- Email: [email protected]
Depression through technology
OPINION
Shiny, unhappy people That new phone or laptop may be giving you a warm glow, but beware a stealth attack on your happiness, warns Yair Amichai-Hamburger “THE age of melancholy” is how psychologist Daniel Goleman describes our era. People today experience more depression than previous generations, despite the technological wonders that help us every day. It might be because of them. Our lifestyles are increasingly driven by technology. Phones, computers and the internet pervade our days. There is a constant, nagging need to check for texts and email, to update Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn profiles, to acquire the latest notebook or 3G cellphone. Are we being served by these technological wonders or have we become enslaved by them? I study the psychology of technology, and it seems to me that we are sleepwalking into a world where technology is severely affecting our well-being. Technology can be hugely useful in the fast lane of modern living, but we need to stop it from taking over. For many of us it is becoming increasingly difficult to control the impulse to check our inbox yet again or see whether the headlines have changed since we last looked. Our children are in a similar position, scared to miss a vital Tweet or status update on Facebook. In many homes, the computer has become the centre of attention; it is the medium through which we work and play. How did this arise, and what is it doing to us? In this era of mass consumption, we are surrounded by advertising that urges us to find fulfilment through the acquisition of material goods. As a result, adults and children
increasingly believe that in order to belong and feel good about themselves, they must own the latest model or gadget. Yet research by psychologist Tim Kasser of Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, has shown that people who place a high value on material goals are unhappier than those who are less materialistic. Materialism is also associated with lower self-esteem, greater narcissism, greater tendency to compare oneself unfavourably with other people, less empathy and more conflict in relationships. Our culture also constantly reminds us that time is money. This implies a need for total
28 | NewScientist | 19/26 December 2009 & 2 January 2010
efficiency, which is why we are allowing laptop computers and mobile phones to blur the separation between work and home. As one unhappy humanresource manager in a high-tech company put it: “They gave me a mobile phone so they can own me 24 hours a day, and a portable computer, so my office is now with me all the time – I cannot break out of this pressure.” Sound familiar? Psychologists generally believe that the lack of a clear
“People who place a high value on material goals are unhappier than those who are less materialistic”
separation between work and home significantly damages our relationships with loved ones. It also predisposes us to focus on the here and now at the expense of long-term goals. By imposing these twin pressures, modern society is in danger of swapping standard of living for quality of life. We need ways to help recover those increasingly large parts of our lives that we have ceded to technology, to regain mastery over technology and learn to use it in a healthy and positive way. My prescription is selfdetermination theory, developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan of the University of Rochester in New York state. It identifies three vital elements of healthy personal development and functioning which I think can be used to recalibrate our relationship with technology. The first is autonomy – the feeling that our activities are selfchosen and self-endorsed. When we feel in control, we are able to organise our priorities and place effective boundaries around them. But when we feel we have insufficient control, it leaves us vulnerable to our impulses and causes us to abdicate decisions to other people. It is easy to see how technology undermines autonomy, but also how to regain it. This may be as simple as switching off mobile phones during meals and family time, setting aside specific times to answer emails, and being available only when we choose to be. We also need a sense of competence, a belief that our
Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion
Yair Amichai-Hamburger is director of the Research Center for Internet Psychology at the Sammy Ofer School of Communications, the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. His book Technology and Psychological Well-being is published by Cambridge University Press
One minute with…
Richard Wrangham In his book Catching Fire: How cooking made us human, the zoologist argues that cooked food helped us develop big brains
What was the central mystery of human evolution that you were trying to solve? I was sitting next to the fire in my living room and I started asking the question, when did our ancestors last live without fire? Out of this came a paradox: it seemed to me that no human with our body form could have lived without it. Why can’t a human exist on the same diet as a chimpanzee? A chimpanzee’s diet is like eating crab apples and rose hips. Just go into the woods and find some fruits, and see if you can come back with a full stomach. The answer is you can’t. The big difficulty is that the nutrient density is not very high. This is problematic for humans because we have a very small gut, about 60 per cent of the volume it would be if we were one of the other great apes. We don’t have enough intestine to keep low-quality food in our gut long enough to digest it. So cooking provided some kind of a watershed for humans to split from our chimp-like ancestors? Yes. I believe the point at which our bodies show adaptation to cooking is 1.9 million years ago. The evidence is in the changes that took place when we evolved from ancestors that were like chimpanzees but were already standing upright. Cooking led to increased energy intake. What was the result of having more energy? Maximising energy from food allowed us to lose a third of the large intestine and significantly expand our brain size. It affected our brain because humans were social and there was a premium on being as intelligent as possible in order to outsmart your opponents in competition, ultimately for mates. So there’s no physical proof of when cooking started? From archaeological evidence, people estimate anything from 50,000 years ago to more than a million years.
