Public Library of Science by Ethan Cross of the University of Michigan and Phillipe Verduyn of Leueven University in Belgium. They recruited 82 Facebook users in their late teens or early twenties. Their Facebook activity was monitored for two weeks and each participant had to report five times a day on their state of mind, and their direct social contacts (phone calls and meetings with other people).

The results showed that the more a participant used Facebook in the period between the two questionnaires, the worse she reported feeling the next time she filled in a questionnaire. The participants rated their satisfaction with life at the beginning and again at the end of the study. Participants who used Facebook frequently were more likely to report a decline in satisfaction than those who visited the site infrequently. However, there was a positive association between the amount of direct social contact a volunteer had and how positive she felt. So socialization in the real, as opposed to the virtual or cyber world, did increase positive feelings.

So why was socialization in the cyber world making people feel worse? This question was addressed in another study at Humboldt University and Darmstadt Technical, both of which are located in Germany. They surveyed 584 Facebook users in their twenties. They found that the most common emotion aroused in Facebook is envy. Comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified, if not lied about, their achievements resulted in envy in the readers.

The question remains whether the same results would be found in older Facebook users. In other words, does age make us wiser?1

1Get a Life! The Economist, April 17, 2013, p.68.

Dealing with Technology and Information Overload

July 28, 2013

Whenever I read or hear something about our being victims of technology, I become extremely upset. I’ve written blog posts on this topic (See “Commentary on Newsweek’s. Cover Story iCrazy,” and “Net Smart.”) We are not passive entities. We need to be in charge of our technology. There was a very good article on this topic in the August 2013 issue of Mindful magazine. It is titled “A User’s Guide to Screenworld,” and is written by Richard Fernandez of Google who sits down with Arturo Bejar, director of engineering at Facebook, and Irene Au, the vice president of product and design at Udacity. Here are five strategies for dealing with different components of this issue.

Information Overload. There is way too much information to deal with and we must shield ourselves from being overwhelmed. We must realize that our time is both limited and costly. So we need to be selective and choose our sources wisely. When we feel our minds tiring we should rest or move on.

Constant Distraction. Multi-tasking costs. There is a cost in performing more than one task at a time. So try to complete one task or a meaningful segment of a task before moving on to another task. Let phone calls go to voice mail. Respond to email at designated times rather than jumping to each email as it arrives.

Friends, Partners, Stuck on Their Devices. Personally I cannot stand call waiting. I don’t have it on my phone, and if someone goes to their call waiting while talking with me, they will likely find that I am not on the phone should they return. Technology is no excuse for being discourteous. Moreover, technology provides us a means for being courteous, voice mail. So unless there is an emergency lurking, there is no reason for taking the call. Clearly, when there are job demands or something really important, there are exceptions, but every effort should be extended to be courteous. When there are other people present, give them your attention, not your devices. And call it to their attention when you feel you are being ignored.

Social Media Anxiety. Try to keep your involvement with social media to a minimum. The friending business on Facebook can be quite annoying. Moreover, for the most part these friends are superficial. Remember Dunbar’s Number (See the healthymemory blog posts, ‘How Many Friends are Too Many?” “Why is Facebook So Popular?” and “Why Are Our Brains So Large?). Dunbar’s number is the maximum number of people we can keep track of at one time is 150, but the number of people that we speak with frequently is closer to 5. I would be willing to up the number of close friends a bit, but it is still small. And he says that there are about 100 people we speak to about once a year.

Children Spending Too Much Time Staring at Screens. The advice here is to express an interest in your children’s digital life. Try to share it with them and try to develop an understanding of how to deal with technology and information overload.

Let me end with a quote by Arene Au from the article, which is definitely worth quoting: “We need to get up from our desks and move. There is a strong correlation between cognition and movement. We’re more creative when we move.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Can Social Networking Make It Easier to Solve Real-World Problems?

September 23, 2012

An article in The Economist1 raised this question. According to an article in 2011, Facebook analysed 72 million users of its social networking site and found that an average of 4.7 hops could link any two of them via mutual friends. This is even less that the Six Degrees of Separation popularized by John Guare in his play by the same name.

In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) staged the Red Balloon Challenge in 2009. It was trying to determine how quickly and efficiently information could be gathered using social media. Competitors were to race to find ten red weather balloons that had been tethered at random locations throughout the United States for a $40,000 prize. MIT had the winning team that found all ten balloons in nine hours using the following incentive-based system to encourage participation. The first person to send the correct coordinates of a balloon received $2,000. Whoever recruited that person received $1,000, and the recruiters recruiter received $500, and so forth and so forth.

