A New, More Rigorous Study Confirms: The More You Use Facebook, the Worse You Feel

By Holly B. Shakya / Nicholas A. Christakis
April 10, 2017

Video: Funny Or Die

The average Facebook user spends almost an hour on the site every day, according to data provided by the company last year. A Deloitte survey found that for many smartphone users, checking social media apps are the first thing they do in the morning – often before even getting out of bed. Of course, social interaction is a healthy and necessary part of human existence. Thousands of studies have concluded that most human beings thrive when they have strong, positive relationships with other human beings.

The challenge is that most of the work on social interaction has been conducted using “real world,” face-to-face social networks, in contrast to the types of online relationships that are increasingly common. So, while we know that old-fashioned social interaction is healthy, what about social interaction that is completely mediated through an electronic screen? When you wake up in the morning and tap on that little blue icon, what impact does it have on you?

Prior research has shown that the use of social media may detract from face-to-face relationships, reduce investment in meaningful activities, increase sedentary behavior by encouraging more screen time, lead to internet addiction, and erode self-esteem through unfavorable social comparison. Self-comparison can be a strong influence on human behavior, and because people tend to display the most positive aspects of their lives on social media, it is possible for an individual to believe that their own life compares negatively to what they see presented by others. But some skeptics have wondered if perhaps people with lower well-being are more likely to use social media, rather than social media causing lower well-being. Moreover, other studies have found that social media use has a positive impact on well-being through increased social support and reinforcement of real world relationships.

We wanted to get a clearer picture of the relationship between social media use and well-being. In our study, we used three waves of data from 5,208 adults from a national longitudinal panel maintained by the Gallup organization, coupled with several different measures of Facebook usage, to see how well-being changed over time in association with Facebook use. Our measures of well-being included life satisfaction, self-reported mental health, self-reported physical health, and body-mass index (BMI). Our measures of Facebook use included liking others’ posts, creating one’s own posts, and clicking on links. We also had measures of respondents’ real-world social networks. In each wave, respondents were asked to name up to four friends with whom they discuss important matters and up to four friends with whom they spend their free time, so that each participant could name up to a total of eight unique individuals.

Our approach had three strengths that set it apart from most of the previous work on the topic. First, we had three waves of data for many of our respondents over a period of two years. This allowed us to track how changes in social media use were associated with changes in well-being. Most studies done to date only use one period of data, limiting interpretations of conclusions to simple associations. Second, we had objective measures of Facebook use, pulled directly from participants’ Facebook accounts, rather than measures based on a person’s self-report. Third, in addition to the Facebook data, we had information regarding the respondents’ real-world social networks, which would allow us to directly compare the two influences (face-to-face networks and online interactions). Of course, our study has limitations too, including that we could not be certain about how fully representative it was because not everyone in the Gallup sample allowed us access to their Facebook data.

Overall, our results showed that, while real-world social networks were positively associated with overall well-being, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with overall well-being. These results were particularly strong for mental health; most measures of Facebook use in one year predicted a decrease in mental health in a later year. We found consistently that both liking others’ content and clicking links significantly predicted a subsequent reduction in self-reported physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction.

Our models included measures of real-world networks and adjusted for baseline Facebook use. When we accounted for a person’s level of initial well-being, initial real-world networks, and initial level of Facebook use, increased use of Facebook was still associated with a likelihood of diminished future well-being. This provides some evidence that the association between Facebook use and compromised well-being is a dynamic process.

Although we can show that Facebook use seems to lead to diminished well-being, we cannot definitively say how that occurs. We did not see much difference between the three types of activity we measured — liking, posting, and clicking links, (although liking and clicking were more consistently significant) — and the impact on the user. This was interesting, because while we expected that “liking” other people’s content would be more likely to lead to negative self-comparisons and thus decreases in well-being, updating one’s own status and clicking links seemed to have a similar effect (although the nature of status updates can ostensibly be the result of social comparison-tailoring your own Facebook image based on how others will perceive it). Overall our results suggests that well-being declines are also matter of quantity of use rather than only quality of use. If this is the case, our results contrast with previousresearch arguing that the quantity of social media interaction is irrelevant, and that only the quality of those interactions matter.

These results then may be relevant for other forms of social media. While many platforms expose the user to the sort of polished profiles of others that can lead to negative self-comparison, the issue of quantity of usage will be an issue for any social media platform. While screen time in general can be problematic, the tricky thing about social media is that while we are using it, we get the impression that we are engaging in meaningful social interaction. Our results suggest that the nature and quality of this sort of connection is no substitute for the real world interaction we need for a healthy life.