PROFILE Richard Wrangham studied chimpanzees in Tanzania. He is a professor of anthropology at Harvard University and author of Catching Fire (Basic Books, $26.95/Profile Books, £15)
You say that cooking led to the division of labour between men and women How do you believe that happened? Cooking imposes a delay between collecting food and eating it, which means others could steal from the cook. I worked out a simple model of social relationships that would let a cook keep the food. It relied on having a dominant set of individuals, the males, and a subordinate set, the females, who would cook but be protected by the males. We see this in many tribal societies – women cook for their husbands. There are two rules: a woman is obliged to feed her husband every night, and she is not allowed to feed another man unless her husband is present. If the whole society signs up to these rules, women are protected from thieves. You have been accused of male chauvinism. I’m just describing what happens, which is that women do the cooking in all societies except modern urban industrial ones. But that doesn’t make me a supporter of it. I’m not saying it is what should happen today. Interview by Jeremy Webb
19/26 December 2009 & 2 January 2010 | NewScientist | 29
RICK FRIEDMAN/CORBIS
actions are effective. In this respect our relationship with technology is complex, because many of us feel competent when we deal with an email, when we have the newest BlackBerry, or because 50 people enjoyed the holiday snaps we posted on Facebook. But being truly competent must be a continuation of our autonomy: knowing which activities are important to us and carrying them out in the most effectual way possible, making use of technology where applicable. The other factor is relatedness: our need to feel close to other people. Technology is a threat to this. Devices like the iPod can be used to create a bubble that disconnects us from normal human interactions, and while some virtual relationships may be truly meaningful, in many cases they come at the expense of real-world connections. Psychologists have found that the pivotal difference between happy and unhappy people is the presence or absence of rich and satisfying social relationships. Spending meaningful time with friends, family and partners is necessary for happiness. I would add a fourth factor, too: critical thinking. In today’s world, where we are potentially available 24/7 to absorb messages from well-honed advertisements, it is vital that we know how to analyse and evaluate their validity – and to neutralise them where necessary. I believe that autonomy, competence, relatedness and critical thinking are the best ways to establish a balanced approach to technology, and so enhance our well-being. ■
Shiny, unhappy people That new phone or laptop may be giving you a warm glow, but beware a stealth attack on your happiness, warns Yair Amichai-Hamburger “THE age of melancholy” is how psychologist Daniel Goleman describes our era. People today experience more depression than previous generations, despite the technological wonders that help us every day. It might be because of them. Our lifestyles are increasingly driven by technology. Phones, computers and the internet pervade our days. There is a constant, nagging need to check for texts and email, to update Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn profiles, to acquire the latest notebook or 3G cellphone. Are we being served by these technological wonders or have we become enslaved by them? I study the psychology of technology, and it seems to me that we are sleepwalking into a world where technology is severely affecting our well-being. Technology can be hugely useful in the fast lane of modern living, but we need to stop it from taking over. For many of us it is becoming increasingly difficult to control the impulse to check our inbox yet again or see whether the headlines have changed since we last looked. Our children are in a similar position, scared to miss a vital Tweet or status update on Facebook. In many homes, the computer has become the centre of attention; it is the medium through which we work and play. How did this arise, and what is it doing to us? In this era of mass consumption, we are surrounded by advertising that urges us to find fulfilment through the acquisition of material goods. As a result, adults and children
increasingly believe that in order to belong and feel good about themselves, they must own the latest model or gadget. Yet research by psychologist Tim Kasser of Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, has shown that people who place a high value on material goals are unhappier than those who are less materialistic. Materialism is also associated with lower self-esteem, greater narcissism, greater tendency to compare oneself unfavourably with other people, less empathy and more conflict in relationships. Our culture also constantly reminds us that time is money. This implies a need for total
28 | NewScientist | 19/26 December 2009 & 2 January 2010
efficiency, which is why we are allowing laptop computers and mobile phones to blur the separation between work and home. As one unhappy humanresource manager in a high-tech company put it: “They gave me a mobile phone so they can own me 24 hours a day, and a portable computer, so my office is now with me all the time – I cannot break out of this pressure.” Sound familiar? Psychologists generally believe that the lack of a clear
“People who place a high value on material goals are unhappier than those who are less materialistic”
