Could be titled, "How [thing] hurts your [other things]".
Of course a newer, more utilized tool eats into your other activities that don't revolve around that tool.
Less time spent driving to the store, walking around the store, and purchasing the items, and driving back home? More time spent on Amazon.com?!?!
What about less time spent socializing offline, but more time spent playing MMOS?
IMO this is all about one major sociological/technological device eating into our other habits. Depending on the person, it could eat into bad habits, or good ones.
They mentioned 2.7 minutes less working, but what about the productivity gains from the internet?
Indeed. This article seems like they started with a premise, and then got the data to support that premise. (I.e. the completely wrong way to go about any kind of data collection).
I think the point of the parent comment is that they went looking for data that supported their hypothesis, instead of the more accepted form of formulating a null hypothesis and defeating it with data and statistics (which is not bulletproof in itself).
The argument the article attempts to make seems a touch knee-jerk to me and slightly absurd, as if to ignore the immense benefits the Internet has given us, so I really like where this thread of your doing (and what tokenizer started) has gone.
The thing is though, some of these are ridiculous. 9.6 fewer seconds at parties? 6 fewer seconds at cultural events/institutions? Well, I don't party for one (it's a waste of time, and I'm an introvert), and what is a "cultural event/institution?" There's few museums near here, the university theater has few interesting plays, and I likely wouldn't go to them anyway. Maybe I'm lacking an adequate amount of culture, but the only museums that really tickle me in my happy spot are air and space museums (with a few notable others touching on such subjects as archaeology or anthropology)...
As tokenizer pointed out at the top of this thread, less time shopping doesn't imply people aren't shopping. It could imply they're supplanting their shopping with online shopping, which is often more convenient. Depending on where you live, online stores might even have a better selection!
I can think of a few falsifications, borrowing from yourself, tokenizer, and several others. 1) Instead of partying or socializing, some people are more apt to replace that with playing games with friends online and using VoIP clients (TeamSpeak, Skype, etc). 2) Instead of spending "other" leisure time watching telelvision or the like, it's supplanted by browsing or gaming. 3) Can you even prove that spending Internet-related time isn't someone's idea of relaxing? Moreover, how do you quantify "relaxing?" Does the notion of what constitutes relaxation change from person to person?
Personally, I'd personally rather if someone were to waste an evening reading Wikipedia than watch television, so I'm not sure how one could quantify "36 fewer seconds on educational activities." This is doubly true for those who use the Internet as a means to further their own interests (the article almost implies they're mutually exclusive).
Great points. You summarized exactly what I felt when I read the article. So...
> The other question is thus: Does it matter?
Absolutely not. Any, and I repeat, any of the problems encountered with a computer or the internet, can easily be more attributable to the human condition, and the way our civilization and organizations work. It's the exact same argument as guns don't kill people.
Lets take the title as an assertion, and see if holds any ground when asked as a question. So the assertions are: "The internet hurts your sleep schedule, productivity and personal life"
The internet hurts your sleep schedule?
First of all, what's the internet? Is it a physical object? No it is not. Does it force me to interact with it? No. People or myself may force me to use it however. When I look into the science, it tells me that what really affects your sleep, is bright lights close to your face. This actually seems like more of a problem with display screens and is more of a criticism of our modern, electrical society, which is fine. This doesn't mean that it's the Internet's fault though.
The internet hurts your productivity?
Hah. So where are we getting our data from? From before the internet was invented? Yes? Well No. Actually the data is more about what a time sink on average, certain services are on the internet. Again, what's the internet?? Unfortunately people use whatever definition suits them. Again, all I'll say is the problems are most likely born from personal or social pressures or vices or defects, and while I may agree to more accurate phrase (Facebook hurts your productivity), the internet is where I and many others make their living everyday. To generalize it as unproductive is just incorrect.
The internet hurts your personal life?
If you let it hurt your personal life, or you let someone use the internet, and that person hurts your personal life, then I guess you could argue a more exacting phrase (My naked photos being on the internet hurts my personal life). But then again, with such a general definition of internet, then a fair retort is the evidence we have of people's personal lives being improved everyday because of the internet. Girl dying of cancer? Reddit donates to her in a caring creative way. Veteran needs some love on their B-day? /b/ from 4chan has over 10 people attend and give the man company. The internet is keeping you single because of anime and porn? The internet got this guy a girl friend and a job in Cologne.
It's like your said earlier: Does it matter? No. Because people are different, technology is agnostic to our anthropomorphism, and all of our problems stem from humans, human groups, or human civilization.
IMO it's semantics, but the rhetoric and reaching is usually more prevalent.
For instance, they're basically saying more leisure time spent on the internet, means less time for everything else. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see how that sentence is just too simple. Of course it's correct. Any more specific however and it's wrong. A great example is the three assertions in the articles headline.
Reminds me of certain TV network from my country airing alarmist "news" circa 2005, about how people who spent more time in the internet also spent... less time watching TV! How dare they!
Exactly. I don't take things like this serious. Given your example, one could look at studies of watching TV and spending time on the computer, and postulate that one would be exercising the brain more.
The catch? The computer is just a tool. Some people use it 24/7, only consume sedentary media, and can skew these results. While some other folks utilize the device to save time on their shopping, social communication, taxes, personal growth, hobby development, and professional networking device.
A computer is a tool. If studies show that more people choose to use it in a reckless and hedonistic manner, then that's more telling of us humans than the effects of the internet. If those same people can't ruin their lives on computers, they'd do so at a bar, or at a casino, or in front of their TV all day.
Of course a newer, more utilized tool eats into your other activities that don't revolve around that tool.
Less time spent driving to the store, walking around the store, and purchasing the items, and driving back home? More time spent on Amazon.com?!?!
What about less time spent socializing offline, but more time spent playing MMOS?
IMO this is all about one major sociological/technological device eating into our other habits. Depending on the person, it could eat into bad habits, or good ones.
They mentioned 2.7 minutes less working, but what about the productivity gains from the internet?