The full story when it comes to online social media use is surely complex. Exposure to the carefully curated images from others’ lives leads to negative self-comparison, and the sheer quantity of social media interaction may detract from more meaningful real-life experiences. What seems quite clear, however, is that online social interactions are no substitute for the real thing.

In: hbr

Video: RightNow Media

How to install Realtek HD audio drivers in windows 7 | ASHRAF PASHA |

Si necesitas actualizar tu Realtek Audio, solo ve al proveedor de software y herramientas de la marca de tu equipo, colocas el modelo de tu maquina (generalmente se encuentra debajo de tu laptop o detrás de tu PC). Dependiendo de tu maquina x32 o x64 buscas el driver de Audio Realtek, lo descargar en tu equipo (estará comprimido), lo descomprimes y una carpeta llena de archivos se abrirá. Simplemente copia la dirección del archivo. Vas y abres el Device Manager o Administrador de Dispositivos para luego actualizar el Driver de Realtek, simplemente pega la dirección de la carpeta que copiaste, esperas y listo, tu Driver de Realtek Audio estará actualizado y el sonido regresara. Suerte!

Video: Ashraf Pasha

Michael Lewis traces the ‘gutting of the civil service’ under Trump

Oct 8, 2018 6:25 PM EDT

Michael Lewis. Image: http://michaellewiswrites.com/img/Michael-Lewis.png

Bestselling author Michael Lewis says the idea that civil servants are “lazy or stupid or dead weight on the society is…the most sinister idea alive in this country right now.” In his new book, “The Fifth Risk,” Lewis examines how the Trump administration has been staffing the federal government, and its “ignorance of the mission.” Lewis sits down with William Brangham for a conversation.

Judy Woodruff:

As we have been reporting, addressing enormous global challenges like climate change require more than just individual action. They require the leadership of active, engaged governments.

In his new book, “The Fifth Risk,” bestselling author Michael Lewis reports on the Trump administration and its approach to staffing the federal government.

William is back with the latest installment of our “NewsHour” Bookshelf.

He began by asking Michael Lewis to explain the book’s title.

Michael Lewis:

It’s the risk you’re not imagining. It’s the thing you’re not thinking about when you’re worried about whatever you’re worried about.

And the beginning of the story is really seeing the federal government as a portfolio of risks that are being managed. Most of — most of them, we aren’t even thinking about, things like the risk that some nuclear bomb is going to go off when it shouldn’t go off, managed out of the Department Energy, or that we won’t have an accurate picture of the society, managed out of the Department of Commerce.

It collects all the statistics about the society. I mean, you move across the government, it’s breathtaking how many mission-critical things there are, and how it’s being done in spite of this vague hostility the society has to its own government.

William Brangham:

Your reporting really covers the period after Trump is clearly going to be the president and the transition that goes on when one administration switches to the next.

How would you characterize, broadly speaking, how that transition happened and what occurred?

Michael Lewis:

So, there’s what’s supposed to happen, and there’s what happened.

What is supposed to happen is that the outgoing administration spends nine months and a thousand people’s time building briefing books across the administration. So, the Obama administration did this. And the idea was, the day after the election, whoever won would send hundreds of people into the government to get the briefings.

And the Trump administration didn’t show up. They never bothered to learn what these agencies are doing.

William Brangham:

The book has so many fascinating vignettes of people who work within these different federal agencies.

And I wonder if there’s one story that stands out to you that’s emblematic of this larger issue that you’re talking about.

Michael Lewis:

Well, the larger issue of the ignorance — the problem of ignorance of the mission, and, as a result, putting the wrong person in.

I mean, there are hundreds of examples, but I mean, I think one that is easily described is, inside the Department of Agriculture, there is a chief scientist. And this person is responsible for distributing $3 billion in research grants every year.

Now, this is going to agricultural research, most of it, one way or another, now associated with climate change. it’s how we’re going to — how we’re going to continue to grow food and graze sheep and milk cows in different — in a different climate. And it’s a serious issue. It’s the planning for the — the food supply of 50 years from now.

The person who was doing that was a very distinguished research scientist in agriculture named Cathie Woteki. She’s a world-class authority on the subject of agricultural science.

Trump replaced her with a right-wing talk show radio host from Iowa who happened to have supported him in the election who had no science background at all.

That kind of thing, taking people who really know something, and replacing them with people who are just like loyalists, who have absolutely no idea what the mission is, is a theme that runs right through the administration.

William Brangham:

Does the mission suffer? I mean, I think obviously, you could look at that kind of a transition and say, that seems a drastic shift in priority.

