Internet Addiction

I've heard my elders lament about how kids nowadays are addicted to the internet since I got my first computer. My aunt, a professor of Sociology in Texas, abhors technology and is quite proud of how little she uses any kind of technological device. Besides her nearly decade old laptop that she primarily uses to access email or to create documents for her students, she only has a small brick cell phone that is never charged. Just yesterday, actually I was listening to my mom complain about how the internet is why our generation is disconnected (very ironic) and angry. As someone who just participated in a semester-long course describing the positive effects of the internet, of course I told her why the internet in fact connects us and why we are a generation more adept at expressing our emotions. This is a story I have heard of countless times, where many people over the age of 40 think that the internet is addictive and is ruining our primary social connections. Just watch this video of the idea of internet being introduced on a national news station and see how the reports and Katie Couric respond to the introduction of a WorldWideWeb:

Crazy, right? Especially because when I Google'd 'Katie Couric', this is what came up:

The first couple things that came up when I looked up Couric were her website (which may have been hacked?) complete with her seven forms of social media and her Twitter account. Granted, Katie Couric is a famous journalist so she couldn't avoid the internet even if she wanted to, but how much can the rest of us? The journalist who once said that they would avoid the internet in order to spend more time with their family is featured on just about every major news station known to American people. As a famous professional, you couldn't avoid being online; even if you don't create your own media presence, you still need to have one. Even my aunt has a LinkedIn, 2 RateMyProfessors, 1 RateMyTeacher, and a Curriculum Vitae. Even as she hates technology, my aunt can't avoid it because of her job. Katie Couric is a year younger than my mom, just one of a generation who (mostly) speaks of the internet as a disease. 

But is the internet really as detrimental as we make it out to be? On the one hand we've seen just how much good the internet can do. But what about excess internet use of the wrong type? What qualifies excess internet use? Is it possible to use the internet too much for the right thing? 

_________________________________________________________________________________

The idea of internet addiction is quite new. In an article assigned to my class, they discuss how addiction has evolved as a term. It used to be that be that addiction just meant physical compulsory behavior that affected you physiologically; alcohol, drugs, etc. As we evolved, addiction expanded to a broader range of topics, things which caused addictive behavior without the physical dependency; compulsory gambling, binge-eating, shopping addictions, etc. Now we have entered a new age, an age where something commonly used is detrimental. But what exactly IS the negative effect of the internet (and no, don't say "turning your brain to mush".)? The use of the internet itself can't really be the problem, there has to be something specific that is causing issue. If someone was using the internet to gamble compulsively, wouldn't that be a gambling addiction? Or if they were using it to shop consistently, wouldn't that be a shopping addiction? The article points out that some say that the internet is merely a vehicle, a road and not a destination. It is a medium through which we experience other things. 

While we haven't formally agreed on internet addiction as a global community, we have already begun testing people in their internet addiction status. One such study was conducted in Korea to try and identify internet addiction in children. Written by Ha et. al. in 2006, the article named "Psychiatric Comorbidity Assessed in Korean Children and Adolescents Who Screen Positive for Internet Addiction" tested children (average age 11) and adolescents (average age 15.8) for internet addiction. Of the 1,300 youths tested, 63 children and 170 adolescents tested positive for internet addiction. 12 were randomly selected from each group to be analyzed for their comorbidity with other illnesses. They found that 7 of the 12 children were diagnosed with ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In the adolescent group, 3 people were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 2 with obsessive compulsive disorder, and 1 with schizophrenia. The article finishes out by stating that internet addiction comes with different comorbidities, but those differ by age. Children are much more likely to have attention disorders while adolescents are more likely to have more serious mental illnesses. 

Another article named "Adolescent Internet Addiction: Testing the Association Between, the Perception of Internet Attitudes, and Preference for Online Social Interactions" looked at the correlation of self esteem with internet preference in terms of internet addiction (Fioravanti et. al., 2012). They found that the preference for online interaction was correlated with internet addiction and low self esteem. Of the results, none were significantly correlated with males which might be based on the global trend of pressure placed on women. Adult women struggle with lower self-esteem than adolescent girls, but both groups worry about their appearance more than men who don't have the same kind of social pressure (although physical expectations ARE put on men as well). 

