MY BLOG HAS MOVED!
The new RSS feed:
http://www.unconfused.net/?feed=rss2
The new site:
http://www.unconfused.net/
Come visit me there.
How Does God Hear All Our Prayers?
20 hours ago
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
New Home
I've taken up residence elsewhere...no, not in real life.
Visit my new blogging home:
http://www.unconfused.net/
Visit my new blogging home:
http://www.unconfused.net/
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Monday, May 04, 2009
Repost: It's Lonely Out There
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/23/its_lonely_out_there/
It's lonely out there
Connections fray in wired America, study finds
A major national survey being released today shows that the average number of people with whom Americans discuss important matters has dropped from three to two in just two decades. The study is a vindication for the Harvard author of "Bowling Alone," Robert D. Putnam, who published a similar theory six years ago based on trends from the decline of dinner parties to lower voter turnout and falling participation in bowling leagues.
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff | June 23, 2006
Americans don't have as many close friends as they used to.
We're networking on myspace.com, sharing photos and text messaging on our cellphones, and blogging at all hours. But a major national survey being released today shows that the average number of people with whom Americans discuss important matters has dropped from three to two in just two decades, a steep falloff in confidants that startled the researchers.
The study by sociologists at Duke University and the University of Arizona provides powerful evidence for the argument that the country is becoming increasingly socially isolated even as cellphones, the Internet, and other technology make people more interconnected. The authors found that fully one-quarter of Americans say they have no one with whom to discuss their most important personal business.
The study is a vindication for the Harvard author of "Bowling Alone," the provocative book published six years ago that portrayed an increasingly lonely society based on trends from the decline of dinner parties to lower voter turnout and falling participation in bowling leagues. The title became a catchphrase for modern alienation, fueling a passionate debate over whether the "good old days" are really behind us.
The new work, carried out by researchers skeptical of author Robert Putnam's theory, found the isolationist trend extends to people's closest relationships.
"These are the kinds of people that you can call on when you have times of trouble, if you really need help or someone to move in with for three months after Katrina hits your house. . . . We've got less of a safety net," said Lynn Smith-Lovin , a Duke sociologist and coauthor of "Social Isolation in America," published in today's American Sociological Review.
Putnam said the new study, based on a comparison of data from national surveys in 1985 and 2004, captures escalating social isolation that began around 1965 as the rise of television, two-career households, and increasingly farflung suburbia combined to destroy old, close-knit neighborhoods. Putnam believes that growing isolation helps explain the escalating rate of depression and other signs of worsening mental and physical health.
"As a risk factor for premature death, social isolation is as big an independent risk factor for death as smoking," said Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard University. He said that the drop-off in confidants measured by Smith-Lovin and her coauthors was even more precipitous than he anticipated.
Some academic critics have said Putnam overstated the degree of social isolation, pointing out that bowling leagues have been replaced by other, more powerful connections, such as e-mail. For instance, in other studies, two thirds of Internet users say it draws them closer to friends. Others pointed out that critics have been decrying the decline of community for much of the last century: The authors of the landmark Middletown studies in Muncie, Ind., in the 1920s worried that automobiles and radio were making people more isolated.
The new study, based on face-to-face interviews with a nationally representative group of 1,467 adults, provides the most comprehensive look yet at Americans' degree of social connectedness. The 20-minute questionnaire was done by pollsters at the University of Chicago as part of their General Social Survey, one of the longest-running national surveys of social, cultural, and political issues.
In the survey, respondents were asked to identify people with whom they had discussed important personal issues in the past six months. On average, they named 2.08 people in 2004 compared with 2.94 in 1985. Almost half of those surveyed could name only one or no confidants, while the portion with at least six close friends has dwindled to 4.9 percent of the population.
The researchers said that over the 20 years, Americans were most likely to turn away from friendships outside of their families. Four out of five people surveyed in 2004 said they only talk to family members about important personal matters, compared with 57 percent in 1985. The percentage of people who confide only in their spouse increased from 5 percent to 9 percent.
"We were surprised to see such a large change. We remain cautious -- perhaps even skeptical -- of its size," said Miller McPherson , a Duke and Arizona sociologist and Smith-Lovins's husband. "But even if the change is exaggerated for some reason . . . we are confident there is a trend toward smaller, closer social networks more centered on spouses and partners."
