Computers- a black hole or the bright point?

[hard candy]

Signal Magazine (http://www.afcea.org/signal/archives/content/Feb00/computer-feb.html)

An older article, but one that I remembered and still wonder about.
Is a computer in your office/job helping your productivity or just creating more tasks to slow down productivity? (Does not pertain to you programmers :) )
Is a computer a "blackhole of time", sucking your life or has it opened up new horizons in your life (I was going to say "vistas" but MS probably has it patented)? Would you be wasting time anyway on something else or are you making $150,000/year because of the computer?

I realize the computer industry has created millions of new jobs (maybe not in North America lately) and new companies, but is that at the expense of social structures and interpersonal exchanges? When you have online dating, myspace.com, etc is that good or bad? Does it help us or hurt us in the long run?
In my opinion, it has actually hurt productivity in my job. Having a network and workstations actually created more tasks to do and more ways for supervisors to justify their departments expenses and hiring quotas. If I just did everything on paper, I could actually get everything done in 4 hours. But I have to enter data in a couple of database programs, print out reports, and review those reports. So technology has created more work, increased costs, and decreased profits, at least in my opinion. I work in healthcare, in a big hospital, in "Utilization Review".
So are we increasing technology in our lives, while actually decreasing productivity?

[Icarus]

I get tons of compliments daily about how even though they can be a pain at times, when they work they can't imagine how it use to be done before computers (radio and marketing, computers have completely revolutionized these industries). Before they had to to solely rely on calling people and (if lucky) leave a message and wait by the phone for a call back. And just over 10 years ago, radio spots needed to be mailed via postal or UPS which takes days to arive, now they are easily emailed, grabbed off FTP or even streamed!

If computers/technology do not help and instead make the job more cumbersum to do, why use them? We do have a choice to use or not use computers. Use the right tool for the right job, don't use a spoon to carve a steak ;)

[nabetse]

Although computers can be the right tool for a particular job, I think that they can still be misused in that instance to make life hell.

For example, email can be a very effective communication tool. But if lots of people decide to CC everyone including their kitchen sink, then everyone is required to wade through hundreds upon hundreds of emails.

Also, sharing files on a network file server can be very useful unless everyone clobbers each others' files because they have full access privelages.

I've heard of top level managers buying top of the line computers for themselves while leaving their engineers and scientists to work with outdated and underpowered ones.

Like any other tool, computers can be wonderful--but terrible if misused. Working for a small kitchen appliance distributer, I personally find computers essential at work. Most of the research that I do is done through the internet because the budget will not allow for proprietary data. Also, because we work with overseas suppliers, email is much preferable than having to stay up to odd hours of the night for a call.

[tody4me]

I work for a company doing technical support, as many of you may or may not know. Without computers, the job that I have wouldn't exist. Also, now that we have computers and better communication, a lot of computer programming is done overseas, which to say the least is a pain in the arse. Anything that is needed to be done, or changed, is at least an over night process, because you have to wait for the request to be received and then processed, and then a lot of times the program has to be researched, because the person doesn't know enough about the language to decipher the code, and fix the portion that is needed to be fixed, where I could do it in less than 2 hours if given the code to do so. So I guess I see it as both ways, computers allowing communications easily overseas is not a good thing because of allowing a lot of work to go overseas and making it more difficult to get computer work done.

My $0.02

[cybertron]

In my opinion, it has actually hurt productivity in my job. Having a network and workstations actually created more tasks to do and more ways for supervisors to justify their departments expenses and hiring quotas. If I just did everything on paper, I could actually get everything done in 4 hours. But I have to enter data in a couple of database programs, print out reports, and review those reports. So technology has created more work, increased costs, and decreased profits, at least in my opinion. I work in healthcare, in a big hospital, in "Utilization Review".


Okay, but what you're saying is that if you could do it all on paper using the most efficient method possible it would only take you 4 hours, but wouldn't the same be true for computers? If you were having to fill out forms in triplicate, and write the reports by hand and still review them, wouldn't it be at least the same as what you're doing now, maybe even worse? On the other hand if you could streamline the computerized process it might be faster than the "by hand" method.

I see what you're saying, but I almost wonder if this isn't somebody getting process-happy on you and overcomplicating things, rather than an innate shortcoming of using technology. Too much of anything can be bad.:)

[hard candy]

Okay, but what you're saying is that if you could do it all on paper using the most efficient method possible it would only take you 4 hours, but wouldn't the same be true for computers? If you were having to fill out forms in triplicate, and write the reports by hand and still review them, wouldn't it be at least the same as what you're doing now, maybe even worse? On the other hand if you could streamline the computerized process it might be faster than the "by hand" method.

