A study conducted by Case Western Reserve School of Medicine in the U.S. is linking unhealthy behaviour among young adults, like smoking, drinking and sexual activity, to hyper-texting and hyper-networking.
Hyper-texting, according to the study, refers to sending more than 120 text messages a day. Hyper-networking is defined as spending more than three hours per school day on social network sites like Facebook.
According to the lead researcher on the study, Scott Frank, "The startling results of this study suggest that when left unchecked texting and other widely popular methods of staying connected can have dangerous health effects on teenagers. This should be a wake-up call for parents to not only help their children stay safe by not texting and driving, but by discouraging excessive use of the cell phone or social websites in general."
This story has all the elements of a hot news item. A study with dramatic results and a disturbing causal relationship. On the surface it is a thought provoking and unsettling discovery.
Except for one thing. The conclusion is backwards.
One of the wisest and most valuable pieces of advice, received back in my high school days, was to always, always look at news and information critically. Where is the information coming from? How was it acquired? If there is a conclusion, how was it reached? Does anyone stand to gain from these results? This is true of many things, be it scientific method or a rumour circulating the office. Check the facts and the source.
This used to be the credo of most news agencies, but is much less so today. The level of competition among the multitude of modern news organizations has reached fever pitch. Agencies rely heavily on audience ratings in order to turn a profit. The currency of this medium is the scoop. This has led to a number of prominent news sources reporting on stories before facts have been established and verified, often reaching conclusions based on innuendo and assumption.
News audiences have also become less disciplined. With the vast selection of news sources, it is much easier for audiences to seek out the agency that tells them what they want to hear, and frame their stories according to a particular agenda. Fox News is the best example of this.
One would think that with a virtually unlimited number of information sources, the public at large would be much more informed, but ironically this is not the case. We consume information in much the same way we buy groceries, and often it is not the healthiest of diets.
The hyper-texting and hyper-networking study is the perfect example of information being presented in a way to maximize emotional impact and generate a buzz. Its fatal flaw is that it draws only one conclusion without attempting to examine the complexity of the issue.
Causal links are not always one way. In the case of hyper-texting, it could be that young adults who engage in unhealthy behaviour are more likely to use social networking simply because social networking better serves that lifestyle. History tells us that young adults have been engaging in "unhealthy behaviours" long before it could be blamed on Twitter and Facebook. To conclude that technology necessarily causes or encourages this behaviour is an oversimplified view of the data.
I will concede that information technology has made it easier for people to communicate with increasingly larger networks, and has become a major distraction in daily life. Large segments of our society have developed an obsession with the notion of being constantly connected. That said, it is almost always human nature that drives the evolution of technology and rarely the reverse. The desktop computer made the transition from tech-geek hobby to mainstream only when the technology became simple, affordable and, most importantly, useful for a larger audience. It would be hard to imagine the world without computers, but at the same time I'm not convinced we are any worse off because of them. After all, technology is only a good a the person who operates it, and it will serve that person's needs without bias.
Blaming technology is a classic example of using fear of something new to distract us from a much more complex issue. Solving society's behavioural problems requires more in-depth study and a significant amount of discipline and hard work on behalf of our government, teachers and parents. It is important for institutions to set appropriate boundaries for the use of technology, for example not in classrooms or behind the wheel of a car. It is also important for parents to establish limits on appropriate usage. But establishing boundaries has been true of many new things over the years. A fact that remains unaltered by time.
Unfortunately, not the kind of fact that sells the news.
No comments:
Post a Comment