There were striking differences in social connection among demographic groups: White people, young people, and people with more education tended to have larger social networks than non-whites, older Americans, and people with less education. African-American men over the age of 60 saw the biggest overall drop-off in confidants, from 3.6 people in 1985 to 1.8 in 2004. "People who are disadvantaged in various ways are especially likely to have smaller, more family-based networks" of confidants, said Smith-Lovins.
Smith-Lovins said other research that she is now analyzing shows that Americans belong to fewer outside organizations and spend less time with them than they used to, while spending more time at work and with their families. She concedes that the numbers tend to support Putnam's "bowling alone" theory, though she still believes he has overstated the decline of social connections.
But Putnam said the new study underscores the need to look more closely at how intimacy and community are getting lost in the rapid changes of American society. Some have chided Putnam for appearing to champion a 1950s version of "the good old days," but he said that's not true. "We should think of new things to connect us, not try to resuscitate your grandfather's Kiwanis Club," he said.
Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
It's lonely out there
Connections fray in wired America, study finds
A major national survey being released today shows that the average number of people with whom Americans discuss important matters has dropped from three to two in just two decades. The study is a vindication for the Harvard author of "Bowling Alone," Robert D. Putnam, who published a similar theory six years ago based on trends from the decline of dinner parties to lower voter turnout and falling participation in bowling leagues.By Scott Allen, Globe Staff | June 23, 2006
Americans don't have as many close friends as they used to.
We're networking on myspace.com, sharing photos and text messaging on our cellphones, and blogging at all hours. But a major national survey being released today shows that the average number of people with whom Americans discuss important matters has dropped from three to two in just two decades, a steep falloff in confidants that startled the researchers.
The study by sociologists at Duke University and the University of Arizona provides powerful evidence for the argument that the country is becoming increasingly socially isolated even as cellphones, the Internet, and other technology make people more interconnected. The authors found that fully one-quarter of Americans say they have no one with whom to discuss their most important personal business.
The study is a vindication for the Harvard author of "Bowling Alone," the provocative book published six years ago that portrayed an increasingly lonely society based on trends from the decline of dinner parties to lower voter turnout and falling participation in bowling leagues. The title became a catchphrase for modern alienation, fueling a passionate debate over whether the "good old days" are really behind us.
The new work, carried out by researchers skeptical of author Robert Putnam's theory, found the isolationist trend extends to people's closest relationships.
"These are the kinds of people that you can call on when you have times of trouble, if you really need help or someone to move in with for three months after Katrina hits your house. . . . We've got less of a safety net," said Lynn Smith-Lovin , a Duke sociologist and coauthor of "Social Isolation in America," published in today's American Sociological Review.
Putnam said the new study, based on a comparison of data from national surveys in 1985 and 2004, captures escalating social isolation that began around 1965 as the rise of television, two-career households, and increasingly farflung suburbia combined to destroy old, close-knit neighborhoods. Putnam believes that growing isolation helps explain the escalating rate of depression and other signs of worsening mental and physical health.
"As a risk factor for premature death, social isolation is as big an independent risk factor for death as smoking," said Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard University. He said that the drop-off in confidants measured by Smith-Lovin and her coauthors was even more precipitous than he anticipated.
Some academic critics have said Putnam overstated the degree of social isolation, pointing out that bowling leagues have been replaced by other, more powerful connections, such as e-mail. For instance, in other studies, two thirds of Internet users say it draws them closer to friends. Others pointed out that critics have been decrying the decline of community for much of the last century: The authors of the landmark Middletown studies in Muncie, Ind., in the 1920s worried that automobiles and radio were making people more isolated.
The new study, based on face-to-face interviews with a nationally representative group of 1,467 adults, provides the most comprehensive look yet at Americans' degree of social connectedness. The 20-minute questionnaire was done by pollsters at the University of Chicago as part of their General Social Survey, one of the longest-running national surveys of social, cultural, and political issues.
In the survey, respondents were asked to identify people with whom they had discussed important personal issues in the past six months. On average, they named 2.08 people in 2004 compared with 2.94 in 1985. Almost half of those surveyed could name only one or no confidants, while the portion with at least six close friends has dwindled to 4.9 percent of the population.
The researchers said that over the 20 years, Americans were most likely to turn away from friendships outside of their families. Four out of five people surveyed in 2004 said they only talk to family members about important personal matters, compared with 57 percent in 1985. The percentage of people who confide only in their spouse increased from 5 percent to 9 percent.
"We were surprised to see such a large change. We remain cautious -- perhaps even skeptical -- of its size," said Miller McPherson , a Duke and Arizona sociologist and Smith-Lovins's husband. "But even if the change is exaggerated for some reason . . . we are confident there is a trend toward smaller, closer social networks more centered on spouses and partners."
There were striking differences in social connection among demographic groups: White people, young people, and people with more education tended to have larger social networks than non-whites, older Americans, and people with less education. African-American men over the age of 60 saw the biggest overall drop-off in confidants, from 3.6 people in 1985 to 1.8 in 2004. "People who are disadvantaged in various ways are especially likely to have smaller, more family-based networks" of confidants, said Smith-Lovins.
Smith-Lovins said other research that she is now analyzing shows that Americans belong to fewer outside organizations and spend less time with them than they used to, while spending more time at work and with their families. She concedes that the numbers tend to support Putnam's "bowling alone" theory, though she still believes he has overstated the decline of social connections.
But Putnam said the new study underscores the need to look more closely at how intimacy and community are getting lost in the rapid changes of American society. Some have chided Putnam for appearing to champion a 1950s version of "the good old days," but he said that's not true. "We should think of new things to connect us, not try to resuscitate your grandfather's Kiwanis Club," he said.
Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Coffee Addicts? Not really.
I just saw a number of articles that hit the presses today about caffeine addiction and withdrawal. So, I'm here to state that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CAFFEINE ADDICTION. Sure your body can indeed have after-effects of having caffeine present, but after 8-10 hours 75% percent of the caffeine you took in is gone from your system. Any longing for a caffeine fix is gone within a day or two of not taking caffeine. It just isn't correct to call this sort of experience an addiction.
I would suggest that what most people call a caffeine addiction is actually either a sugar-need, or dehydration...or both in combination. I.e...if you can't want up until you have your can of Mountain Dew, which has 55mg of caffeine...are probably more needing of sugar and hydration than they are in need of the caffeine.
Anyway...here are a couple decent articles concerning the myths and facts about caffeine, and another about the caffeine content of common drinks.
evan
-----
Energy Fiend: Caffeine Content of Drinks
http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database
-----
WebMD: Caffeine Myths and Facts
http://www.webmd.com/balance/caffeine-myths-and-facts
-----
PERSONAL HEALTH:
Sorting Out Coffee's Contradictions
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: August 5, 2008
New York Times
When Howard D. Schultz in 1985 founded the company that would become the wildly successful Starbucks chain, no financial adviser had to tell him that coffee was America's leading beverage and caffeine its most widely used drug. The millions of customers who flock to Starbucks to order a double espresso, latte or coffee grande attest daily to his assessment of American passions.
Although the company might have overestimated consumer willingness to spend up to $4 for a cup of coffee -- it recently announced that it would close hundreds of underperforming stores -- scores of imitators that now sell coffee, tea and other products laced with caffeine reflect a society determined to run hard on as little sleep as possible.
But as with any product used to excess, consumers often wonder about the health consequences. And researchers readily oblige. Hardly a month goes by without a report that hails coffee, tea or caffeine as healthful or damns them as potential killers.
Can all these often contradictory reports be right? Yes. Coffee and tea, after all, are complex mixtures of chemicals, several of which may independently affect health.
Caffeine Myths
Through the years, the public has been buffeted by much misguided information about caffeine and its most common source, coffee. In March the Center for Science in the Public Interest published a comprehensive appraisal of scientific reports in its Nutrition Action Healthletter. Its findings and those of other research reports follow.
Hydration. It was long thought that caffeinated beverages were diuretics, but studies reviewed last year found that people who consumed drinks with up to 550 milligrams of caffeine produced no more urine than when drinking fluids free of caffeine. Above 575 milligrams, the drug was a diuretic.
