LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  July 2006

SOCNET July 2006

Subject:

Re: Social Isolation- Best report. (fwd)

From:

Miller McPherson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Miller McPherson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 1 Jul 2006 07:00:35 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (363 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:30:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Miller McPherson <[log in to unmask]>
To: Andrew Cleary <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Social Isolation- Best report.


A link to the original paper is at:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/06/socialisolation.html

Miller





On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Andrew Cleary wrote:

> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> Wow, if that scare-mongering extrapolation is the "best", I'm afraid of
> what the *worst* is... or by "best", did you mean "most dramatic misuse
> of the original study?" (seriously: I'm not sure what you meant by
> "best"). I have a hard time with a journalist telling people how they
> should feel about the news the journalist is reporting (e.g. "it should
> scare you").
>
> The number of ways in which I disagree with Meyer's conclusions and
> methods of drawing and reporting them are too numerous to list here. I
> am glad that the authors of the study seem to be doing their best (as
> they have reported on this list) to try to undo some of the damage that
> these sensationalistic exaggerations have been doing, though I'll say
> (having not read the original report) that if Meyer is accurate in
> reporting that it said some of these things - "The number of people who
> have someone to talk to about matters that are important to them has
> declined dramatically we have gone from a quarter of the American
> population being isolated  to almost half of the populations falling
> into that category," - then the authors brought some of this on
> themselves by editorializing unnecessarily (here, choosing to define
> "isolation" in terms of "reported number of confidants" when it isn't at
> all clear that that is the best or even a good definition of
> "isolation"), and that's leaving aside deeper issues such as whether
> having less confidants might have a *positive* causal factor, e.g.
> perhaps when people are happier overall they don't have as many problems
> *requiring* confidants.
>
> Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> > Behalf Of Matthew E. Brashears
> > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:26 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Social Isolation- Best report.
> >
> > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
> >
> > I think this is probably the best article on the Social Isolation
> paper
> > I've
> > seen yet:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/28/opinion/meyer/printable1762234
> .s
> > html
> >
> > Go to CBSNews.com Home
> > The Lonely States Of America
> > WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006(CBS) This commentary was written by
> > CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
> >
> >
> > The American Sociological Review may have just published the social
> health
> > equivalent of the 1964 Surgeon General's report that declared smoking
> > causes cancer. The unpleasant but long suspected discovery in this
> case is
> > that social isolation in America has grown dramatically in the past 20
> > years.
> >
> > Some things are uncomfortable to know. We don't like knowing the earth
> is
> > getting hotter; some people choose not to believe it. In 1964, about
> half
> > of all adults smoked and they did not like knowing the habit caused
> > cancer; some people chose not to believe it and some people still
> don't.
> > The scientific evidence about smoking and cancer existed long before
> Jan.
> > 11, 1964, but when the famous report was issued that day, people
> started
> > believing it.
> >
> > I expect something quieter and more eggheaded but quite similar will
> > happen with an academic paper with the vanilla title, "Social
> Isolation in
> > America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades." The
> > authors, Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin and Matthew Brashears,
> > sociologists at Duke and the University of Arizona, have no such wild
> > pretensions, but I think they've documented an enormous, stunning
> social
> > change so clearly that it will alter the way we look at social and
> > political life. It should.
> >
> > And it should scare you.
> >
> > The authors set out to empirically describe how socially connected
> > Americans are by asking them questions like, "Who are the peoplewith
> whom
> > you discussed matters important to you?" They did this as part of the
> > General Social Survey, the Rolls Royce of face-to-face social surveys
> that
> > has been conducted almost every year since 1972. In 2004, they
> precisely
> > replicated questions about social networks that had not been asked
> since
> > 1985.
> >
> > Because the findings are so stark and clear, and come with no
> linguistic
> > and philosophic adornment, I'll let the numbers speak for themselves
> in
> > blunt bullet points:
> >
> > # From 1985 to 2004, "the number of people saying there is no one with
> > whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled." Now, 24.6 percent
> > report they have no confidants, family or non-family  that's one in
> four
> > Americans. Another 19.6 percent say they have just one confidant. That
> > means 43 percent of Americans have either no confidants or just one, a
> > slice that has doubled since 1985.
> >
> > # More than half, 53.4 percent, do not have any confidants who aren't
> > family. In 1985, 80 percent had at least one confidant who was not
> family;
> > now only 57.2 percent do.
> >
> > # The average size of Americans' social networks decreased by a third
> > between 1985 and 2004, from 2.94 to 2.08; basically this means the
> loss of
> > one confidant.
> >
> > # The kinds of relationships that decreased the most in providing
> > important contacts were neighbors and co-members of groups or
> voluntary
> > associations (as opposed to spouse, sibling, parent, co-worker, etc.)
> >
> > # Women have more family in their networks than men, as they did in
> 1985.
> > But then they had fewer non-kin close relationships than men did. Now
> > women have about the same number of confidants outside family as do
> men.
> > Unfortunately, that isn't because women have made more contacts
> outside
> > kin, but because men have fewer.
> >
> > # More education correlates with having larger social networks.
> Non-whites
> > and the elderly are populations with smaller networks.
> >
> > Don't let yourself be numbed by the numbers because they tell a
> dramatic
> > story even though there are no victims, tears or sound bites.
> >
> > The bottom line: "The number of people who have someone to talk to