I see what you're saying, but I almost wonder if this isn't somebody getting process-happy on you and overcomplicating things, rather than an innate shortcoming of using technology. Too much of anything can be bad.:)

It is a case of someone getting process happy. They invested quite a bit of money in a certain patient care database, now the database generates certain reports which are not really helpful to the administration. But since they have this technology and paid for it and have a support contract, we have to use it.
Another thing is that we actually use twice as much paper now than before technology became a big part of the workplace. You have data, you want to look at it and share it, you print it up. When we used hard copy medical records and legal pads, the paper budget was half of what it is now. Also, you still have to have a hard copy of medical records for legal purposes.
One thing I will give networks and computers credit for is that no matter where you are in the hospital, you can go to a terminal, bring up a certain patient's profile, check lab results, look at radiology results, dictations by other medical personnel, and pt vital siigns.
I have been thinking about this this afternoon and I guess I was really thinking about the effects on society, do these interlocking netwoks promote people talking to one another face to face, or does it isolate people?
But when I think about my daughter, 17 years old, uses AIM (I know, I know, but "that's what all my friends use and I am used to it") a cellphone ( I think the last time she used a landline was about a year ago), MySpace.com and she still hangs with her friends all the time- at the lake, at the parking lot, at the movies, at other people's houses. So I'm feeling more optimistic. And actually, she knows more about protecting herself electronically than the people I work with. "Daddy, you can't just use a word for a password, it has to have numbers, characters, and has to be changed every month." Heck, I don't even do that, maybe once every 3-4 months if I think about it in time.
I asked her about MySpace, she said she and her friends have special logins and passwords for each other's sites which they do not share with anyone outside their group.
So I guess technology is sort of two-faced, it can take over your life or you can use it as a tool to supplement your life.

[bwkaz]

Just one comment about one of your comments:

I realize the computer industry has created millions of new jobs (maybe not in North America lately) Well, here's the thing:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/23/news/economy/jobs_it_offshoring/index.htm

and

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=264

(the second link is comments on the first)

You see, according to the ACM's study, at least, the IT sector in the U.S. is actually still growing. ;) (See Eric's blog entry for some of the reasons why, and an economics class for the rest of the reasons.)

[cybertron]

Another thing is that we actually use twice as much paper now than before technology became a big part of the workplace. You have data, you want to look at it and share it, you print it up. When we used hard copy medical records and legal pads, the paper budget was half of what it is now. Also, you still have to have a hard copy of medical records for legal purposes.

I hear you on that. It makes me vaguely queasy thinking about all the paper that we waste printing stuff that doesn't need to be printed here. Most professors still require students to hand in hard copies of papers, despite the fact that we are using a very nice OSS online course system that completely eliminates the need for that. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of all the people who print out huge online documents, read them once, then throw them away. At least with books they get reused. Then again maybe I'm biased because I'm the poor student worker who gets to replace the paper in most of the printers (only for another month though!).;)

[dark_moon]

Another thing is that we actually use twice as much paper now than before technology became a big part of the workplace. You have data, you want to look at it and share it, you print it up. When we used hard copy medical records and legal pads, the paper budget was half of what it is now. Also, you still have to have a hard copy of medical records for legal purposes.


this has been exactly how it has been since the very first introduction of big iron mainframes and cobol in corporations. more costs / more paper / more people to look at the paper.
and now we have had essentially 30 years of it.
i think it has to do with the economy. the manufacturing sector is all but dead but they tell us productivity numbers are through the roof. but what the H are we producing ?
its like the computers themselves are the growth. like a shell game.
it ties into what bwkaz said. keynsian growth is what th ecomonists call it. Here in America computers were actually developed using tax payer funds for doing totaly stupid crap like shooting rockets at the moon nad what not. Then they give the technology to major corporations who then sell it to us again even though we already bought it 5 times over in the first place. Instant economic growth just add a little non value backed money and away you go.

[Parcival]

I have been thinking about this this afternoon and I guess I was really thinking about the effects on society, do these interlocking netwoks promote people talking to one another face to face, or does it isolate people?

They promote talking to each other. In psychology there is a lot of research showing that those people who engage above average in new media also have above average face-to-face contacts with their friends.

I once did a research myself in Switzerland where I wanted to check the question if a youth is being left alone by his/her peer group if he/she doesn't have a cellphone. Furthermore, I wanted to test if young people without cellphone compensate the lack of it by increased usage of other media like the "normal" phone, email, chat, etc.

My research showed that those youngsters without a cellphone said that they still feel as an integrated part of their peer group. Since they had no cellphone they indeed compensated the lack of it with the ordinary phone but hardly with email and chat. OTOH, the use of the normal phone, email and chat skyrocketed by those youngsters who do have a cellphone to keep in contact with their friends. In other words, the more somebody uses a new type of communication device, the more likely is that person also to use others at an increased rate. My hypothesis of compensation was only partially true because on the one hand people without the new devices compensate by using the old established ones, but on the other hand the most frequent users of any device are those who adapt to the new technology.

These findings are in agreement with other findings in media psychology showing that the new technology in general draws us closer and that the younger generations quickly acquire a set of new media skills to optimally process information input. Several research has been showing that what is being experienced as an information overload by members of the older generations is being matched by younger people who have developped strategies to process information very selectively.

In other words, all those pessimists are wrong who believe in the lonesome user overwhelmed by the mass of information. True is that modern communication devices draw us closer and that users in general are smart at developing new strategies to have new devices meet their needs.