So what do we need to do about internet addiction? It's not like we can unplug. So much of school, work, social life, and necessity and ease are online. Many people wouldn't be able to operate without their daily dose of the internet. Think of trying to somewhere that is 20 minutes away by bus. How do you get there? How do you figure out when the bus is coming, which bus you need to take, and if you need to transfer? How do you know which stop to get off at? Most people would remedy this by a quick Google search, but that is unfortunately not something that will come easily (and sometimes at all) if we don't have the internet. 

One remedy might be Cognitive-Behavioral therapy. This kind of therapy is goal-oriented in eliminating or reducing certain kinds of negative behavior and is individually focused. The therapist might have you notice when you're behaving irrationally and actively work to snuff that kind of behavior. For instance, someone who is addicted to the internet might first figure out how many times the get on the internet or how long they spend on the internet. Then, they would make the effort to go on fewer times or for a restricted and shorter amount of time. An article written by King et. al. in 2012 named "Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Outpatient Treatment of Internet Addiction in Children and Adolescents" does just that. The article is a severe case study of a 16 year old boy who lives in Australia and spends roughly 10 hours a day online (O.M.G.). He usually skips after school activities and family gatherings to be online, consuming energy drinks in order to stay up late nights and use his computer. He urinates in a bottle sometimes to avoid leaving his computer and will usually eat at his computer. This level of internet use is much higher than most, but CBT posed a helpful and hopeful prospect for the teenagers parents. This kind of therapy doesn't do well if the patient is comorbid with ADHD, but with support of parents, teachers, self help books, therapy, and sometimes medication, cognitive behavioral therapy can be the answer to some of the problems. 

Ultimately, we need some kind of regulation on internet for children showing addiction like tendencies. The severity of internet addiction falls on a gradient, so there might not be a single marker or day where it is apparent that the child has internet addiction. However, the severity of internet addiction in terms of the amount of time spent and comorbidity with other illnesses could possible warrant classification in the new DSM.  

Cyberbullying

Before he invention of the invention of the internet, bullying was much more personal. It was easier to confront the nerdy kid at school when teachers weren't around than it was to come for them outside of school, or leave them physical evidence of your misdeeds. This also made it somewhat possible to "escape" a bully as well. Even if a kid was being chased home because of their bully, they had the refuge of home and parents to fall back on. 

Nowadays, the bullying game has been stepped up. Not only are kids being picked on at school, but technology is now being used to cyberbully. An offshoot of bullying, cyberbullying is any kind of coercion/abuse/aggression that takes place through technology (email, chat, social media, text, etc.). Although it might be easier to track who is sending hurtful messages, it is also much easier to be anonymous on the internet. Kids are able to create throwaway accounts through which they can express whatever they want, as long as they delete the account before they get caught. The problem with being able to be completely anonymous is that children can say practically anything they want with no foreseeable consequences. These kinds of throwaway accounts are usually called burn pages and they're usually school-specific. These are pages where children, usually middle and highschoolers, ruthlessly attack and ridicule other kids in their school. So what are the effects of internet bullying? How do we predict it? What can we do to change it?

_______________________________________________________________________________

One such article named "Prevalence and Predictors of Internet Bullying" looks at the likelihood of elementary, middle, and highschoolers to be bullied based on the prevalence of their in person bullying (Williams & Guerra, 2007). The article found that physical bullying, which was less likely to extend into highschool, was much less likely to be correlated with internet bullying than verbal bullying was. Verbal bullying, which continued into highschool more often than physical bullying did, was more likely to be correlated with internet bullying. Most bullying behaviors peaked in middle school, but it's more than apparent that bullying is something that goes on through highschool as well. The results found that boys were more likely to report physical bullying than girls were, but neither gender was more likely to report bullying. Adolescents were more likely to report indirect verbal or internet bullying than physical bullying, and many times their reports were anecdotal. According to dosomething.org 70% of kids have seen a classmate or friend be bullied online, but 90% of bullied teens don't report it. 43% of teens have been cyber bulled, with 25% having it happen on multiple occasions. So why do we ignore this, is it because we can't see it?