So even a Starbucks grande, with 330 milligrams of caffeine, will not send you to a bathroom any sooner than if you drank 16 ounces of pure water. Drinks containing usual doses of caffeine are hydrating and, like water, contribute to the body's daily water needs.
Heart disease. Heart patients, especially those with high blood pressure, are often told to avoid caffeine, a known stimulant. But an analysis of 10 studies of more than 400,000 people found no increase in heart disease among daily coffee drinkers, whether their coffee came with caffeine or not.
''Contrary to common belief,'' concluded cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco, there is ''little evidence that coffee and/or caffeine in typical dosages increases the risk'' of heart attack, sudden death or abnormal heart rhythms.
In fact, among 27,000 women followed for 15 years in the Iowa Women's Health Study, those who drank one to three cups a day reduced their risk of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent, although this benefit diminished as the quantity of coffee rose.
Hypertension. Caffeine induces a small, temporary rise in blood pressure. But in a study of 155,000 nurses, women who drank coffee with or without caffeine for a decade were no more likely to develop hypertension than noncoffee drinkers. However, a higher risk of hypertension was found from drinking colas. A Johns Hopkins study that followed more than 1,000 men for 33 years found that coffee drinking played little overall role in the development of hypertension.
Cancer. Panic swept this coffee-dependent nation in 1981 when a Harvard study tied the drink to a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Coffee consumption temporarily plummeted, and the researchers later concluded that perhaps smoking, not coffee, was the culprit.
In an international review of 66 studies last year, scientists found coffee drinking had little if any effect on the risk of developing pancreatic or kidney cancer. In fact, another review suggested that compared with people who do not drink coffee, those who do have half the risk of developing liver cancer.
And a study of 59,000 women in Sweden found no connection between coffee, tea or caffeine consumption and breast cancer.
Bone loss. Though some observational studies have linked caffeinated beverages to bone loss and fractures, human physiological studies have found only a slight reduction in calcium absorption and no effect on calcium excretion, suggesting the observations may reflect a diminished intake of milk-based beverages among coffee and tea drinkers.
Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University says that caffeine's negative effect on calcium can be offset by as little as one or two tablespoons of milk. He advised that coffee and tea drinkers who consume the currently recommended amount of calcium need not worry about caffeine's effect on their bones.
Weight loss. Here's a bummer. Although caffeine speeds up metabolism, with 100 milligrams burning an extra 75 to 100 calories a day, no long-term benefit to weight control has been demonstrated. In fact, in a study of more than 58,000 health professionals followed for 12 years, both men and women who increased their caffeine consumption gained more weight than those who didn't.
Health Benefits
Probably the most important effects of caffeine are its ability to enhance mood and mental and physical performance. At consumption levels up to 200 milligrams (the amount in about 16 ounces of ordinary brewed coffee), consumers report an improved sense of well-being, happiness, energy, alertness and sociability, Roland Griffiths of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine reported, although higher amounts sometimes cause anxiety and stomach upset.
Millions of sleep-deprived Americans depend on caffeine to help them make it through their day and drive safely. The drug improves alertness and reaction time. In the sleep-deprived, it improves memory and the ability to perform complex tasks.
For the active, caffeine enhances endurance in aerobic activities and performance in anaerobic ones, perhaps because it blunts the perception of pain and aids the ability to burn fat for fuel instead of its carbohydrates.
Recent disease-related findings can only add to coffee's popularity. A review of 13 studies found that people who drank caffeinated coffee, but not decaf, had a 30 percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease.
Another review found that compared with noncoffee drinkers, people who drank four to six cups of coffee a day, with or without caffeine, had a 28 percent lower risk of Type 2 diabetes. This benefit probably comes from coffee's antioxidants and chlorogenic acid.
I would suggest that what most people call a caffeine addiction is actually either a sugar-need, or dehydration...or both in combination. I.e...if you can't want up until you have your can of Mountain Dew, which has 55mg of caffeine...are probably more needing of sugar and hydration than they are in need of the caffeine.
