Internet: a hindrance to one's identity?
A radical shift has occurred since the 1990's. Computers are cheap and readily available to even those with meager incomes, the internet is abundant and can be found just about anywhere, knowledge is plentiful and abundant through websites like Wikipedia or Google, and finally the internet is comforting in the peace and quiet that anonymity allows one to express their thoughts without hindrance in the safety of one's home.
Despite their being quite a lot of material on the internet that is harmful or disgusting, which is being tackled by noble moderators and fast algorithms, there is an aspect of the internet that I haven't seen mentioned too much. Namely, the entangled relationship between anonymity and the formation of one's identity.
I'm about almost 30, and was figuratively raised by the internet. As I grew up, I realized quickly that online forums, where people have something at stake, such as their reputation or image of themselves as presented to passers by are/is where higher quality content can be formed, and seemed like the "right" place to be.
Now, I have grown up witnessing my peers being depressed (Facebook, the issue of instant gratification supplied in truckloads), and anxious (exacerbation of neurosis, disrupted circadian rhythm), bullied to death (4chan, and other troll hubs), and trolled on to such an extent that for a while I was considering entirely leaving the web. But, nobody is really answering the fundamental question that has been on my mind, which is the issue of forming a sound and wholesome identity.
I have only recently begun researching the process of identity formation, and most of these books were written back when the internet wasn't such a place. My thesis here is that the internet is or can be profoundly detrimental to the process of establishing a sound and wholesome identity, especially in the young.
Talking from personal experience, games are rather harmless, despite conservatives aiming at first-person-shooters as some wild explanation for rising gun violence. Paradoxically, it's places where the parallel between real life and internet activity becomes narrower, is where the issue is exposed. Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms where one's anonymity is unveiled have repeatedly been demonstrated to be corrosive to one's well-being. Let's be honest, nobody needs some 400 friends on Facebook, with whom they never speak with in real life, and are some pseudo-opera where one can flaunt the drama's and opulence of one's life as interesting, fun, and edifying(?) Not... But, it's appealing because everyone else is doing it... and this is madness.
Again, going back to having a sound and wholesome identity, the internet does not seem conducive to this goal. Everyone can play roles, say anything they want without repercussion, ridicule without repercussion, and find about anything they want online. Not, to bash the internet needlessly, these are good things, which are being gradually taken away from us; but, not enough people are taking a pause and reconsidering some elements of the internet that are dangerous or detrimental.
I feel like I'm losing focus here (another thing that's easily accomplished by the internet). So, I'll leave the open question posed in the title of the OP as the main thesis point here. If anyone has any more knowledge about this matter, please let us know.
Despite their being quite a lot of material on the internet that is harmful or disgusting, which is being tackled by noble moderators and fast algorithms, there is an aspect of the internet that I haven't seen mentioned too much. Namely, the entangled relationship between anonymity and the formation of one's identity.
I'm about almost 30, and was figuratively raised by the internet. As I grew up, I realized quickly that online forums, where people have something at stake, such as their reputation or image of themselves as presented to passers by are/is where higher quality content can be formed, and seemed like the "right" place to be.
Now, I have grown up witnessing my peers being depressed (Facebook, the issue of instant gratification supplied in truckloads), and anxious (exacerbation of neurosis, disrupted circadian rhythm), bullied to death (4chan, and other troll hubs), and trolled on to such an extent that for a while I was considering entirely leaving the web. But, nobody is really answering the fundamental question that has been on my mind, which is the issue of forming a sound and wholesome identity.
I have only recently begun researching the process of identity formation, and most of these books were written back when the internet wasn't such a place. My thesis here is that the internet is or can be profoundly detrimental to the process of establishing a sound and wholesome identity, especially in the young.
Talking from personal experience, games are rather harmless, despite conservatives aiming at first-person-shooters as some wild explanation for rising gun violence. Paradoxically, it's places where the parallel between real life and internet activity becomes narrower, is where the issue is exposed. Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms where one's anonymity is unveiled have repeatedly been demonstrated to be corrosive to one's well-being. Let's be honest, nobody needs some 400 friends on Facebook, with whom they never speak with in real life, and are some pseudo-opera where one can flaunt the drama's and opulence of one's life as interesting, fun, and edifying(?) Not... But, it's appealing because everyone else is doing it... and this is madness.
