Zap-happy brains: is the internet changing the way we think?
Are serious thinking and the internet incompatible?
Neuroscientist Baroness Susan Greenfield features on iPM this week, raising concerns about the impact of screen-based technologies on our ability for deep, concentrated thinking.
This is the full interview - an edited version will broadcast on Saturday's programme.
| Add IPM Radio4's channel to your page |
We'd like to pursue Baroness Greenfield's questions which you may or may not agree with, and in next week's programme we'll hear an alternative viewpoint.
Are we bombarding people with information in the mistaken belief that it's knowledge?
Do we want a world with people just living in the moment - having meaningless thrills with no narrative?
What kind of people do we want our children to be? What kind of people are best going to be citizens in the 21st century and what kinds of skills will they require?
Baroness Greenfield has recently published a book looking at these questions, ID: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century.
It's a view also laid out in the essay that's provoked much debate - Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr.
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Internet serendipity!
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=2553
Complain about this comment
Regarding computer games: To assume that all are 'instant gratification' based is like assuming that all books are Childish teen-fiction.
I am in my 40's, I am a research physicist and I read a great deal. I also play computer games.
The ones I choose are those with a high-level of strategic in-put, good and INTERACTIVE story lines and a measure of human collaboration (when in a network game).
I have felt emotionally saddened by the death of significant game characters in much the same way I have been with those in a good book. It really depends on the nature of the game.
I have played games that have improved my organisational and prioritisation skills and I have enjoyed interacting with colleagues and friends who I would have never met outside the environment. Indeed, some games required considerable problem solving skills and quite advanced capabilities.
I recall one that required the ability to undertake additive synthesis of waveforms to produce an appropriate signal for the continuation of the game.
I can only assume that some people have only seen wizz-bang games and extrapolated inappropriately.
Complain about this comment
While I don't fundamentally disagree with Susan, I think she's unwise in blanketing computer screens as a negative influence. Interaction with other people is the healthiest thing possible, psychologically, and digital technologies unlock it from its age-old physical constraints. Some of the results are very good, some of them are very bad and most of them are misunderstood, just like everything else in our society.
You don't want to spend all your time on a computer, but equally you're missing out on a wealth of new experiences and ideas if you don't spend enough, especially as a child.
Complain about this comment
I agree generally with Doctor Greenfield. However, there are ways around it. Text browsers such as Lynx, exist. They're faster, less bug-prone and more stable than the likes of Internet Explorer and Firefox, and filter out the rubbish. They make the WWW text-based rather than graphical. Text-based games, such as the Hitch-hikers' Guide To The Galaxy as hosted by the BBC website itself, are available, involving intellectual puzzles and imagery rather than shoot-'em-up style blood baths. It isn't all Quake and World of Warcraft. I run a support group online and engage in long, intellectually and emotionally demanding interactions with people throughout the world to which isolated, lonely people in need of a listening ear can have instant access. People have been talked out of suicide this way. Finally, Jane Austen: Project Gutenberg provides hundreds or thousands of classics of literature for free, which as a whole would be unavailable in most public libraries and which many people would not be able to afford to buy or even know about without such archives.
Yes, the internet can be about reducing your attention span to a few seconds, but it all depends on how you use it.
Complain about this comment
I agree with comment 3. I am 52 years old and play computer games and there are many story based, or puzzle based games which are not reactive, but interactive and intellectually compelling.
In addition many computer gamers including younger people in their teens contribute to extremely interesting discussions on the internet about these games.
As an example there is a new game called Braid which has caught the imagination of many gamera. It is clever, artistic, challenging and debates have been sparked about the economics of game making and playing as well as about the story it's meaning and of course the solution to the sometimes impossible puzzles.
Before people like the professor profess about the internet and games she might like to actually try these things out and do some proper research.
Looking forward to part two of the debate next week
Mary
Complain about this comment
Susan Greenfield is spot on with her analysis. Many children today need instant gratification, instant results, and constant stimulation. I am about to make a huge generalisation but I think a valid one - I think that the most notable change I have seen in children (well, the 11 - 18s anyway) is a growing lack of empathy. If you don't interact personally with others, if you don't learn patience and forebearance, if you don't learn to think and consider consequences, how can you understand the feelings of others? Interacting with a computer screen teaches you none of those things. A typical discussion about some violent crime after hearing boys laughing about it:
"Well, how would you feel if that had been YOUR grandmother?'
'But it wasn't.'
And one can't get past that. They seem unable to shift thought from the actual.
Where will it lead??? If they can't think of consequences, what are the consequences for society?