Anyway...here are a couple decent articles concerning the myths and facts about caffeine, and another about the caffeine content of common drinks.
evan
-----
Energy Fiend: Caffeine Content of Drinks
http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database
-----
WebMD: Caffeine Myths and Facts
http://www.webmd.com/balance/caffeine-myths-and-facts
-----
PERSONAL HEALTH:
Sorting Out Coffee's Contradictions
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: August 5, 2008
New York Times
When Howard D. Schultz in 1985 founded the company that would become the wildly successful Starbucks chain, no financial adviser had to tell him that coffee was America's leading beverage and caffeine its most widely used drug. The millions of customers who flock to Starbucks to order a double espresso, latte or coffee grande attest daily to his assessment of American passions.
Although the company might have overestimated consumer willingness to spend up to $4 for a cup of coffee -- it recently announced that it would close hundreds of underperforming stores -- scores of imitators that now sell coffee, tea and other products laced with caffeine reflect a society determined to run hard on as little sleep as possible.
But as with any product used to excess, consumers often wonder about the health consequences. And researchers readily oblige. Hardly a month goes by without a report that hails coffee, tea or caffeine as healthful or damns them as potential killers.
Can all these often contradictory reports be right? Yes. Coffee and tea, after all, are complex mixtures of chemicals, several of which may independently affect health.
Caffeine Myths
Through the years, the public has been buffeted by much misguided information about caffeine and its most common source, coffee. In March the Center for Science in the Public Interest published a comprehensive appraisal of scientific reports in its Nutrition Action Healthletter. Its findings and those of other research reports follow.
Hydration. It was long thought that caffeinated beverages were diuretics, but studies reviewed last year found that people who consumed drinks with up to 550 milligrams of caffeine produced no more urine than when drinking fluids free of caffeine. Above 575 milligrams, the drug was a diuretic.
So even a Starbucks grande, with 330 milligrams of caffeine, will not send you to a bathroom any sooner than if you drank 16 ounces of pure water. Drinks containing usual doses of caffeine are hydrating and, like water, contribute to the body's daily water needs.
Heart disease. Heart patients, especially those with high blood pressure, are often told to avoid caffeine, a known stimulant. But an analysis of 10 studies of more than 400,000 people found no increase in heart disease among daily coffee drinkers, whether their coffee came with caffeine or not.
''Contrary to common belief,'' concluded cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco, there is ''little evidence that coffee and/or caffeine in typical dosages increases the risk'' of heart attack, sudden death or abnormal heart rhythms.
In fact, among 27,000 women followed for 15 years in the Iowa Women's Health Study, those who drank one to three cups a day reduced their risk of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent, although this benefit diminished as the quantity of coffee rose.
Hypertension. Caffeine induces a small, temporary rise in blood pressure. But in a study of 155,000 nurses, women who drank coffee with or without caffeine for a decade were no more likely to develop hypertension than noncoffee drinkers. However, a higher risk of hypertension was found from drinking colas. A Johns Hopkins study that followed more than 1,000 men for 33 years found that coffee drinking played little overall role in the development of hypertension.
Cancer. Panic swept this coffee-dependent nation in 1981 when a Harvard study tied the drink to a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Coffee consumption temporarily plummeted, and the researchers later concluded that perhaps smoking, not coffee, was the culprit.
In an international review of 66 studies last year, scientists found coffee drinking had little if any effect on the risk of developing pancreatic or kidney cancer. In fact, another review suggested that compared with people who do not drink coffee, those who do have half the risk of developing liver cancer.
And a study of 59,000 women in Sweden found no connection between coffee, tea or caffeine consumption and breast cancer.
Bone loss. Though some observational studies have linked caffeinated beverages to bone loss and fractures, human physiological studies have found only a slight reduction in calcium absorption and no effect on calcium excretion, suggesting the observations may reflect a diminished intake of milk-based beverages among coffee and tea drinkers.
Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University says that caffeine's negative effect on calcium can be offset by as little as one or two tablespoons of milk. He advised that coffee and tea drinkers who consume the currently recommended amount of calcium need not worry about caffeine's effect on their bones.
Weight loss. Here's a bummer. Although caffeine speeds up metabolism, with 100 milligrams burning an extra 75 to 100 calories a day, no long-term benefit to weight control has been demonstrated. In fact, in a study of more than 58,000 health professionals followed for 12 years, both men and women who increased their caffeine consumption gained more weight than those who didn't.