Again, going back to having a sound and wholesome identity, the internet does not seem conducive to this goal. Everyone can play roles, say anything they want without repercussion, ridicule without repercussion, and find about anything they want online. Not, to bash the internet needlessly, these are good things, which are being gradually taken away from us; but, not enough people are taking a pause and reconsidering some elements of the internet that are dangerous or detrimental.
I feel like I'm losing focus here (another thing that's easily accomplished by the internet). So, I'll leave the open question posed in the title of the OP as the main thesis point here. If anyone has any more knowledge about this matter, please let us know.
Comments (44)
Psychoanalyzing a little bit, anger and outrage get the most clicks. Corollary, feelings of inadequacy intensify by promoting a picture of one's self that is eternally happy or joyful. Thus, one becomes angry at being sad or sad at being sad or a whole range of mixed emotions that arise from skewed realities formed by one's online persona.
If I were to rewrite Plato's Republic for our modern age, I would not encourage the use of the internet for anyone before at least a wholesome age. As a factual, advice, it's said that children nowadays spend 6 hours of their daily waking hours interacting with some medium. One can imagine what this can lead to in terms of family relationships and interpersonal skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpsychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_effects_of_Internet_use
You will not explore sensoria of touch or kinaesthetic/social spatiality on here. Luckily we can't smell each other after sweaty days festering in an office either. But you can capitalise on the social networks present here to elicit any social interaction (any meet and fuck or dating app for the mysteries of love condensed to the soppy love letters in condom tips).
The unique opportunities for socialising and making friends in the medium exploit its biases. You can have long term exchanges in special interest groups, you can use search functions to find special interest groups and capitalise on those networks; BDSM need not transmit through word of mouth any more, nor non-gender binary or gay dating and meet/fuck. Social media even creates the potential for international spontaneous political organisation (like the Arab Spring or the Extinction Rebellion protests in London recently).
In those regards, it depends a lot on how you use it. Ideally it is an augmentation instead of a replacement for life, realising the cybernetic ideal of the internet as much as possible, rather than the corporate centralisation such lawless irregularity actually promotes.
So, based on your view, how does this bias affect the development of one's identity for young children. I mean, assuming unrestricted access to any website (as is often the case for non-tech savvy parents).
Quoting fdrake
Yes, so explain to us readers what biases are they and how do they manifest?
Quoting fdrake
This statement assumes a well developed sense of agency on the part of the user, which doesn't seem to be true in most cases for children. Even adults have trouble regulating themselves on the internet, very often.
Identity's something that receives reinforcement and can change over time. Your expressive capacities certainly do, you can learn how to touch just like you learn how to raise your voice. You can find your voice on an internet forum, even, and use it as fuel for academic discussion IRL. :)
Although even as someone close to 30 years older than you, some of us (at least those who were kind of nerdy at the time) already had home computers while we were in our teens (so the end of the 70s/beginning of the 80s in my case), and we were already socializing--and arguing/"debating" etc. with strangers online. Just in cases like mine we're talking about Radio Shack and Commodore computers, and calling local BBS numbers instead of using the Internet.
Then let us know about the latter part? The internet seems to promote dis-inhibition in the form of sharing personal details, deep feelings, insecurities, fears, and other prominent psychological facets. What's your take on that?
[quote=Carmen Hermosillo]It is fashionable to suggest that cyberspace is some kind of _island of the blessed_ where people are free to indulge and express their Individuality...this is not true....i have seen many people spill their guts on-line, and i did so myself until...i began to see that i had commodified myself. commodification means that you turn something into a product which has a money-value. in the nineteenth century, commodities were made in factories...by workers who were mostly exploited....i created my interior thoughts as a means of production for the corporation that owned the board i was posting to...and that commodity was being sold to other commodity/consumer entities as entertainment... [Cyberspace] is a black hole. It absorbs energy and personality and then re-presents it as an emotional spectacle.[/quote]
I agree that the Internet is a tremendously rich source of information and entertainment, and evolvement with various platforms can affect moods, behaviour, awareness of problems, and so forth. Core identity is partly genetic but largely gained from live-one-on-one-and-group interactions.