DARPA staged a new challenge this year, the Tag Challenge. This time the goal was to locate and photograph five people each wearing unique T-shirts in five named cities across two continents. All five had to be identified within 12 hours from nothing more than a mugshot. The prize fund was $5,000. This time none of the teams managed to find all five targets. However, one team with members from MIT,the universities of Edinburgh and Southampton, and the University of California at San Diego did manage to fine three, one in each of the following cities, New York, Washington DC, and Bratislava. This team had a website and a mobile app to make it easier to report findings and to recruit people. Each finder was offered $500 and whoever recruited the finder $100. So anyone who did not know anyone in one of the target cities had no incentive to recruit someone who did. The team promoted itself on Facebook and Twitter. Nevertheless, most participants just used conventional email. It was conjectured that in the future smart phones might have an app that can query people all over the world, who can then steer the query towards people with the right information.

To return to the title of this post, Can Social Networking Make It Easier to Solve Real-World Problems, I would conclude, if the social problem involves finding someone or something, the answer would be yes. But I think that real-world problems typically involve collaboration of diverse people. In this respect one might argue that social media are actually a detriment to solving real world problems. Social media are good at bringing people of like minds together about something. If what is needed is collaboration among people of diverse opinions, this would not seem productive, and might very likely be counterproductive.

However, there still might be solutions using technology. Wikis provide a useful tool for collaboration. Another approach would having people of relevant, but diverse perspective could interact with each other anonymously using computers. Physical cues and identities would be absent. This would negate or minimize ego or group involvement and would be an exchange of information and ideas with the goal of arriving at a viable consensus. The number of people who can collaborate at a given time appears to be a constraint.

1Six Degrees of Mobilization, The Economist Technology Quarterly, September 2012, p.8.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Why Are Our Brains So Large?

September 16, 2012

A recent article1 provides a possible answer. The article’s title is Social Network Size Linked to Brain Size. Perhaps the most prominent hypothesis is that our enlarged brains allow us to be smarter than our competitors. We are better at abstract thinking, better with tools (I am a personal exception here), and better at adapting our behavior than our prey and predators.

In 1992 anthropologist Robin Dunbar (Remember Dunbar’s Number? See healthymemory blog posts, “Why Is Facebook So Popular?”, and “How Many Friends are Too Many?”) published research showing that in primates the ratio of the size of the neo-cortex to that of the rest of the brain consistently increases with increases in the size of the social group. So the Tamarin monkey has a brain size ratio of around 2.3 and an average social group size of around 5 members, whereas a Macaque monkey has a brain size ratio of about 3.8 but a large average group size of around 40 members. Consequently, Dunbar advanced his “social brain hypothesis,” which states that the relative size of the neo-cortex rose as social groups became larger in order to maintain the complex set of relationships necessary for stable co-existence. Moreover, he suggested that given the human brain ratio we have an expected social group size of about 150, the size of what Dunbar called a clan.

Dunbar’s previous worked was focused on differences among species. His more recent work focuses on differences within species. He has found that the size of each individual’s social network is linearly related to the neural volume in the orbital prefrontal cortex. His research has shown that more than just more neural material in the prefrontal cortex is needed. Psychological skills are also needed, especially an ability to understand the other person’s state of mind. This cognitive skill is called a “theory of mind.”

So we have two explanations of why are brain’s are so large. One is that we are better at abstract thinking and adapting our behavior. The other is that the larger brain is needed to accommodate larger social networks that are beneficial to our survival. The astute healthymemory blog reader will likely quickly realize that these two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Most likely they are both at work.

1http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=social-network-size-linked-brain-size

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

My Problems with Facebook

June 9, 2012

I don’t like Facebook. I find it to be unwieldy and cluttered up with junk in which I have no interest. I assume there are means for tidying things up, but I don’t have the time or patience to learn them. There are two reasons I have a Facebook account. One is to have a means of providing additional exposure for this blog. The other reason is that I do not want to offend friends and old acquaintances. My facility with Facebook is such that there are times when I think I might have responded, but I am not sure, so I don’t know whether I am fulfilling my second objective.

In the early days, I responded positively to all friending requests. I didn’t want to offend anyone and I was especially afraid that I might offend an old acquaintance who had momentarily slipped my mind. However, there came a time when I realized that this is foolish. Why be a friend to someone I do not know and have no reason to know just so they can boast of the number of people they have friended. Tbere is a fairly limited number of people with whom one can be genuinely friends (See the Healthymemory Blog post, “How Many Friends are Too Many.”)

The vast majority of stuff on my page consists of items and people that are of no interest to me. Of course, the stuff from my real friends is there and I treasure it. It is just that I would rather correspond privately by email, but Facebook discourages one from doing this. I appreciate their convenience of being able to contact many people, so I continue to endure.