> about
> > matters that are important to them has declined dramatically we have
> gone
> > from a quarter of the American population being isolated  to almost
> half
> > of the populations falling into that category."
> >
> > Stop and think about that for a second. Almost half the people around
> you
> > have at most one person they feel they can talk to about what is most
> > important to them. Seems like a pretty lousy social system we've got
> going
> > here, doesn't it?
> >
> > Does this cold statistical portrait comport with your own experience
> of
> > the world and the people you are acquainted with? My first gut answer
> was
> > "no." But when I thought about it harder, the answer changed. There
> are
> > people who I think are frighteningly isolated even in my company, my
> small
> > neighborhood, my extended family and the community based around my
> kids'
> > school  and these are all social networks by definition. The most
> > isolated, of course, I wouldn't even come across much.
> >
> > The authors were even more surprised at the findings and looked for
> every
> > possible reason why the results could be wrong. They explored whether
> > people have different notions of the word "discuss" or "important"
> than
> > they did 20 years ago. They looked for technical problems in the
> survey.
> > But the news stayed bad.
> >
> > So what explains this seismic social thud?
> >
> > The paper eliminates a couple suspects. It is not caused by great
> > geographic mobility  the corporate nomad syndrome. It is not caused by
> > employment rates. It does not correlate with increased television
> > watching. Most importantly, it is not caused by the demographic facts
> that
> > the population is aging and more ethnically diverse; if it were, those
> > trends would have been countered by the increased educational levels
> since
> > 1985, since education leads to larger networks.
> >
> > That means the answers will be deep and complicated.
> >
> > Though they are mostly into documenting not explaining, the authors do
> put
> > out a couple of hypotheses. The main culprits are work time and
> commutes.
> > Both have increased since 1985 and both take time away from families,
> > friends and voluntary participation. As women entered the workforce in
> > bulk, the total number of hours family members spent working outside
> the
> > home went way up. As people fled the cities, suburbs and exurbs boomed
> and
> > so did commute times.
> >
> > This especially affects "middle-aged, better-educated, higher-income
> > families." As the paper points out, these are exactly the people who
> build
> > neighborhoods and volunteer groups and those are the social structures
> > that have most atrophied in the past 20 years.
> >
> > The more speculative hypothesis is that perhaps new communications
> > technologies have led to people forming wider, but weaker social ties
> that
> > are less dependent on geography. E-mail and cheap phone calling have
> made
> > it easier to stay in frequent, sometimes constant touch with lots of
> > people, no matter where they are.
> >
> > These weak ties are different than the confidant ties that this study
> > measures, but the authors are open to the idea that a network of
> weaker
> > ties can provide equally meaningful, but different, social support (a
> view
> > supported by a quantitative study done by two university of Toronto
> > sociologists for the Pew Internet & American Life Project). But they
> do
> > point out the obvious: "some services and emotional support" do depend
> on
> > proximity.
> >
> > Certainly, it's hard to escape complaints about the busy-ness and
> > time-stress of life these days; it's an obvious, bad problem. For most
> > people I know, it is exacerbated by the technology that is meant to
> make
> > it easier for us to communicate and stay connected. Instead of feeling
> in
> > touch, many feel on a leash. Portable, gadget driven communication
> doesn't
> > count as soul-feeding bonding for many people I know, but is rather a
> > cruel mockery.
> >
> > I do suspect that this study overlooks one simple contributing factor,
> the
> > decline of real geographic communities  places where people grow up
> where
> > their parents grew up, where non-nuclear relatives live near by, where
> > friendships and acquaintances go across generations.
> >
> > Explaining social isolation will be controversial, but not as
> difficult as
> > repairing it.
> >
> > In primitive and survival-dependent societies, social isolation was
> > basically impossible. But modern societies have never been without
> chronic
> > existential worries about isolation and loneliness; it is one of the
> > defining marks of modernity. Literary and philosophic examinations of
> > American souls and social life began with the very first American
> books,
> > like Ben Franklin's autobiography.
> >
> > Looking at these issues empirically is a different matter. Social
> > statistics aren't the stuff of teen angst, novels and high culture.
> But
> > the story they tell is just as disturbing and just as hard for society
> to
> > accept. Recent social science research, for example, about the decline
> of
> > civic engagement and community participation has been exceedingly
> > controversial and contested. There are even larger objections to the
> idea
> > that "social science" can ever get a handle on these kinds of issues
> in a
> > way that is at all scientific.
> >
> > It is hard to believe and accept that we live in a society where one
> > person in four feels they don't have someone to confide in. It's
> > depressing and even somewhat terrifying. We can, of course, ignore it
> all
> > and choose to keep on smoking.
> >
> >
> > Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com.
> >
> > E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
> > Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil)
> > ones, sometimes in edited form.
> >
> >
> > By Dick Meyer
> > MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> >
> > ***********************
> > Matthew Brashears
> > Graduate Student
> > Department of Sociology
> > University of Arizona
> >
> > "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> > -Charles Darwin
> >
> > "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
> higher
> > esteem
> > those who think alike than those who think differently."
> > -Frederich Wilhelm Nietzsche
> > ***********************
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> > network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> > an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> > UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>

********************************        *
Miller McPherson                     *  *
Professor of Sociology               ******
University of Arizona                   *
[log in to unmask]                  *
********************************        *

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager