RE: UKNM: 'higher levels of depression and loneliness'

[Ross Sleight]

Steve Bowbrick wrote:


At 10:57 04/09/98 +0100, you wrote:


>>I'm being flip, but I don't like this kind of ivory-tower self-selecting,

>>localised, predetermined result-in-mind-based research at all. Plus -- would

>>there have been a hoohah if they'd come up with anything positive?


>If this were a different research team I would have agreed but this is the

>HCI INstitute team at CMU, a pioneering advocate of the online life in most

>areas. Most likely that they were actually expecting the reverse of the

>final result. Sponsors certainly were.


Was this the same CMU which provided the figures and research for Time

Magazine's expose on the Internet as porn palace of the world a couple of

years ago...which two weeks later they had to retract due to dodgy

methodology.  I think we should be told!


Sorry for being a bit flip but I think that this research is rather dubious

as to its real value - both from a methodological standing and from a

general interpretation of findings.  From what I can gather from looking at

the research, it is also true to say that books are depressing as they are a

solitary activity.  Its just the research doesn't actually mention this...


What is more concerning outside of methodological arguments is that the

story was picked up world-wide and became another cudgel to beat the medium

with.  Mass market interpretation of this story surely sets the whole

education process back a few steps?


Ross