Internet not destroying society, Pew study shows

[Bearcat]

According to a new study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Internet users are more likely than others to be active in some kind of voluntary group or organization:

"Across the board, technology users are more likely than non users to be involved in almost all the kinds of groups in the Pew Internet survey. Moreover, the Internet is now deeply embedded in group activities and in how people create, join, participate in, and sustain groups. It is also implicated in the fluidity of group involvement as people sample groups, lurk in groups, and leave groups if they do not like the tone of group activity or the direction of the group."

According to Pew, it breaks down like this:

•80 percent of Internet users participate in groups, compared with 56 percent of non-Internet users.
•Social media users (Facebook, etc.,) are even more likely to be active: 82 percent of social network users and 85 percent of Twitter users are group participants.

Source http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/19/5877848-internet-not-destroying-society-pew-study-shows

[jj1two3]

Thanks Bearcat...good read.

[Bearcat]

Thanks Bearcat...good read.

Your welcome! I thought it was an interesting article.

[Boyfriend]

Thanks Bearcat for interesting share

[INDRANIL]

Nice one Bearcat . Thanks for the article .

[safeguy]

And then another article would come up saying otherwise...the exact opposite. Such studies never fail to amaze

[Bearcat]

And then another article would come up saying otherwise...the exact opposite. Such studies never fail to amaze

Are you saying that we shouldn't always believe what we read?

[safeguy]

Are you saying that we shouldn't always believe what we read?

Exactly.

Read, analyze, use your mind, throw in a bit of the emotional and philosophical aspect and decide. You don't always have to follow the flow of logic by the writer. A piece of writing needlessly be accurate all the time, it may be a huge source of reliable data or information but may also include personal bias/prejudice of the author that may try to convince you...sometimes through subconscious means. If you were to go by the 'monkey see, monkey do' pattern, you are left with nothing more than a weak brain waiting to be developed. Some newspapers articles are largely guilty of that imo....not everyone that reads newspapers actually take the time to see through the content, blindly agreeing to anything stated/written...

As for statistics, there can be too much contradiction that occurs between 2 or more different studies made. Take note that I'm not saying they're useless (hardly, they serve a great purpose) but at times, there can be too many variables to be considered (and omitted) that affects the relevance of the results shown. And there are also times when the researchers are always keen on proving their hypothesis right ("one-way direction") more so than analyzing the impact/effect of the 2 sides of the coin.

And nope, I'm not referring to the study made here. Simply sprouting my pieces of crap as usual

[Bearcat]

If you were to go by the 'monkey see, monkey do' pattern, you are left with nothing more than a weak brain waiting to be developed. Some newspapers articles are largely guilty of that imo....not everyone that reads newspapers actually take the time to see through the content, blindly agreeing to anything stated/written...

This is especially true with the media, when it comes to politics. I get so mad when the "talking heads", either on TV, or in the newspapers, bring out polls that declare so and so the winner, before the election is even held. It is truly unbelievable how many people swallow it hook, line and sinker and make it a reality!

As for statistics, there can be too much contradiction that occurs between 2 or more different studies made. Take note that I'm not saying they're useless (hardly, they serve a great purpose) but at times, there can be too many variables to be considered (and omitted) that affects the relevance of the results shown. And there are also times when the researchers are always keen on proving their hypothesis right ("one-way direction") more so than analyzing the impact/effect of the 2 sides of the coin.

I just love seeing how statistics can be distorted to prove something, one way or the other. You can call me Mr. Cynical, but I usually disbelieve half of what I read, and take the other half with a grain of salt!

[JayCub]

Thank you Bear, all i can say is that it has saved my sanity, i don't like using the word disability but the truth is having the likes of Raymonds and other forums has saved me many a time, Safeguy always has valid points, and despite the for and against it's always choice thankfully, i like reading differing views and there is never a shortage of them