Health Benefits
Probably the most important effects of caffeine are its ability to enhance mood and mental and physical performance. At consumption levels up to 200 milligrams (the amount in about 16 ounces of ordinary brewed coffee), consumers report an improved sense of well-being, happiness, energy, alertness and sociability, Roland Griffiths of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine reported, although higher amounts sometimes cause anxiety and stomach upset.
Millions of sleep-deprived Americans depend on caffeine to help them make it through their day and drive safely. The drug improves alertness and reaction time. In the sleep-deprived, it improves memory and the ability to perform complex tasks.
For the active, caffeine enhances endurance in aerobic activities and performance in anaerobic ones, perhaps because it blunts the perception of pain and aids the ability to burn fat for fuel instead of its carbohydrates.
Recent disease-related findings can only add to coffee's popularity. A review of 13 studies found that people who drank caffeinated coffee, but not decaf, had a 30 percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease.
Another review found that compared with noncoffee drinkers, people who drank four to six cups of coffee a day, with or without caffeine, had a 28 percent lower risk of Type 2 diabetes. This benefit probably comes from coffee's antioxidants and chlorogenic acid.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Saturday, April 04, 2009
No more social websites
I finally saw the light with social websites and networks, including micro-blogging, which isn't really doing a web-article or web-log at all, but just a string of status updates and nonsensical gibberish.
As more and more people get in an electronic social circle, more and more the quality of the communication you have goes down. Slowly, but surely, it became easier for people to just check my 'status', as opposed to calling or actually being interested in real life. People who used to call me and ask about life now don't call at all, but rather check Facebook and leave a little comment there.
So, my conclusion with MySpace and Facebook are that they cheapen communication, and ultimately cheapen relationships. Twitter is essentially running 'texting' logs for the web, and 'texting' was never considered anything more than cheap communication. So, why would Tweeting be anything more than that?
The 'drama' part of this is how I arrived at that conclusion. I wrote a status 'complaint' about people writing nonsense statuses or tweets, inside comments, or things that should have been messaged to just one or two people but instead were sent to everyone's feed. A friend of mine wrote me messages saying that I shouldn't take social websites so seriously, and that they exist purely for fun. Of course he is one of the people who writes the posts I have a problem with. So, I did a little experiment. I started posting a series of nonsense postings or ones that didn't have anything to do with me or him. He promptly removed me from his the people who he follows. Apparently still not getting that I was only doing what he was doing to me.
I hadn't looked into some of the harm noticed by other people and professionals really until now. I'll list a few articles that I happened to find recently:
Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html
Social Networking Sites and Social Theory
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/03/publicprivate-selves-and-social-theory.html
Bye Bye Facebook
http://suburbanhen.blogspot.com/2009/03/bye-bye-facebook.html
As more and more people get in an electronic social circle, more and more the quality of the communication you have goes down. Slowly, but surely, it became easier for people to just check my 'status', as opposed to calling or actually being interested in real life. People who used to call me and ask about life now don't call at all, but rather check Facebook and leave a little comment there.
So, my conclusion with MySpace and Facebook are that they cheapen communication, and ultimately cheapen relationships. Twitter is essentially running 'texting' logs for the web, and 'texting' was never considered anything more than cheap communication. So, why would Tweeting be anything more than that?
The 'drama' part of this is how I arrived at that conclusion. I wrote a status 'complaint' about people writing nonsense statuses or tweets, inside comments, or things that should have been messaged to just one or two people but instead were sent to everyone's feed. A friend of mine wrote me messages saying that I shouldn't take social websites so seriously, and that they exist purely for fun. Of course he is one of the people who writes the posts I have a problem with. So, I did a little experiment. I started posting a series of nonsense postings or ones that didn't have anything to do with me or him. He promptly removed me from his the people who he follows. Apparently still not getting that I was only doing what he was doing to me.
I hadn't looked into some of the harm noticed by other people and professionals really until now. I'll list a few articles that I happened to find recently:
Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html
Social Networking Sites and Social Theory
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/03/publicprivate-selves-and-social-theory.html
Bye Bye Facebook
http://suburbanhen.blogspot.com/2009/03/bye-bye-facebook.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)