It seems counter-intuitive that media like television (which some people consume in massive quantities) or the Internet would have little influence on language, character formation, identity, and so forth. Compare the Internet to books: There are billions of books, journals, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets available. One could claim that print shapes identity. Would you buy that idea?
It doesn't.
None of this is to deny that the Internet has real-life significance. It can certainly shape opinion, key perceptions, and the like. The blanket of advertising will stimulate interest in a lot of useless products.
Yes, the internet is detrimental to personal growth in my opinion. Reactions to this sentiment can be found in Jordan Peterson, and Marxist criticisms of the commodification of personality, as per the quote provided above by @fdrake. Russia is going so far as to create their own intranet that is divorced from the rest of the world. China already has their version of the internet. The Arab Spring was a wake up call to the Iranian clerics, that minds are easy persuaded.
Now, introduce to this whole situation an empty, absorbent, and young mind, and the situation seems rather precarious.
But I think it's pretty clear it would be a factor for someone young spending a lot of time online.
Suspicions like this are incredibly prone to confirmation bias. You end up seeing evidence for them just because you read a convincing anecdote.
I'm vulnerable to this too, of course, that quote about the commodification of emotions online while being insightful (though dated "island of the blessed" indeed!) is an oversimplification. It makes it sound as if if we had this conversation IRL it would mystically be better, despite all the advantages of text exchange, and would not have occurred unless we both frequented a special interest forum.
What promotes disinhibition on the Internet is positive feedback (or feedback period) from other humans. If nobody responded to one's gut spilling, one would stop doing it.
Anonymity probably facilitates over-sharing (maybe dis-inhibition). But, you know, people have been finding ways of disinhibiting themselves for a long time -- and not just through chemical courage. Sometimes people just decide to "let go".
Yes; but, this isn't a matter of opinion anymore. Just check the Wikipedia article on Cyberpsychology.
In the late 1950s (my adolescence) I was exposed to 'pornographic' pamphlets from an anti-communism organisation; maybe it was the John Birch Society -- can't remember. There were lurid stories about devious, treasonous Americans and foreign agents undermining the foundations of freedom, democracy, free enterprise, The American Way, et al. My opinion about communism was given a further rightward twist. (There was a lot of anti-communist nattering in the 1950s.).
This anti-communist opinion stayed in place until it was washed out in college. It didn't take "pro-communist" propaganda; it just took new interests and zero reinforcement for extreme right-wing (or extreme left wing) opinions.
Were there any outcries of the TV, as a new form of entertainment, and the dying off of radio in your days? I know a lot of sentiment was geared against the TV, despite its overwhelming saturation in every part of the market segment, from advertising, to just about anything to this day...
ALL of this existed before the personal computer and the Internet. Long before.
Quoting Wallows
Indeed there were. TV was a favoured target for criticism from all corners. It was "the vast wasteland". It was, of course, a vast wasteland with a few oasis of high quality programs--but not too many. TV was criticised and named as the source of many social ills. Juvenile delinquency, sexually stimulating dance styles (it shared that crime with popular music), rampant stupidity, poor school performance, and so on and so forth.
Radio did not come in for that kind of criticism (for the most part) because it was pretty bland. News, sports, music, soap opera, quiz shows, and dramas just didn't trigger a lot of criticism. Like the first several decades of TV, there were only 3 networks (NBC, CBS, and Mutual) which all carried similar programming, and radio listening was, like television, a family activity. Teenagers didn't have their own radio or TV until later on. And even if they did, there were no "dark corners" of radio and TV broadcasting that deviant teenagers could tap into to be victimised.
Was life back then (1930s - 1970s) so pure and wholesome that parents need not worry? Hardly. But Radio and TV were controlled by large corporations like RCA, CBS, Westinghouse, and so forth, and the taste of the bourgeoisie prevailed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/technophobia-victorian-style-a7097761.html
Let's not get too paranoid about them noo-fangled de-vices. I'm actually old enough to remember how that teevee was ruining the youth, and that was when there were only two channels and they shut down at 10.30 at night.
Still, internet has some problems and harms some people. Mainly in the same ways people have always been harmed. The bubble of like-minded internet associates not different in kind from the bubble of rural life in the 18th century, for example. The commodification is no worse than that of slavery, serfdom or industrial exploitation etc.
Although this takes a different track than the other posts on this thread, I think it is relevant.
I have always been partial to the concept of "good enough" parenting. There is no doubt in my mind that my appreciation for this way of seeing things is a reflection of my deeply embedded laziness. Good enough parenting is, well, good enough. Children are given, imperfectly, the security, support, affection, and interest they need. The parent is loving, supportive, consistent, and interested - sometimes, maybe often - but not always. Often enough. The parent sometimes (often?) fails to give the child what it wants and needs. If I may possibly overstate the case - the parent's failures are the anvil on which the child's identity is forged.
This is related to something I believe as a father of three - children are who they are the minute they come out of their mothers. Probably before that. I've never met an experienced parent who didn't recognize that.
So, what's the point as it relates to this thread - If a child has a decent life with parents who try to give them the security, support, affection, and attention they need, the kid will turn out ok - with an intact identity and a reasonable chance at happiness.
When I was a kid, it was television that was going to rot our brains, and look how well I turned out.
Social media is obviously fairly important to developmental psychology and developmental psychology is lifelong. I've seen elderly people become very different people once they got online and could hide their biological age.
Then, maybe correlation does not imply causation; but, the internet sure can amplify these dysphoric moods.
This is what Erikson had to say about identity formation:
Quoting Erikson
I don't think it really needs to spelled out; but, here is the gist. Identities are retarded by the anonymity that one can have on the internet. People who don't feel comfortable in their skin or around other people, are at a predisposition towards the addictive qualities of the internet, along with exacerbating their neurosis. Adolescents are drawn towards the fantasy of the internet, or some choose to intellectualize endlessly. Then, there's something to be said about defense mechanisms, which are amplified by the opaqueness of intent and personality on the internet.
I mean just read the above... I think Erikson would claim, if he were still alive to this day, that the internet is the anti-thesis to forming a healthy identity for adolescents and youth.
So, then the issues of inadequacy or social approbation become sublimated on the internet, where one can exercise their issues with other unknowing interlocutors. And, if one's ideas are met with hostility or outright banning, then one can always get a VPN to hide their IP address, and return to troll the would-be oppressors.
Well, some people are considering leaving a child with a PC to the internet, as 'benign neglect'. I think there's some merit to this idea, given what can be found on the internet. Back a while ago, before super-algorithms were around and about on the internet, it was way too easy to find pornography on the internet, for a child. Nowadays, Google, Facebook, and others rely on a combination of algorithms and human moderators to filter content. The internet is becoming a more sanitary environment due to this; but, I wonder what this all leads towards.
That's one of the cruxes of the internet. It's a substitute for feelings of loneliness, boredom, sadness, angst, and anger, which are all of these important things that prod an individual towards forming an identity. If you have a reality where anything goes, then people become more estranged from themselves. I mean, it's not the Matrix... yet.
Hopefully the dystopian futures projected in Cyberpunk media will never manifest into reality. I do think that talking to people online can be a worthwhile form of social interaction. I think that the problem is just that the social ecology of the net engenders dissociation and alienation. Everyone is connected, but, no meaningful connections are ever established.
The medium also just simply has its limits. It's kind of unnatural to just type away before plasma. A person shouldn't neglect that they probably do desire to communicate with others in the so-called "real world".
I guess my point was, don't worry too much about the internet. Love your kids. Protect them. Keep them safe. And you don't even have to do it well, just well enough. Children are pretty resilient. They deserve to be treated well, but they can thrive in imperfect situations. Trust them. You couldn't make it perfect for them if you wanted to. And if you did, it wouldn't be what they need.
