C'est Chic - Critique

Caplan, S. (2005). A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use. Journal of Communication 55, 4, 721-736. Scott Caplan’s study (2005) cogently argues that socially deficient individuals who prefer socializing via Computer Mediated Communication (CMCs) are adversely affecting their real-life (RL) lives. He draws on research done by him and others in the areas of social skill, self-presentation, cognitive behavior theory and problematic internet use to support his own study which measures social skill, preference of online internet use and the negative outcomes resultant of that use (Caplan, 2005, p. 721). Caplan (2005) suggests that socially deficient individuals who are exposed to CMCs soon develop a distinct preference for online social interactions (POSI) over existing face-to-face (FtF) relationships (p. 726). This leads directly to a compulsive use behavior, which deteriorates into problematic internet use (PIU), resulting in deleterious consequences to users in their “real life” (RL) lives (Caplan, 2005, p. 722). Turkle (1996) suggests “We are moving toward a culture of simulation in which people are increasingly comfortable with substituting representations of reality for the real” (p. 300). Prior to my studies in this course I held the belief that computers don’t always make our human lives better. For me, meaningful emotion filled interpersonal relationships, especially those of an intimate nature, can not possibly be realized by sitting in front of a computer screen. Sadly, it is not from a lack of trying. Baym (1998) describes the reality of the pursuit: “Social relationships thrive on-line and have since the beginning of interactive computing” (p.35) Accordingly, I will freely admit that human interaction in CMCs and Multiple User domains MUD’s is real communication, and that users have always gravitated to it, but I still struggle to understand the emotional and social makeup of users who describe their online social encounters as “better than” (i.e. more personally engaging and satisfying) than RL FtF relationships. Additionally, I had doubts about how someone who spends excessive amounts of time engaged in a “virtual place” could continue to function normally in their RL location to the extent necessary to support their “computer” habit. After all, someone has to pay the electric bill. According to Turkle (1996): “As more people spend time in these virtual spaces, some go so far as to challenge the idea of giving any priority to RL at all” (p.292). Bugeja (2007) also supports this finding: “The environment so captivates users that many forget their first live so as to spend time and money in their second ones” (p.3). Locating Caplan’s article which exposes a “Dark Side” to CMCs was, to some degree, a place where, in the context of this class, I could point my finger and say: “See, I told you so”. I found Caplan’s (2005) own discovery that there have been very few studies done by communication researchers on the relationship between online social interaction and PIU just as surprising as he did (p. 722). I would suggest to the class that it raises the question as to whether or not researchers themselves are more predisposed to study the more frequently written upon, and the more easily supported, positive uses of CMCs in social interaction. Bugeja admits “When it comes to technology, we in academe usually only see the positives” (p. 1). Perhaps, the road less traveled of pursuing what appears to be compulsive and/or addictive user behavior is an area for further study that has yet to find favor among the experts. I found Caplan’s article convincing and his research on the subject more than sufficient. He successfully garnered several empirical proofs to support his hypotheses, and did an effective job of layering in the research of others to support his own. I do believe that Caplan could have enhanced his article by drawing on other studies to further illuminate the negative outcomes portion of PIU. Caplan’s (2005) model predicted that POSI leads to PIU which results in negative outcomes, but then he stops short of fully describing what those negative outcomes (NO) were (p. 726). I believe a short description of the No’s would have bolstered his already convincing argument by quantifying just how negative a NO really was. Perhaps the scope of his study didn’t afford him the space to pursue a more in depth study, or maybe this shortcoming was due to the lack of other studies by communication researchers to draw upon to support his model. My original conviction that computers don’t enhance meaningful interpersonal relationships stands. It appears that I now have a little bite to back up my bark.


References

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition, 335-54. London: Sage. Bugeja, M. (2007, September 14). Second thoughts about second life. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1-4. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i03/03c00101.htm. Caplan, S. (2005). A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use. Journal of Communication 55, 4, 721-736. Turkle, S (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, 287-302. New York: Simon & Schuster.

The Beatles - Help!

SEVEN (7) "A Winner"

Okay, so this is where the rubber meets the road. Time to get a clue on the final project. All my mind can think of right now is a Beatles song. Yep, you guessed it, HELP! The fact that I haven't had a "well defined" research question from the start is coming back to HAUNT me. (How timely, with Halloween approaching). My theoretical construct seems to fall in along these lines: CMC does not enhance social interaction, particularly interaction of an intimate nature. On the contrary, cyberspacial socialization can become addictive place to "users", seeking it as a panacea for their social shortcomings. In short, the "answer" to their needs can quickly morph into a "problem" that further complicates their lives. So, how to ask the questions then. What is the foundational query? Well let's get back to the stated focus of the class: The social aspects of electronic learning environments. So perhaps the question is this: Why are people so willing, or why do they feel so compelled to abdicate their real life (ABORL) for one that is spent online? Does CMC improve the quality of a person's social life? I say NO! Let's see if I can prove my point using at least one new article to point me in that direction. The game is afoot!

POST 6 (SIX)

I think perhaps one of the reasons why I have been, and continue to be, so skeptical about the purported advantages of new computer technologies and their subsequent social and educational uses, i.e. computer mediated communications, and virtual worlds is that computers did not play a central role in my formal education. I learned my ABC's the "old fashioned way" being taught by human teachers using books, pen, and paper. I think the old way worked, but I am not certain it was "better". My first question in this space asked this: Have computers "taken over" for man? No, I don't think they have, but I will concede that they have enhanced man's understanding of himself and the world he lives in. Computers have made education an easier process for the student increasing his/her access to higher learning. It has also created a more dynamic experience for the learner which in turn can't help but to promote a greater appetite to learn "more". Certainly there will be even newer and better technologies to come, but they will continue to be just "tools" and will not ever supplant the educational tools of old. A more pressing question still for me is this: Does human interaction in cyberspace improve the lives of those humans who choose to participate in that place? Does it enhance their communication and interpersonal relations? Communication has changed. It hasn't gotten better (or worse for that matter) it's just different. It is "evolving" or perhaps "on the move", rather than being in a specific static "place". Can technology assimilate or emulate human characteristics and thereby enhance interpersonal relationships, particularly those of an intimate nature? No, humans don't NEED machines to make their relationships with other humans better, certainly not more intimate. Ultimately inanimate machines are at the beck and call of their creators who will use and abuse them to serve mans needs and perhaps mollify many of mans "wants" too.

POST FROM CAMBRIDGE (or Post V)

So here I am, a world away from New York City. Thanks to my computer though, No matter where I am "physically", I can be where I want to be "virtually". Well almost anywhere, that is. One place I don't think I'll ever get to via cyberspace is into a greater or more fullfilling intimacy with my spouse, or anyone else for that matter. I still take exception with the idea as put forth by A. Thomas in "Digital Literacies" that people are "...seeking out the computer as an intimate machine." "MUDding" has given rise to "DUMming" (read that MUD spelled backwards is DUM, as in "dumb"). Gamers have wedged themselves into a woefully unsatifying and incomplete fantasy world. To claim that virtual intimate relationships are every bit as satisfying as the RL ones is plain silly. Imagine a person who is experiencing physical hunger choosing to watch a video of a delicious dinner buffet, replete with a thousand tasty delicacies, and saying his/her appetite has been satiated simply through their viewing. Eating is simply not eating unless a person tastes, chews,and ingests the food. Cyber-Intimacy is a hoax. It falls way short of the real thing, where the human senses of smell. taste and touch are part of the experience. I have been arguing in my past posts that intimacy via computer screen is the biggest fantasy of all. As of today, I will "endeavor to persevere" with that argument.