This kind of bullying affects development because not only is it easier, but cyberbullying is widespread. The first article I cited was done in 2007 BEFORE cellphone use was widely popularized (the article excluded all texting and cellphone based bullying). Bullying victims are up to 9 times more likely to commit suicide, so this should be something addressed as a public health issue. In some cases, schools have become involved in shutting down cyberbullying. In Charlotte, N.C. a law has passed to make cyberbullying illegal, but many times the cases fall through the cracks. Because the internet is a relatively new phenomenon and legislation takes years and even decades to pass, many times there aren't laws that specifically protect students from the mental anguish of online bullying. Well, why don't students just turn off their computers or delete their social media accounts? Nowadays as you move further up the educational scale, it becomes nearly impossible to operate without internet access. As a college student, ALL of my work is done online. I rarely carry paper and pencil with me, substituting it instead with my light and portable laptop. Increasingly schools are starting to get iPads and laptops that students are supposed to take home with them in order to complete their homework. And as far as deleting social media, it would be impossible to have a digital footprint anywhere if one deleted all of their online email, gaming, social media, and video streaming accounts. Even if they did delete their accounts, the slanderous photos of these kids still exist and are present online for anyone to find, with the bullying extending to school. If you were being bullied online and then had to go see all the people who you knew had been laughing at you and spreading rumors, that could seriously affect your mental health. 

So we need to find a way to reduce this impairment in child development. In some contexts, online discussion boards have been a good place for children to seek help (ironic, right?) As we saw in some of the earlier posts, internet connections with people that have had similar problems can be a comforting and unifying experience. It is slowly becoming the job of law enforcement, schools, and parents to put an end to internet bullying. 

Violent Video Games - How Are They Changing The Way Kids Socialize?

If you grew up in the late 80's or early 90's, this story is not unfamiliar to you. Everyone was really excited for the new game "Shoot 'Em Up" to come out on the console of their choice. The only thing they could talk about was what it would be like when they finally got it: What would the graphics look like? How many weapons could you have at one time? Do you think they allow you to blow up camps in this game? Of course there was the one kid whose mom told him she "wouldn't allow violence in her household". 

This trope has been all too common, with parents worrying for their children in their so called "formative years". Video game ratings have become incredibly popular as well as a point of contention for parents, with children trying to convince older siblings, friends, and parents to buy games for them due to the child being too young.  Ratings range depending on mature content, but it's really up to the parent on what they will allow for their child. Some parents have no problem with gory video games, with the line being "I did worse things as a kid, and I turned out alright!". 

One popular Youtuber Neros Cinemas posted a video explaining why he doesn't think video games cause children to be violent. One of the points he makes is that cooking video games don't make you a chef, so why would an army video game make you a murderer? He also brings up the point that TV is not given nearly as much flak as games. 

Other parents, however, have a bigger issue of what they find acceptable. This post is from a concerned parent about their fourth grader wanting to play 'Call of Duty:Modern Warfare', a popular first-person shooter game. Again, responses here are a mixed bag, with some parents saying it causes desensitization and a lack of empathy, and others saying that it's "just a game."

So who is right here? Do violent video games affect children's psychological development?  

As lot of study would side with the concerned parent. One such article named 

"Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: is there desensitization?" claims that when exposed to real life violence vs. media violence (TV, video games, movies, internet use) can markedly impair the way children develop cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally which could lead to a lack in empathy and desensitization. The article also claims that many children don't see violence often in real life, creating a paradox of understanding when it comes to physically harming other people. If you're unable to understand violence in the context of the life you live, then you won't understand the repercussions, both emotional and physical, from internalizing and enacting violence in your actions. (Funk et. al, 2004)

One of the quotes from the article says, "Desensitization to violence is a subtle, almost incidental process which may occur as a result of repeated exposure to real-life violence, as well as from exposure to media violence. Emotional desensitization is evident when there is numbing or blunting of emotional reactions to events which would typically elicit a strong response. Cognitive desensitization is evident when the belief that violence is uncommon and unlikely becomes the belief that violence is mundane and inevitable." 

This means that when someone is routinely exposed to violence, it causes them to desensitize. For example if you are in a room with a loud fan, the sound of the fan will eventually become second nature. It won't be until the fan is removed that you will notice how loud it used to be. This article is saying that violence is supposed to cause a strong negative reaction; we aren't supposed to crave gore and violence, and we are specifically supposed to be opposed to it. The cognitive side says that when you are routinely exposed to violence, you see it as a natural part of life, something that can't be avoided and could happen at any time. 

So maybe this isn't convincing. You're saying to yourself: "Well, kids don't have to be taken over by violence. People accept that mindset by will." It's possible to control yourself and your actions, so why should your behavior in violent situations be any different? 