Complain about this comment
I agree completely with Ms. Greenfield. My 3 year old grandson was brought up on TV and videos and his attention span is almost non-existent. He has no patience for playing games, puzzles, cards, etc. and is very bad a any activity requiring some imagination and inventiveness.
Complain about this comment
@2
Agreed, most of the games men choose to play are varied in depth of strategy and tactics; whereas the girls play the shallow games of instant gratification, finding boys games too 'boring'.
As for the increased use of Ritalin, this is invariably the choice of female teachers imposing mind control drugs upon boys; and not simply the boys playing on computer games, but more likely the boys not playing as little girls, and being chemically admonished for that grievous transgression.
Complain about this comment
My children spend a fair amount of time on the internet and I was deeply suspicious when my son (then 16)wanted to go to a convention arranged online. However, he went with a friend who I know well, and discovered that all the others also turned up with a chaperone in tow. They live in different areas of the country and occasionally manage to visit each other, but a lot of their communication is online - including finding out AS results and who is where on family holidays.
The web is a tool, as far as they are concerned, and they talk about all sorts of things, including current affairs. They all seem to read avidly as well, and share ideas and suggestions. I still keep an eye on what is happening - and make sure that as a family we spend time in computer and TV free environments when we can - but I am becoming reconciled to the place of the web in their lives. I only wish I had as much time as they have to develop my own social networking site!
Complain about this comment
as a new teacher, the buzz words of the moment is teaching children to 'learn how to learn'. this is proving difficult when they are used to automatic fact finding and instant sensory gratification. learning is a slow process
I agree with ms greenfield that television and computer games are probably a huge factor not only when considering combatting ADHD, but also when attempting to facilitate deeper understanding and learning in young people.
Complain about this comment
I think this is one of those issues where both sides of the argument have elements of truth.
The internet and computer games can be good - and bad. It just depends on how they are used and balance. I have noticed that console games and internet games can be highly addictive and overide self discipline. Adults may be able to exercise more self control, I don't believe some younger people can detach themselves so easily. With nothing else to do, I can imagine some people spending 4, 5 or 6 hours on a session. And a long session can leave you in a surreal frame of mind with a temporary impatience afterwards. Balanced with other activities, it's probably not a problem, but if you only interact with a 'chip' that is a problem. And it goes some way to explaining lack of attention and 'game personality' when away from handset/keyboard.
Complain about this comment
My ten-year old granddaughter never reads a book and when I asked my daughter why (we are both lifelong readers) she replied she was just not interested in books, that she had tried everything to interest her but to no avail.
However, her bedroom contains a TV, a CD player, a nintendo and toys of every description. Downstairs there is Nintendo Wi.
What I've also noticed is that she is quickly bored and finds it hard to talk or listen for more than a few seconds.
I think Ms Greenfields has a very valid point to make.
Complain about this comment
I agree subtantially with Susan Greenfield if she is saying that we should be careful, let us tread carefully, and - belatedly - investigate the effects of computer use (including, but not restricted to, games) on children's development.
It goes without saying that scientific research involving children should be subject to the closest ethical constraints (although I note that I've just said it). So let's do the appropriate research on a large scale, with co-funding from the increasingly philanthropic Mr Gates, and see if some of the misgivings about ADHD etc are well-founded.
She underplayed the pernicious role of television on young children, imo. As a responsible adult I can clearly watch telly for 168 hours a week without any detriment - except to my life - but if I was a parent of young children I would severely restrict their access to TV at least until their fourth birthday. After that crucially formative time they would probably be OK, since they'd be less hooked on the medium than some of their peers and should have had ample opportunity for 'real world' play.
Complain about this comment
SUSAN AND THE 'BLAIR-GLOTTAL'
Wha' a shock to hear Susan Greenfield, clearly a well brought up gel, employing the faddy Blair-glottal as used by vacuous politicians. We were treated to: wha'ever happens (X2); no' alone; some migh' argue, wha' a friend is; wha' I would like. There is a poignancy about a brain/behaviour specialist taking on this Dawkins' meme of oik-speak. I would expect her to be more self-aware!
Complain about this comment
The logical conclusion for this debate is yet more legislation. Our legislators have neither the time nor the inclination I suspect.
At the the end of the day, this boils down to how many or few mistakes we make with our children.
It was ever thus.
Complain about this comment
I have no doubt that Susan Greenfield is an “eminent neuroscientist”, but why is the BBC constantly asking her for her views on various social and cultural issues?