You keep speaking authoritatively about how the internet is bad for the development of identity, but you don't provide any support beyond "seems to me...."
Look. I don't think the Internet is an appropriate vehicle for children to find, define, or establish themselves. Well-informed adults can have difficulty sorting fact from fiction on line, and for young people it is extremely difficult. Can teenagers end up getting twisted by being on the internet too much? Sure -- just as they can be twisted by falling in with the wrong crowd on their block.
The Internet IS good for many things, but young persons' social development is not one of them. Social development needs real (face to face) interaction; establishing one's personal identity requires actual experiences with the real world.
Most children in the world, with or without the Internet, do manage to successfully make their way to adulthood as well developed personalities.
Do you spend any time on Facebook, Tinder, or Twitter?
You can see this post again:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/301866
And yet, I contest, that it's exacerbated by the internet.
People have been contending that one thing exacerbates something else for a long time: the deleterious influences of cheap pulp novels on youth in the Victorian Period, or the higher hem lines and dances of the 1920s, or the lewd and lascivious scenes in the movies of the 1930s, or the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s, or the horror of hippies in the 1960s, or violence on TV in the 1980s, or video games in the 1990s, and so on.
It is not the case that there could be no relationship between violence on TV and violent behavior in real life, or that playing violent video games could have no effect on adolescent-adult behavior, or that viewing pornography never or always has good or bad consequences.
The problem is that providing strong proof, never mind proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, of a definite connection between this or that type of media and actual social or personal problems has proved impossible. And a hell of a lot of time, energy, ink, and paper has gone into the effort.
Some behaviors have more proven consequences. We know that sexually abusing children is more likely to result in the child being a sexual abuser when he or she reaches adulthood. We know that exposing children to lead has deleterious effects on intelligence and behavior. These sorts of relationships are relatively easy to demonstrate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_formation
Quoting James Marcia
In the above analysis, I believe unrestrained use of the internet leads most often to Identity Diffusion, with an added component of Identity Moratorium. What do others think of this?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm with BC. I remember when I was a a teenager. I was very unhappy. Very. I had all the symptoms listed in the Wikipedia article. We didn't have the internet, or facebook, or virtual reality. Well, we did have VR - I created it myself in my fevered brain. So, are things worse now? The WP article doesn't indicate that the studies referenced establish that. It also doesn't indicate whether they control for user selection, i.e. are fucked up kids more likely to use FB than more successful ones?
I really don't like facebook. It seems kind of creepy. Mostly, it just doesn't work for me. Other things on the internet and other new media are wonderful. Texting, iphone photography, and email have greatly improved the ease of keeping contact with people I like and love. As an engineer, the ease of getting information from the web has made me better at my job. I'm a really crappy photographer, but I love taking pictures of things going on in my life and sending them out to my family and friends.
So, anyway. Hell in a handbasket. right @Bitter Crank
I'm not sure this is completely relevant, but I thought you might be interested. Christopher Lasch was a social philosopher who wrote about how family structure and technology affect the structure of people's minds from a sociological rather than psychological perspective. He died in the early 90s, before the internet and facebook, but his writings came to mind when I was reading your posts.
That would be interesting to know - how have the internet and associated media changed the structure of people's minds? And how much of that change is caused by indirect factors - such as changes in the family - rather than the direct effects of the new media itself?
I'm not making light of individual struggles; they are real and can be strenuously difficult. My own process of identity resolution was as unsightly an affair as most people's, if not more so.
How do we all get through it?
Time pushes us forward, for one thing. We mature physically and mentally (ready or not), society makes demands on us ("Get a job, you lazy bum!" or "Your grades are slipping, you'd better crack the books!") and so we do. One fine day we realise we are all grown up, the crises resolved or not, and we get on with it.
"Getting on with it" doesn't mean we are all-well-adjusted, fulfilled, highly productive, role-appropriate, sensible people. Many of us aren't. We don't have to be. Like @T Clark's [i]good enough parenting[/I] we do well to achieve "good enough adulthood". "Good enough adulthood" is hard enough. If one can achieve excellence in adulthood, fine. We'll award you a blue ribbon. A blue ribbon and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee.