An article done by Kalnin et. al. in 2011 addresses the issue from a biological standpoint. "The interacting role of media violence exposure and aggressive–disruptive behavior in adolescent brain activation during an emotional Stroop task" talks about how functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) showed what people's brains looked like in response to violent imagery. fMRI machines are able to see what part of your brain responds when you are presented with stimuli, which was images and words in this instance. The study looked at people who routinely experienced violent media, people who didn't, and people who had aggression disorders. Ultimately, it was found that people without these disorders who had low exposure to violent video games had brains that responded differently to this kind of stimuli. Those with aggression behavior and high exposure to violent video games were abnormally affected by the violent stimuli! Their brains were actually altered by continuous negative exposure. 

So, what are we saying? What does this mean? Who is right? 
It means that the concerned mom is RIGHT. Not only do video games affect adolescents emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally during their formative years, but they change their brain chemistry. Exposure to violence is a damaging part of the human emotional complex in development and that exhibits not just through actions, but through biology. One of the studies specifically points out that the act of doing in video games is what perpetuates and strengthens these negative affective emotions. By being the person who commits the actions, it personally desensitizes you. 

So parents, keep this in mind: your kid might not be the most popular person in their grade, but what they commit their free time to could affect the way they develop over time. 

What Problems Does The Internet Pose In Terms Of Social Development?

As much as I want to tell you that the internet is the safe dreamland that we've all been hoping for, nothing new comes without its threats. While I don't think the internet is the source of the threat, it is used by people in whatever way they wish. Sometimes those ways are humanitarian like kickstarters and photoshop projects. These are the ways that the internet can be a collective; a community of unending support and an uplifting pedestal. Often times this is what the internet is used for; to rally behind those in need and make sure fraternity is strong. (A few examples of 'Internet Acts That Will Restore Your Faith In Humanity').

It's important to remember, however, that we shape and create the internet community as we go. The subcultures that exist online are of our own creation; the internet is but a tool that people use to commit actions. It is merely the connecting force between us. 


So how does this tie into child development?

A lot of children frequent the internet: discussion boards, online interactive games, social media like Facebook and Twitter, video posting platforms like Youtube, and 'news' sites like Buzzfeed are just a few ways that internet socialization is an active part of adolescent life. But what does this look like when it's connected to their offline experience? How do cyberbullying, online addiction, body image, and other factors change how young people interact with each other and alter themselves?

For this segment I'll be exploring some of the negative social aspects of the internet and hopefully, some solutions.

Did you know that grade school age children who spend more time surfing the Internet report feeling less lonely?

Everyone goes through bouts of loneliness, and children have an even harder time of dealing with that because they have lower levels of autonomy and their well-being is directly related to their parents. It's not always easy to tell your parents that you might be dealing with troubles in school, or that you're having problems making or keeping friends.

In the dawn on commercial internet, a lot of parents were worried about internet predators. This fear was so significant that Dateline NBC created a hit show named "To Catch A Predator" in which they focused on apprehending adults who preyed sexually on teenagers. However, as time has gone on, this fear has been somewhat abated, being replaced by the real growing community of young people online. A 2009 article by Patti Valkenberg and Jochen Peter named "Social Consequences of the Internet for Adolescents" discusses how online relationships are much more likely for young people regardless of their social status offline. These relationships also tend to be with people their own age who they aren't able to reach geographically, and most importantly these relationships are stable. This kind of online interaction could be very important for teens who might be being persecuted offline for things like their sexual orientation, interests, or appearance. Having an online community can ward off mental illness and social alienation.

An article by Shen Caixia, Liu Rude, and Wang Dan at Beijing Normal University in 2013 also illustrates this. The study involved 637 children grades 3-6 and looked at personality in its' correlation with other factors like entertainment and information seeking. They found that children ultimately used the internet more when they were lonely, but that internet use also abated those feelings. 

The 2009 Valkenberg and Peter article also showed that having stable relationships promotes mental and physical well-being. By having these strong relationships, whether online or offline, children scored higher on "the five-item satisfaction-with-life scale developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985)." The big takeaways here are as follows: the internet is a huge place. Just because not-so-good things happen in some parts of it doesn't mean good things can't happen elsewhere. People meet on the internet all the time, and that doesn't devalue the status of their friendship. In-fact, online friendships can be more open because they are "low stakes" so to speak. If things go south with an internet friend, you can block them and move on. No awkward conversations at school or gossip. This means you can share more easily and freely, and there is not so much on the line. Stable online relationships can also lead to higher levels of mental and physical health, not to mention greater life satisfaction. Having internet friends can improve childhood development, and it's becoming an important part of internet use. 

