the study found that Americans' discussion networks have shrunk by about one-third since 1985 and have become less diverse because they contain fewer non-family members.

That is a really significant fact. Absurdly though the study appears to be trying to trying to claim that:

Contrary to popular belief, technology is not leading to social isolation and Americans who use the Internet and mobile phones have larger and more diverse social networks, according to a new study.

"All the evidence points in one direction," said Keith Hampton, lead author of the report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project released Wednesday. "People's social worlds are enhanced by new communication technologies.

"It is a mistake to believe that Internet use and mobile phones plunge people into a spiral of isolation," said Hampton, an assistant professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

The pretext for this claim being:

It found that on average, the size of people's discussion networks is 12 percent larger among mobile phone users, nine percent larger for those who share photos online, and nine percent bigger for those who use instant messaging.

The diversity of people's core networks tends to be 25 percent larger for mobile phone users, 15 percent larger for basic Internet users, and even larger for frequent Internet users, those who use instant messaging, and those who share digital photos online.

Which actually appears only to show that extroverted people are also using newer technologies to continue (to some degree) being extroverted while less extroverted people are (of course) using such technologies less so. This would appear to be basically a tautology. Extroverted people are extroverted. Not remotely proof that new technologies aren't leading to increasing isolation.

Meanwhile in the last 25 years 'discussion networks' have shrunk by one third.

All and all the article reminds me of Brawndo.

Seemingly an incredibly stupid article. But again with this one disconcerting sentence in it:

the study found that Americans' discussion networks have shrunk by about one-third since 1985 and have become less diverse because they contain fewer non-family members.

Which is surely doubleplusungood. Surely a huge change in our society. And yet barely even noticed. Instead we have a cheery article which reminds me of Ehrenreich's Bright-Sided. Where the 'negative' people are often just fired.

"Why wouldn't you just assume that everyone else is an idiot?" asks the frontman for the EBM group Novakill.

Because that means being an "elitist", arrogant, misanthropic, potentially closeminded, and probably lonely and miserable person.

But the alternative is to think that (in this case) my music is utter crap. That in everything that actually matters to me I'm without merit. And in the much more important general case; to think people are "evil", as I watch the things they do and don't do and can't believe it.

He's right to think everyone's an idiot basically. And most people really don't like him very much. (Of course.) I don't even care much for the arrogant bastard... as he just gives away free VSTs.... He/you can't win. You lost when you started questioning things in the first place.

evil versus stupidity

When you perceive that the actions of some person are causing harm and they are clearly shown this is the case and yet they keep on doing it, there are two ways to view this person/this action: either they're stupid or they just really don't care that they're causing harm (IOW "evil").

It is of course true that thinking people are just ignorant is always preferable but I'm referring to the case where that's unfortunately been ruled out.

So what is the most positive way of viewing such harmful acts? Is the person stupid or "evil"? Which way would they be more likely to change? Viewing such acts in which way is a better way of going through life?

If you think them "evil", then you can be filled with anger at them. And going through life like that is just no good. Anger is much like stress and it will slowly eat at you. It will literally destroy your body among other things.

If you think them stupid, and if you end up viewing a lot of what goes in this world that way, then people will label you an arrogant elitist; someone who thinks they're better than others.

It wouldn't necessarily be true at all but people who find themselves in this position a lot may so much not want to be seen that way, that they may often simply refuse to see stupidity for what it is.

This refusal to recognize it, leaves only evil. They are left to seeth with anger whenever the results of a harmful act are on their mind.

They'd be far better off recognizing stupidity for what it is. Even though (unless very very carefully hidden) it will mean people will dislike them; they will think them an "arrogant elitist", someone who thinks he's better than everyone else.

Still, they're far better off being able to sleep at night. And recognizing obvious stupidity does not mean being arrogant at all.

The choice for some of us, who for whatever reason just think way too damm much, is very often to hate, or to just dismiss people as stupid.

I think the correct choice is to always see such acts as stupid. For two reasons:
1. Ultimately what we call "evil" is really just a profound stupidity anyway, where the person isn't smart enough to see why causing harm to others is something to avoid. In fact I'd just replace the word "evil" with "profound stupidity".

2. More importantly, as far as being disliked for thinking you're smarter than others, the very fact that you're more motivated to think, more motivated to question the status quo, and as a result just end up different than others, means people are going to dislike you. Going out of your way to convince yourself all this stupidity around you doesn't really exist, that it's just "evil", is to try to pretend that you're a lot more like everyone else than you actually are. It's just a lie.