One of my pet peeves is Farmville. Notes on purchasing something or other for Farmville periodically appear. I am still working and don’t have time to deal with this. I have a hunch that most of these requests are coming from people who are retired. If retirement reduces one to playing the Farmville game, then you can count on me never retiring!

Feel free to tell me what a fuddy-duddy I am; what a poor sport I am; or to pity the poor people I am offending. What would be most appreciated are tips on how to clean up my Facebook Page!

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Adverse Effects of Social Isolation

October 23, 2011

Lonely people have a higher risk of everything from heart attacks to dementia, and from depression to death. However, people who are satisfied with their social lives sleep better, age more slowly and have more favorable responses to vaccines. John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago, an expert on the effects of social isolation, says that curing loneliness is as good for your health as giving up smoking. Charles Raison of Emory University studies mind-body interactions agrees with Cacioppo. He has said, “It’s probably the most powerful behavioral finding in the world. People who have rich social lives and warm open relationships don’t get sick and they live longer.”1

Although it is true that some people who are lonely might not take good care of themselves, Cacioppo states that there are direct physiological mechanisms that are related to the effects of stress. Cacioppo has found that genes involved in cortisol signaling and the inflammatory response are up-regulated in lonely people and that immune cells important in fighting bacteria were more active too. His conjecture is that our bodies might have evolved so that in situations of perceived social isolation, they trigger branches of the immune system involved in would healing and bacterial infection. On the other hand, people in a group might favor the immune response for fighting viruses, which are more likely to be spread among people living in close contact.

It is important to note that these differences relate most strongly to how lonely people believe themselves to be, rather than to the actual size of their social network. Cacioppo thinks that our attitude to others is key here. Lonely people become overly sensitive to social threats and see other people as potentially dangerous. In a review of previous studies that he published last year, he found that disabusing lonely people of this attitude reduced loneliness more effective than giving people more opportunities for interaction, or teaching social skills.2

Only one or two close friends might suffice if you are satisfied with your social life. Problems arise when you feel lonely.3 In the jargon of the Healthymemory Blog, this is largely a matter of transactive memory. Transactive memory refers to shared memories and of the knowledge one has of other memories. These memories can form as a result of person-to-person interactions or via means of technology, such as the internet. It should be noted that having hundreds of friends on Facebook would not necessarily indicate that you are not lonely. “What is important is the quality rather than the quantity of these relationships. An evolutionary biologist, Robin Dunbar, came up with a number he modestly named, “Dunbar’s number.” He bases this number on the size of the human brain and its complexity. He calculates that the maximum number of relationships our brain can keep track of at one time to be about 150 . This number includes all degrees of relationships. This is the maximum number of relationships. The number of close, meaningful relationships is much smaller. He estimates that we have a core group of about five people with whom we speak frequently. I find this absolute number a tad small, but to be in the general ballpark. At the other extreme there are about 100 people with whom we speak about once a year. The 150 number is an absolutely maximum of people we can even generously consider as friends. So Facebook users who have friended several hundred friends have essentially rendered the term “friend” meaningless.” (From the Healthymemory Blog post, “Why is Facebook So Popular?”, also see the Healthymemory Blog post “How Many Friends are Too Many?”).

1From “Trust People” in Heal Thyself by Marchant, J. (2011), New Scientist., 27 August, p. 35.

2Cacipoppo, J. (2010). Annals of Behaviorl Medicine, 40, p. 218.

3This part of this post was based heavily on the article by Marchant in the first footnote above.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Why is Facebook So Popular?

July 10, 2011

I am definitely confused. No only is there an enormous number of individual users, but companies, societies, organizations, television programs, and many other entities also feel a necessity to establish a presence on Facebook. Although most of these entities have good websites, they still feel compelled to maintain a Facebook presence.

Personally, I find regard Facebook to be an annoyance. It can be difficult to use, and I see little value in it. I have loads of requests from people I don’t know who indicate that they want to friend me. Early on, I consented because I did not want to be rude. Even now I worry that I might refuse the request of someone I did know long ago. I still accept requests from people who have been recommended by someone I know. But I do this only not to offend a true friend. I know of nothing that ever develops from this “friending.” With the exception of birthday greetings I receive from old acquaintances, I have seen nothing of value on Facebook. Just one inanity after another. I worry about people who do engage extensively in these activities.

I asked a friend of mine, who is extensively knowledgeable about cyberspace and who apparently spends significant time there, what he thinks about Facebook. His response was, “Never have touched it.  Who wants to be “connected” to everybody out there?!  Not me!”