Ok, you earned it. Click here for a Buzzfeed article entitled, "17 Stages Of Having An Internet Friendship". 

 

Did you know that children develop their reading skills just as well and sometimes better by using interactive, talking books, for example, off their iPads, as by working one-on-one with an adult tutor and paper copy books?

As we as a society have made the switch from printed word to digital books, the resistance has been intense. I myself have been one of the people thought of digital word as inferior; how could any iPad or Kindle replace the pure joy of turning a page or smelling the rustic woody smell of a book? Books are our history, so how could we possibly accept such a step down in terms of how we consumed knowledge?

While an iPad might not smell like a book, that doesn't mean it can't teach us the same things. In fact, reading on a digital device could actually teach us more through its' use of highlighting and hyperlinks. Have you ever been reading a fascinating book that you're captivated with, and then you stumble upon a word that you have no idea how to pronounce, let alone define? Then you're forced to stop, find a dictionary (or use Google, no shame), and define the word before you can proceed. This is an arduous process that can deter readers from finishing books, or even starting them. This is where iPad's come in: you can tap on the foreign word, define it right then and there, and continue in the story.

How does this help children's development, though? In a 2014 article named "Development of reading ability is facilitated by intensive exposure to a digital children's picture book" by Nobou Masataka, they investigate how audiovisual books on iPad's help children's reading skills. The study used 30 4-year old Japanese children; researchers tested the children's level of Japanese 'kana' characters (which are similar to our phonetic letters/words) before exposing them to the stimuli.



Children read a book on an iPad which was narrated by a voice actor, and when that part was being read, they text highlighted in red. They found that when the children were tested 4 weeks later they were still able to recognize the characters! The use of the iPad features actually gave the children a better way of learning language. Another 2005 study by Clare Wood named "Beginning readers' use of ‘talking books’ software can affect their reading strategies" showed the same effects in UK children. 

The use of technology is not new, and overall improves the state of childhood education. What should be the takeaway on an institutional and personal level? Institutionally, we should be investing more money and time in making sure children have one-on-one interaction and attention. iPad's are so useful because a teacher cannot tend to every child all the time. Equipping classrooms with iPad's would massively impact the learning environment. And where does this leave us personally? If your kid uses your iPad, phone, or computer, download some educational applications. They will keep your child busy and learning without them even realizing it!

http://hechingerreport.org/teaching-preschoolers-to-use-computers-along-with-their-parents/

These next few posts will be reviewing a series of points made in Professor Gernsbacher's video 'Internet and Development'.

"Did you know that toddlers learn new words just as well through conversations on Skype as through conversations in person (and much better than simply watching a passive video)?"

I found this point quite interesting, because I have heard the constant argument that the internet is ruining our language development. Isn't it true that the slang and textisms of today are the reason children no longer are creative writers? According to the 2014 article written by Roseberry, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff named "Skype Me! Socially Contingent Interactions Help Toddlers Learn Language.", the opposite is true

Although we don't completely know how language acquisition happens, we know that it happens due to social language interaction. As a matter of fact, people who hear language but don't have interactive experiences to enact that language will lose their chance to acquire language skills. One example of this is Genie the Wild Child, whose parents kept her locked up and didn't speak to her for nearing 12 years. by the time she was rescued, she had all but lost her abilities to learn new words and phrases. For this experiment, researchers drew on their knowledge of interactive word acquisition to complete their study. The experimenters took 36 toddlers aged 24-30 months and randomly sorted them into one of 3 categories: live-interaction learning, "yoked" learning (pre-recorded videos), and live video chat learning. They presented the babies with action verbs that they had never been introduced to to see if they would pay attention to the instructive adult, and if they would retain words. 