[dark_moon]

I once did a research myself in Switzerland


hi Parcival,
please don't take this wrong because i am not qualified in any way to argue this point but was interested in you comments.
I had read this study earlier
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980901024936.htm
about how the PC caused isolation and depression over time
i assume this study was done in the US.
it is hard of course for people to understand the dynamics involved and very hard to even find out the methods used in the study but is there a posibility that this could be different in the US as opposed to Switzerland ? Switzerland as i understand it has more income equality
and therefore less social problems. (i'm sure thats a huge oversimplification)
these things go much deeper than absurd notion like money makes you happy.
i would try to cite more statistics but i feel the stats themselves are often scewed by the society they eminate from. For instance US and many other western nations show huge rises in asthma rates but that may only be a measure of a rise in the mis-diagnosis of asthma due to agressive drug company advertising and what not.
anythoughts ?

[Parcival]

about how the PC caused isolation and depression over time

It can be shown that WWW browsing correlates with depression. In other words, a human being who daily spends a lot of time surfing to various sites in the WWW is likely to also have increased rates in depression.

i assume this study was done in the US.

Yes, in Pittsburgh.

Switzerland as i understand it has more income equality
and therefore less social problems. (i'm sure thats a huge oversimplification)

As a matter of fact, it is true. It can be shown for example that unemployed people in Switzerland suffer less stress, anxiety, and depression in Switzerland because the social benefits overhere are way better than in the US.

A couple things you should pay attention to in the quoted study:

Posted: September 1, 1998

As in every science, there are "fashion trends" in psychological research, too. What we observe in media psychology is that with the advent of every new type of media, it is the so called cultural pessimists who don't get sick of warning of the upcoming dangers until research done by the so called cultural optimists shows that the effects are far less damaging than intentionally thought. A good example is the onset of radio broadcasting at the beginning of the 20th century.

Now, 1998 was the year when the internet started to vastly expand in the western civilization, so this is also the era of the cultural pessimists, and this research falls right into line with them. If you want to read studies by a cultural optimist, you should have a look at Nicola Doering (http://www.nicola-doering.de/).

Even though people in the study heavily used electronic mail and other communication services on the Internet, the research found that spending time on the Internet was associated with later declines in talking among family members, reductions in the number of friends and acquaintances they kept up with, and increases in depression and loneliness.

What we are observing here is a correlation, in other words "more of one thing" was observed together with "more of something else". However, when you have a correlation, you are not allowed to claim to have found cause and effect because you can't know for sure if there are any other factors playing into the game. Consider this example:

In a field research we mesure the temperature of the pavement and the number of times car drivers honk at a nearby intersection. Our results show that the higher the temperature of the pavement, the more drivers are honking their horns. We put this into a scientific publication and happily claim to have found out that pavement temperature makes car drivers honk. It's obvious that very soon we'll be laughed at and that we forgot to take a thrid factor into account, namely the sun.

The same questions apply to this research on internet usage. It generally is very difficult to keep track of all factors of influence in a field research, especially when you look at such complex things like families etc. Furthermore, I doubt that the researchers had the capacity to observe each of the 73 families in their daily routine, probably they were just handing out diaries to them where they had to fill in how much they were using the internet and how much time they spent talking to someone else. However, diaries are prone for errors as the accuracy of the data heavily depends on how motivated a participant is to take notes right on the spot.

The technology that has allowed people to keep in touch with distant family members and friends, to find information quickly and to develop friendships with people around the world apparently is also replacing vital, everyday human communication.

Another weak point in the study, namely the way the researchers value their results. The word "vital" suggests that they value communication in a face-to-face setting higher than computer-mediated communication. They are probably representatives of the so called reduction theorists, i.e. those who claim that by the use of the internet too many valuable communication cues (especially non-verbal cues) are being filtered out that are needed for a successful communication between human beings. However, other researches like Doering have shown that human beings are smart enough to compensate for this reduction (e.g. with the usage of smileys) and that computer-mediated communication is often experienced as even more meaningful.


So if you ask me if the internet consumption has a harmful effect on human beings I would say that it probably has for some of us, but that the majority does very well with it. As soon as a new media hits the market, the users start to develop strategies to use it the best way they can according to their needs. Today, no researcher would honestly pick up the argument from 80 years ago that radio broadcasting will dumb down our societies because it prevents us from reading. Today, some broadcastings are even world famous and a substantial part of human culture, and turning on the radio when we drive our cars or get up in the morning is just natural for us. Give the internet another 50 years and no researcher will care about the harmful effects of email. By that time they will probably be busy warning from the widespread use of virtual reality. :D

[dark_moon]

thanks,
that makes perfect sense.
communnication itself here in america can be quite a complex subject.
if or when one strays from the "accepted" thoughts. If you are in a face to face setting.
that is, not in an anonymous internet setting like this. you actually run a certain risk.
especially if you are developed enough to no longer understand the game.
a couple of misspoken phrases and you could loose you job.
one lost job and you could loose you career,family,status,everything.
isolation and secrecy is actually mandated even if a preponderance of your experiences with others is actually positive.
the computer in that setting is a great thing.

[NighttimePunk]

read the read me in threewave capture strike mod for q3a