I think he raises a good question. An earlier Healthymemory Blog post entitled “How Many Friends are Too Many?” addressed that very question. An evolutionary biologist, Robin Dunbar, came up with a number he modestly named, “Dunbar’s number.” He bases this number on the size of the human brain and its complexity. He calculates that the maximum number of relationships our brain can keep track of at one time to be about 150 . This number includes all degrees of relationships. This is the maximum number of relationships. The number of close, meaningful relationships is much smaller. He estimates that we have a core group of about five people with whom we speak frequently. I find this absolute number a tad small, but to be in the general ballpark. At the other extreme there are about 100 people with whom we speak about once a year. The 150 number is an absolutely maximum of people we can even generously consider as friends. So Facebook users who have friended several hundred friends have essentially rendered the term “friend” meaningless.

MIT social psychologist Sherry Turkle contends that social networking is eroding our ability to live comfortably offline.1 Although she makes a compelling argument, it is not the technology that is to be blamed, but rather how we use the technology. After all, the technology is not going to go away. There might be underlying psychological, genetic, or epigenetic substrates that contribute to the problem. Facebook, itself, can be regarded as providing affordances that contribute to this abuse.

1Price, M. (2011). Questionnaire; Alone in the Crowd. Monitor on Psychology, June, 26-28.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Google vs. Facebook Revisited

February 9, 2011

A number of blog posts back I expressed disappointment that Facebook had replaced Google in terms of usage. The stated grounds for my disappointment was that Facebook consisted primarily of superficial postings. True, they are enjoyable and fun, but little is learned and there is little cognitive growth. Although it is true that there are trivial searches on Google, a Google search is more likely for some useful point of knowledge. So, according to my line of reasoning, Google users were more likely to benefit from cognitive growth than were Facebook users.

In retrospect, I think that I might have been a bit unfair with my Facebook criticism, even though I did admit that many professional organizations are on Facebook. This blog post falls into the category of transactive memory. Now if you search for transactive memory on the Wikipedia (or you can search for it on Facebook that will link you to the Wikipedia) you will find that it is memory shared among a group. Actually the Healthymemory Blog is waging a rather lonely vigil by including the other meaning of transactive memory, namely, information that is found in all forms of technology (the internet, but also in conventional libraries). Although I do think that Google provides a more ready entry to transactive memory in the sense of technology, Facebook provides an entry to transactive memory in terms of memories shared with people.

I should also note that cognitive growth does not require delving into deep academic topics. For purposes of a healthy memory, information about sports and movies can form new memory circuits and reinvigorate old memory circuits in the brain. So the important point is to be cognitively active. In this respect Facebook can be quite helpful. It can serve as a resource for sharing information and collaborating with fellow human beings.

Personally, I provide a poor example. The Healthymemory Blog does have a Facebook posting, but I have done nothing with it, so it is rather sparse. I am interested in any experiences readers of this blog might have had in using Facebook in learning about topics of interest and in sharing information regarding those topics of interest. Please leave your comments. 

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Google vs. Facebook

January 19, 2011

I found the news that Facebook had surpassed Google in usage quite depressing, particularly with respect to considerations regarding cognitive growth and development. Of course, it seems that everyone, myself included, is on Facebook. Included here are professional organizations and businesses. So the news should not be surprising; so why then do I find it depressing?
Let us compare and contrast the reasons for using Google against the reasons for using facebook. Someone who uses Google is usually trying to learn something. This might simply be information on a restaurant, or a movie, or a stock investment. Or someone might be looking for the definition of a word or trying to understanding a topic. Someone who is really interested in a topic might be using Google Scholar. Or someone might be trying to remember what the name of something is by searching for other things that remind you of the thing. It seems to me that these activities lead to cognitive growth, of course, some to deeper levels than others. And you can use Google to find people and build social relationships.

Perhaps it is this last activity where Facebook excels over Google. It is true hat one can build and renew social relationships, but it seems that most “friending” is done at a superficial level. Some people “friend” just to boast of the number of friends they have. I continually receive “friend” requests from people I don’t know and can find no reason for wanting to know. With the exception of genuine social relationships, I see little on Facebook that would foster cognitive growth or a healthy memory. When I review most of the postings on Facebook, I do not think that it would be any great loss if they were lost forever. Now the loss of a truly great search engine like Google would be catastrophic.

Of course, Myspace was once a top website that has declined seriously in popularity. I just looked at the top websites as of January 5, 2011 and saw that Google was back on top. Now wikipedia.org was in 7th place. Wikipedia should be one of the premier websites for cognitive growth.

I would like to hear your opinions on this topic. Please submit your comments.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.