But these bureaucracies largely have a career staff that are there largely permanently. I mean, doesn’t — doesn’t that staff keep the mission going for the most part?

Michael Lewis:

So of the top 6,000 career civil servants in the federal work force, 20 percent of them quit or were fired the first year of the Trump administration.

So, already, there’s a — you can see a gutting of the civil service. And the idea that these people are lazy or stupid or dead weight on the society is — I think it’s the most sinister idea alive in this country right now. I really do.

And I think — and it’s because they are — they’re very mission-driven people. They’re very knowledgeable people. What they aren’t is money people. And…

William Brangham:

Meaning they’re not in money for themselves.

Michael Lewis:

Yes, that’s right. You don’t take these jobs to be famous — rich and famous. You take these jobs because you really care about the thing.

And they’re the government. And without those people, this place collapses.

William Brangham:

This place being this society.

Michael Lewis:

The society.

It’s not like the government is a tool that we might use to address the biggest problems we have. It’s the only tool for most of the biggest problem. You’re going to deal with climate change, that’s going to be from the government.

If you deal — anything having to do with science and technology, all the basic research, the very basic research is done with government — through the government, because if it’s not going to pay out in the next 10 to 15 years, industry doesn’t want to have anything to do with it.

The future is driven by what the government does. And it has been in this country forever. I mean, you don’t get the Internet without the government. You don’t get the iPhone without the government. You don’t get GPS without the government.

We are drastically cheating the future when we beat the government, the way we treat it. It’s not just Trump. I mean, we have been doing this here for several decades, this — playing with the idea that the government’s the problem, not the solution. He is just the ultimate expression of the problem.

And I think if it’s like there is this exquisitely important machine that we have allowed, through our own neglect, to accumulate rust over the decades. And now he’s come in with a sledgehammer. And, yes, we’re going to play a real price if we don’t pay attention.

In the last third of the book, you really talk about the centrality of government data and how important that is.

And there’s a few passages where you list a lot of ways in which the Trump administration has been scrubbing its Web sites of data. The USDA was removing reports of farm animals being abused, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau removing reports of financial abuse, FEMA removing data about electricity and water in Puerto Rico after the hurricane.

What is behind that?

Michael Lewis:

All the climate change data across the…

William Brangham:

Right, at the Department of Energy.

Michael Lewis:

There is a threat, anyway, to the weather data being accessible.

It is not ideological. It’s been driven by narrow financial interests. Someone…

William Brangham:

Financial interests?

Michael Lewis:

Someone has a business that is going to be more profitable if this information is not available.

And so it’s ranchers who want to be able to abuse animals, or it’s a — it’s a weather company that doesn’t want the weather data publicly accessible, because they want to be able to sell it to people.

William Brangham:

After talking with all of these different officials working within these crucial agencies, what is the thing that scares you the most? What keeps you up?

Michael Lewis:

It’s a broad thing. And the broad thing is the fantastic myopia of this moment.

We’re going to look back and say there were many — unless we drastically shift course — look back and say there were many moments where we cheated the future by the way we behaved in the present.

And I think that’s — that’s been true for a while, but I think it’s really true right now.

William Brangham:

The book is “The Fifth Risk.”

Michael Lewis, thank you so much.

Michael Lewis:

Thanks for having me.

In: npr

Read also:

Michael Lewis Wonders Who’s Really Running the Government

‘The Fifth Risk’ Paints A Portrait Of A Government Led By The Uninterested

Nikki Haley Resigns As U.N. Ambassador

Trump and Nikki Haley. Image: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/world/americas/nikki-haley-un-trump.html

Nikki Haley has resigned as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

It is not immediately clear what prompted the move. She informed her staff Tuesday, NPR’s Michele Kelemen reports. Haley is scheduled to appear with President Trump at the Oval Office Tuesday morning.

Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, has been a fierce advocate for Trump’s policies at the U.N.

“I proudly serve in this administration, and I enthusiastically support most of its decisions and the direction it is taking the country,” Haley wrote in The Washington Post last month, after The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed critical of the Trump administration. “But I don’t agree with the president on everything.”

In: npr

Read also:

Here’s what UNESCO is — and why the Trump administration just quit it

U.S. Announces Its Withdrawal From U.N. Human Rights Council

Why is the U.S. moving its embassy to Jerusalem?

The U.N. Is Giving up on Trump: The United Nations is losing hope that it can influence President Trump—and is threatening to activate Plan B instead.

New US Policies on Visas Can Hurt Same-Sex Couples at the UN

The United Nations Explained: Its Purpose, Power and Problems

1 51 52 53 54 55 501