Getting to the grave gracefully and not too early is par. Enjoy life as much as possible along the way.
One of my favorite poems - Aunt Celia 1961 by Carl Dennis. Here's a link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VHB9RDHiEuUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Aunt+celia+1961&source=bl&ots=Bi0T-LmUaq&sig=ACfU3U0b2JelRzHFD856_46PZFnJkvKjVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBpsf_mo_jAhVkT98KHRL6AA0Q6AEwCnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=Aunt%20celia%201961&f=false
Last stanza:
[i]People will tell you there are many good lives
Waiting for everyone, each fine in its own way.
And maybe they’re right, but in my opinion
One is miles above the others.
Otherwise it wouldn’t have been so clear to me
When I found it. Otherwise those who lack it
Wouldn’t be able to tell so clearly it’s missing
[b]As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.[/b]
But as for the happiness that can’t be earned,
The kind it makes no sense for you to look for,
That’s something different.[/i]
My bold. Not a long poem. Worth a read. He's a mid-westerner like you and he has what I think of as a very mid-western sensibility. Like you.
By the way - I first heard the poem on the radio on "The Writer's Almanac," hosted by another good mid-western boy I know you are familiar with.
The capacity of social media to wreak vengeance on those who cross the wrong line in the sand (there are so many lines...) is great. Keillor's erasure didn't require the Internet; radio and television networks or film studios have always had the power to pull the plug on a show or a performer. What the Internet can do via social media is amplify any voices organised enough to start a wave of negative comment. Institutions of all kinds live in dread of being targeted, so they react to any potential negative spin really quickly.
There is another factor having nothing to do with the Internet: Institutions (whether commercial or non-profit) work very hard to control their identities in the market place. Individuals without a lot of money can't really play this game. Corporations changing their names, logos, and advertising is an example. Phillip Morris Tobacco became Altria. They still sell tobacco, of course. Weight Watchers switched to WW with the tagline “Wellness that Works.” Apparently being associated with fat people wasn't good even for them. Lucky and Gold Star Corporation changed their name to LG. "Life's good." IBM doesn't make many computers anymore, but at least they haven't changed their name. Kraft and Heinz haven't become KHZ Corp. yet, anyway.
GK always struck me as a prickly person who maybe wasn't exactly as nice as the character he played. On the other hand - Prairie Home Companion was a truly wonderful program for an unreasonably long period of time. And it was all his. I don't mean his co-contributors weren't also wonderful, but he was the heart, soul, and brain. It was the projection of him - who he is and who he wanted people to think he is - up onto a large screen. I remember when I first started listening in the 1970s. I couldn't believe something could be so good.
Just to add, “social media” seems a grave misnomer. It is more “anti-social media” than anything social, because we are literally interacting with screens and not human beings. Perhaps this adds to the detrimental effect.
Is this forum included as social media? I find this a very social place. I've made friends. I share personal information. We are a community. The opportunity for this type of interaction with people doesn't replace my relationships with my face to face friends and family, but it's a nice addition.
I think it's a special interest social space. It's definitely social, and definitely media, but it doesn't behave in the aggregate like Twitter and the likes do. Especially since we value long form responses, and our associations are based more on being interested in each others' ideas, research and other products than our larger lives.
Of course, it's difficult not to feel fond of those you want to read. :)
True, interacting with people in the way that this forum operates is not quite the same as sitting down for lunch together. But then, neither is writing a letter (and the recipient reading it), nor is talking on the telephone. People have been communicating electronically since about 1850, first with the telegraph. Telegraphing became an essential activity for many people almost immediately. Business operators, of course, but soon ordinary people found reasons for fast communications: "wll arriv denver noon 7-3 stgcch from golden stop" Over those 170 years we've added more electronics, but it's all pretty much the same: a message carried over wires or fibre optics.
What I really disliked about FaceBook is that it pushes way too much stuff at one's attention. It's to immersive. I prefer to pull information when I feel like it, rather than having it pushed. Here one has to pull information. TPF doesn't send messages like "Hey, SlyWeasel just got banned!" "TClark just responded to fdrake!