Babies in the live video chat condition did excellent; not only did they keep their eyes trained to the adult, but they managed to retain the words they were taught and start to use them in other forms and contexts! Video chat was an excellent mediator of learning. The important part was social contingency: babies needed to have an adult who gave them confident and immediate responses. So if you're out of town and you want to talk to your child over Skype, maybe read them a bed time story or try and teach them some new things, don't worry! It will be just like you're there. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jayneandd/4500700731/sizes/m/in/photostream/

What We've Gone Over Already

In this series of posts, we'll be looking into the information provided by my Psychology 532 class. I'm starting here because I want to be able to accurately cover the information I was given, decide which topics could be investigated further, and then move forward into looking at those topics.

I plan on analyzing the articles we had from our "Development and Aging" Unit and explaining the articles and their meanings. These articles contain empirically tested research, and have been reviewed by academic journals. Stay tuned for the upcoming posts! (transcript of the video 'The Internet and Development')

How the Internet is (not) ruining our lives

We as people are constantly striving for change, yet deathly terrified of abandoning tradition. You see this over and over again, right? We get a "new thing" as a society, let's call it ARPANET, and then as soon as the wonder of the product wears off, we figure out how it will precisely poison our minds and wreck society as we know it. ARPAnet was originally created as a military, and in rare cases an educational, tool for communication easy communication. It would let messages be sent quicker that someone could make a phone call, get transferred, wait on hold, and eventually talk to the U.S. General of Defense (or whoever they needed to get into contact with). Once that use became commercial, people flocked to it, and eventually computer-internet use became a prevalent part of modern day technology and communication. Until we started worrying it was melting our brains.

But why do we feel this way? What makes the internet so unique in contrast to television, reading novels, and chess? Professor Gernsbacher is a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the professor of Psychology 532: Psychology of the Internet. In her video"On the Internet? Seriously?", she talks about all of the other technologies we have thought would ruin the way we connected to each other, make us a baseless society, and steal our intellectual capacities. 

"Many teenage girls hang over this pestiferous reading, from morning to night, to the neglect of their schoolwork and their mental health." --written in the 1700's 

Below is a photo capturing the essence of the Musical Defense League, a group who thought that "canned music" (or pre-recorded music) would be the downfall of modern symphony. People would lose their understanding and appreciation for live music if this drivel was readily at their fingertips. Does this sound familiar? 



Here is a list of all the technologies we saw as hurting our children, and subsequently, their development:

• Recorded Music
• Television
• Radio Loud Speakers
• Newspapers
• Telephones (landlines)
• Reading Novels
• Bicycles (specifically women)
• Writing (!!!)
• Ballpoint pens
• Erasers 
• Pocket Calculators
• Chess

Last time I checked, chess and novel-reading was standard intellectual exercise. Our response of fear to the internet is standard. It's natural. It's what we almost always do when someone gives us a tool that will make creation easier. This response is knee-jerk, but I promise that the internet is 

Hi everyone, and welcome to my term project for Psychology of the Internet! Before we get started on the *surprise* topic at hand, I want to give you a little background.

To demonstrate our understanding of the internet and how it affects our everyday lives and long term psychology, we get to decide what medium we want to use and the topic of the project. I have always been interested in how the internet affects children and their development, especially how it changes their interactions with their peers. It seems like this generation, my generation, is one that intuitively understands how technology works.

Everyone has seen a baby going through their parent's cell phone and been amazed at the level of mastery, right? If you haven't you have at least seen another young person with technology you yourself did not possess at that age and have been envious and off-put. "WHEN I WAS A CHILD MY PARENTS MADE ME COMMUNICATE WITH A TIN CAN AND STRING!" But it seems more and more that children are literally born knowing exactly how to find the music app on their parent's iPad and subsequently play "Let It Go" by Frozen's Elsa 100 times. Below is a (sightly) satirical video created by India's Mobile TeleSystems, or MTS. Watch carefully how they show the baby "taking charge" of it's own birth.

Not only does the baby take charge of their own birth (by cutting the umbilical cord when the shocked and unconscious doctor is unable to), but they document the entire thing through video, photo, and social media! This is just the beginning of how the technology generation is seen in regards to technology use, such as social media, texting, filming, etc. Unfortunately, the above video is only a slight exaggeration from the truth of toddlers experience in internet use. Below is a video of a man filming his son's extensive knowledge of an iPad and its' applications:

From here on out, the posts will contain more empirical information regarding how we affect the world with our changing internet use, but ultimately, how is the internet affecting us? How is it changing our children? What will an upcoming generation of texters, tweeters, and snapchatters look like?

(photo credit: http://lastbenchers.net/mts-internet-baby-born-internet/)