The Internet and Us

From time immemorial, people have worried about the negative impact of every new technology. Would it lead to the “numbing” and “amputation” of organs and skills formerly responsible for certain tasks? Would written records lead to a decline in how much we could remember? Has a phone’s contact list led to an inability to remember 8/9/10 digit numbers?

 

What’s different about the Internet though is the speed at which it has had its impact, writes Andrey Mir:

“In the 1990s, the Internet was praised as a great repository of knowledge. In the 2000s, it was hailed as an environment of free communication. But since the 2010s, it has often been considered a danger—both to people and institutions.”

 

Mir points out something interesting – what the Internet “takes” from us:

“We’re not just spending time on the Internet. We are investing time in its improvement… Every time we click a link, react to a story, or share it with others, we help the Internet to evolve.”

 

The Internet is also changing our wiring:

“In the physical world, rewards were naturally delayed and demanded greater effort, to which the brain was accustomed. The delayed reward was typically well deserved, and obtaining it provided a stronger, more distinct pleasure… Unlike rewards in the physical world, the reward of a click is as trifling as the effort expended.”

While the reward may be instantaneous and for little effort, the amount of gratification it gives us is also very tiny. Therefore:

“Matched with constantly produced but never satiating hits of micro-pleasure, this condition leads to a growing attachment to its source—what is more commonly known as digital addiction.”

And it’s a battle we, let alone kids, probably cannot win:

“The entire tech industry—the entire process of media evolution—was working against them. New media recruit the best engineers, investors, scientists, and marketers to make their products more engaging.”

Some even argue that the right terms are not “digital natives” (those born with the Internet) and “digital immigrants” (those who started off in the pre-Internet era). Instead, they say better terms are “residents” and “visitors” – it better captures the amount of time different generations spend online!

 

Mir cites an interesting example of the rewiring that’s happened:

“When playing video games, digital immigrants still instinctively dodge bullets or blows, but digital natives do not. Their bodies don’t perceive an imaginary digital threat as a real one, which is only logical. Their sensorium has readjusted to ignore fake digital threats that simulate physical ones.”

 

The polarization the Internet (social media in particular) creates is a side-effect of its design and how we are wired:

“Older people remember when physical restrictions and face-to-face communication imposed both positive and negative incentives not to exaggerate personal differences… (whereas) In the digital realm, the active signaling of an identity is the condition of successful socialization.”

And:

“Linear reading of large, complete chunks of information might have required time and effort but helped develop rational, abstract, and deliberate thinking. It is being replaced with the flow of identity-signaling on Twitter and TikTok.”

This is possibly changing the very nature of democracy:

“A child of the printing press, representative democracy, which was based on rational deliberation and institutions, collapses under the pressure of direct democracy based on digital torrents of instant identity signaling.”

 

A very well-written article. But perhaps it’s too long for the residents/natives.