separation between work and home significantly damages our relationships with loved ones. It also predisposes us to focus on the here and now at the expense of long-term goals. By imposing these twin pressures, modern society is in danger of swapping standard of living for quality of life. We need ways to help recover those increasingly large parts of our lives that we have ceded to technology, to regain mastery over technology and learn to use it in a healthy and positive way. My prescription is selfdetermination theory, developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan of the University of Rochester in New York state. It identifies three vital elements of healthy personal development and functioning which I think can be used to recalibrate our relationship with technology. The first is autonomy – the feeling that our activities are selfchosen and self-endorsed. When we feel in control, we are able to organise our priorities and place effective boundaries around them. But when we feel we have insufficient control, it leaves us vulnerable to our impulses and causes us to abdicate decisions to other people. It is easy to see how technology undermines autonomy, but also how to regain it. This may be as simple as switching off mobile phones during meals and family time, setting aside specific times to answer emails, and being available only when we choose to be. We also need a sense of competence, a belief that our
Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion
Yair Amichai-Hamburger is director of the Research Center for Internet Psychology at the Sammy Ofer School of Communications, the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. His book Technology and Psychological Well-being is published by Cambridge University Press
One minute with…
Richard Wrangham In his book Catching Fire: How cooking made us human, the zoologist argues that cooked food helped us develop big brains
What was the central mystery of human evolution that you were trying to solve? I was sitting next to the fire in my living room and I started asking the question, when did our ancestors last live without fire? Out of this came a paradox: it seemed to me that no human with our body form could have lived without it. Why can’t a human exist on the same diet as a chimpanzee? A chimpanzee’s diet is like eating crab apples and rose hips. Just go into the woods and find some fruits, and see if you can come back with a full stomach. The answer is you can’t. The big difficulty is that the nutrient density is not very high. This is problematic for humans because we have a very small gut, about 60 per cent of the volume it would be if we were one of the other great apes. We don’t have enough intestine to keep low-quality food in our gut long enough to digest it. So cooking provided some kind of a watershed for humans to split from our chimp-like ancestors? Yes. I believe the point at which our bodies show adaptation to cooking is 1.9 million years ago. The evidence is in the changes that took place when we evolved from ancestors that were like chimpanzees but were already standing upright. Cooking led to increased energy intake. What was the result of having more energy? Maximising energy from food allowed us to lose a third of the large intestine and significantly expand our brain size. It affected our brain because humans were social and there was a premium on being as intelligent as possible in order to outsmart your opponents in competition, ultimately for mates. So there’s no physical proof of when cooking started? From archaeological evidence, people estimate anything from 50,000 years ago to more than a million years.
PROFILE Richard Wrangham studied chimpanzees in Tanzania. He is a professor of anthropology at Harvard University and author of Catching Fire (Basic Books, $26.95/Profile Books, £15)
You say that cooking led to the division of labour between men and women How do you believe that happened? Cooking imposes a delay between collecting food and eating it, which means others could steal from the cook. I worked out a simple model of social relationships that would let a cook keep the food. It relied on having a dominant set of individuals, the males, and a subordinate set, the females, who would cook but be protected by the males. We see this in many tribal societies – women cook for their husbands. There are two rules: a woman is obliged to feed her husband every night, and she is not allowed to feed another man unless her husband is present. If the whole society signs up to these rules, women are protected from thieves. You have been accused of male chauvinism. I’m just describing what happens, which is that women do the cooking in all societies except modern urban industrial ones. But that doesn’t make me a supporter of it. I’m not saying it is what should happen today. Interview by Jeremy Webb
19/26 December 2009 & 2 January 2010 | NewScientist | 29
RICK FRIEDMAN/CORBIS
actions are effective. In this respect our relationship with technology is complex, because many of us feel competent when we deal with an email, when we have the newest BlackBerry, or because 50 people enjoyed the holiday snaps we posted on Facebook. But being truly competent must be a continuation of our autonomy: knowing which activities are important to us and carrying them out in the most effectual way possible, making use of technology where applicable. The other factor is relatedness: our need to feel close to other people. Technology is a threat to this. Devices like the iPod can be used to create a bubble that disconnects us from normal human interactions, and while some virtual relationships may be truly meaningful, in many cases they come at the expense of real-world connections. Psychologists have found that the pivotal difference between happy and unhappy people is the presence or absence of rich and satisfying social relationships. Spending meaningful time with friends, family and partners is necessary for happiness. I would add a fourth factor, too: critical thinking. In today’s world, where we are potentially available 24/7 to absorb messages from well-honed advertisements, it is vital that we know how to analyse and evaluate their validity – and to neutralise them where necessary. I believe that autonomy, competence, relatedness and critical thinking are the best ways to establish a balanced approach to technology, and so enhance our well-being. ■