Digital Media and Mental Health
Posted on 15/06/2010 | 1 Comments
Recently the Globe and Mail published a story about a study that purported to show that college students in the USA were 40 percent less emphatic than those of a few decades ago. Whether this is indeed correct cannot really be determined by the methodology used in the study quoted but that does not seem to stop enthusiastic speculation about what has “caused” this so called drop in empathy. As expected, the usual boogy-men have been trotted out. None of these have been demonstrated to be causal in this change but that does not seem to stop pontification, particularly if it leads to sales of programs or newspapers.
So what are the suggested causes? Of course, the digital media – facebook and myspace. The argument here is that they are “physically distant online environments” [that allow] people to “lionize their own lives” and “functionally create a buffer between individuals, which makes it easier to ignore others’ pain, or even at times, inflict pain upon others.” This hyperbole makes good theatre but is not very good social science.
Of course the usual cause for every generational “issue” is then also brought to the table. It’s the fault of the parents: “These kids were born around 1980. It could be a change in parenting style. … Kids are getting the implicit message from parents that success is what really matters. It’s hard to spend your life pursuing success and at the same time pursue empathy, because empathy takes work.” So here we are treated to more unproven hyperbole. It sounds plausible so therefore it must be true (that at least is the reasoning). And guess what – there is a program that can be purchased to fix this supposed deficit.
So what is the back story? First, is there really a significant change in empathy (even in the face of the research limitations of this study)? Well the first question is: what does a drop in 40 percent mean? Is this a relative drop or an absolute drop? A drop from 0.1 percent to 0.06 percent of the population is a 40 percent drop – but likely means very little. A drop from 100 percent of the population to 60 percent of the population is also a 40 percent drop but likely means a lot! Beware any news story that uses percentages! Stop confusing co-relations with causality. Sure facebook and myspace are new social realities. So are globalization and climate change. Parenting styles are blamed for every social ill. Darn parents, if only they could learn to do things right!
Well there are some very interesting things on the horizon in terms of understanding empathy and how it develops and how it may change over time. Research into children with the rare genetic condition called Williams syndrome (one of the features is extreme sociability) is peeling away the complexity of interactions associated with racial stereotyping.
Other research has identified mirror neurons in the human brain that are associated with abstract thinking, planning and ability to empathize. This type of research, linking our understanding of how brains develop in response to their environments will help us sort out these important issues. The rest provides lots of impetus for speculation and opportunities to spend our money on programs that work about 40 percent of the time.
--Stan
Blog Tag Cloud
adhd anxiety disorders attention award awards behaviour bipolar blog brain & neurology bullying canada care carter center conference confidentiality control coping criminal justice system cruelty cutting depression discrimination doctor driving eating disordersRecent Comment
This is a great set of comments and rings very true.
I totally agree that scientists (just like everyone else) have their biases and foibles. After all, scientists are human beings too! But science is different than scientists.
The scientific method is the most objective frame that we have by which to evaluate and predict. Science is not about finding truth. It is only about being less wrong most of the time. The scientific method (experimental design and mathematics) gives us the ability to test what we believe. The scientific method is not used to prove something is correct, on the contrary, the scientific method is designed to prove that something is not correct! It is designed to test what is called the “null hypothesis”. It takes ideas that come out of left field (or wherever else they come from) and puts those ideas to an independent test.
t does not drive our beliefs. It does however challenge our beliefs. In that way it is self-correcting. Of course scientific inquiry and understanding lives within a wider social context. That is one of the great features of science.
But gravity is gravity, social context notwithstanding. And thus it is nasty, brutish and long. As Brecht said, (something like this) - the purpose of science is to save us from everlasting error.
By Christina Carew on May 11th
You can find us here too!
We would like to say thanks...
Without their help this initiative would not be possible. Thanks for you help.
What people are saying?
Shazar Robinson said...
Why would we feel empathy any more - we aer bombarded with digital images of pain and suffering in all respects - we are immersed in cyber games that are violent and depict extremes of pain - we see live shootings, bombings and images of starvation and death in front of our noses daily. How can anyone stay in touch with their raw emotion under this onslaught of horror and pain .. we have to cut off in order to continue to function. When our young men are trained in tank warfare by computer games and play heavy metal music in the tanks as they go to war - where is the possibility to stay in touch with the real feelings. Is it any wonder we feel less empathy in these crazy times?
Comment made on September 11th, 2010
What do you think?