Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Is doom scrolling really rotting our brains? The evidence is getting harder to ignore
Many have asked for my take on this. So, is it another example of "I have concluded that my gut feelings are correct and I'm cherry picking 'evidence' to support it"?
Yes, yes it is
1/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Ah, well, maybe I'm wrong actually. I'm just a basic bog-standard neuroscientist of 20+ years experience. What do I know about how the brain works, when compared to a... [squints] "Google Design Ethicist"?
16/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
This can do one as well!
That experiment revealed that "People eat slightly more soup than they would if you secretly refill the bowls", not "People quickly become addicted to soup if you refill the bowls, and will keep eating until they resemble a minestrone-filled space hopper". Gah!
15/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
The infuriating paradox is that when there is a scientific consensus that goes against mainstream views (e.g. there's no clear evidence that phones/internet/social media has any reliably detrimental effects on phones), scientists who say otherwise typically get more attention and influence.
14/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
TL:DR "Some prominent academics and individuals agree with me"
Yes, they do. And many don't
Academics are people too, and many have their own agendas and axes to grind, and/or need to secure funding and protect their careers, and reinforcing the mainstream narratives are a way to do this.
13/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
And the idea that "reduced grey matter = loss of intelligence" is wrong in its own right. E.g. ADHD brains do show comparatively less grey matter in key regions. But also more white matter (connections). And they can also often be more reliant on tech/screens.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/adhd-questions-answered
12/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
When you think about it, it's incredibly difficult to determine how an *individual* brain is affected by internet use etc. Because you'd have to do detailed scans of their brains BEFORE AND AFTER they developed problematic use. And how would you know in advance?
11/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
The article is clearly convinced otherwise. I suspect the reporter has read the studies saying that problematic internet use is linked to *reduced* grey matter, or similar, and hasn't realised it means reduced *when compared to typical brains*, not *since the person started using the internet*
10/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
A more logical explanation is that "those who have alternative brain structures or deficits are more likely to show 'problematic' device/internet use, as they depend on it more, or are less able to regulate online behaviour etc."
Which is a whole other thing. And not necessarily a bad one.
9/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
I won't go into all the studies cited here, but the main point is this
Even leaving aside the small sample sizes and ambiguities, NONE of them shows any conclusive evidence that internet and phone use CAUSES changes/loss in brain structure or substance.
As ever "correlation =/= causation"
8/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Also, based on little information I can find about this 'study' (which isn't linked to, conveniently), it's based on a self-reported survey. Not sure how they arrived at 'a 10 point drop in IQ' from the information that provided. If IQ were even a useful metric here. Which it likely isn't.
7/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Translation: when you increase the cognitive load a person has to deal with (as emails did), they have fewer cognitive resources to go around, even when compared to having just consumed a relaxing drug! Woah, mind blown!
Snark aside, there are some WILD extrapolations going on here.
6/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Then there's this point. I should flag up that few people are aware of "technology is literally rotting our brains, and compulsive internet use is destroying our grey matter", because that isn't happening.
5/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
If you asked me to say which behaviour was the greater sign of low intellect, "Looking at a surreal animation for 11 seconds" or "Investing time and money into owning a rock", I'd have to go with the latter.
But that happened pre-internet, so it's apparently enlightenment-level cognition.
4/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Apropos of nothing, consider the 'pet rock'. A very popular 'toy' of the 1970s, with an enduring cultural legacy, as so many people bought it the 'inventor' became a millionaire
Unlike Skibidi Toilet, people had to LEAVE THE HOUSE AND PAY MONEY TO EXPERIENCE THIS.
3/21
Dean Burnett (that brains guy)
Article starts by citing one, ONE, artefact of modern online culture (Skibidi Toilet) as irrefutable evidence that human intellect is in terminal decline.
Because before the internet and smartphones, wider culture never once embraced anything objectively *dumb*. Not once.
*cough*
2/21
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.