What is striking about this interview is that she does not draw on her specialist knowledge at all. She makes no reference to research she or her colleagues have undertaken, nor does she tell us anything about the physiology of the brain, on which we have just been told she is an expert. Instead she makes a series of highly questionable assertions which could easily have been obtained by doing a Vox Pop in Oxford Street. What is the point of having an expert on the programme if that expert does not bring their expertise to bear in any way on the subject under discussion?
The comparison between computer gaming and reading is irrelevant unless it can be shown that the former activity is increasing at the expense of the latter – more likely it is increasing at the expense of TV watching, sport or clubbing. Greenfield complained that computer gamers do not feel any emotional attachment to the princess they rescue, but this is to ignore the crucial important of context – it is like criticising chess players for not feeing an emotional connection with the bishops, knights and pawns who sacrifice themselves for them. The increased prescription of Ritalin is more likely to be due to the cultural trend of treating personality differences as medical conditions (c.f. Aspergers Syndrome).
I heard Susan Greenfield not long ago on Radio Four worrying about the computer world “Second Life”. Interestingly, the point she was making then was that Second Life was so realistic that players might become confused about their personal identity. This is precisely the opposite to what she is saying now, which is that computer environments are fundamentally different to the real world!
Having said all that, I do admit that it seems plausible that computers could lead to shorter attention spans – although, on the other hand, I recently spent more than an hour trying to get eight people across a river in a computer puzzle that someone emailed me.
Complain about this comment
First of all I agree with comment 14 re: SUSAN AND THE 'BLAIR-GLOTTAL'.
People who speak in that awful manner should be thrown off the radio along with people who use derivatives of the word clear as one of the first 4 words of an answer.
Now, the problem here is that Susan DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THE INTERNET.
I have never remotely wished to 'safe the princess'...are there such games upon the net.
She speaks about the internet giving informaiton and unrelated facts and that to understand and earn one has to link the facts.
Um, the internet is the biggest repository of information ever. If you can't go to one piece of information and then link it with another via a search engine then you have no idea of how the net works. The sheer breadth of human knowledge that I have come across that I would never have is amazing.
That information IS knowledge. It seems she is forming a theory based on her lack of understanding of how to use the internet properly.
And rather than having some lame philosopher on next week just get some one on who can tell Susan exactly what you can do with the net and the knowledge you can glean from it.
The issues around Ritalin are more to do with additives in foods and the sheer lack of discipline of kids these days because teachers aren't allowed to instil the knowledge of good manners into them.
Complain about this comment
Following on from a comment in my last post: I have wanted to 'Save The Cheerleader' though. Oh yes, indeedy.
Complain about this comment
The internet provides me with a wealth of opportunity for serious thinking! It is a 24 hour interactive library and somewhere I can find discussion on any subject that I find interesting.
I believe children should be taught as early as possible how to access information from any source and how to evaluate its reliability and validity. They should be actively encouraged in self directed learning and a computer is an invaluable tool for this. Unfortunately, many parents are not computer literate and therefore lack the skills to teach their kids how to use them responsibly.
Anything done to excess is harmful. As a child, I spent far too much time reading. It was just as detrimental to my social skills and physical fitness as sitting in front of a computer or TV would have been.
I was disappointed by Susan Greenfield‘s comments, I hoped for more rational argument and empirical evidence from a scientist. I have not had any time to research but instinctively I would say the prevalence of ADHD and increased time spent on computer are not related by cause and effect but rather both symptoms of a much larger and complex social problem.
Complain about this comment
Too many children/young people spend too many hours left unsupervised in front of computer monitors absorbing all manner of stimuli that didn't exist 10-20years ago. Alongside this, as the Baroness highlighted, there's been a rise in prescriptions of drugs for attention deficit disorders.
A neurologist once said to me - many years ago - that hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders are over-diagnosed conditions - often made in cases where there is a lack of parental skill as a cause of the problem.
Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant. The fact is that too much of anything is bad for us!
Susan Greenfield - whose writings I often enjoy reading - has raised some important issues - we need to know the answers - but I do think that better skills in parenting exist than leaving one's offspring in front of computer screens, tv screens inter alia for hours on end!
Complain about this comment
People who play computer games often spend hours doing so, thus showing an ability to concentrate for ages. No shortage ofh attention span there then.
I know a lot of people with ADHD and it has nothing to do with computers. Their parents tell me the symptom are becoming obvious when they are very young, eg three years and so not old enough to be playing computer games.
I'm surprised a scientist would not notice that some people might have a preference for computer games because of particular problems rather than assume that the problems are caused by the things that they do.
What do I know though?
Mary
Complain about this comment
" prince_eugene wrote:
I heard Susan Greenfield not long ago on Radio Four worrying about the computer world ?Second Life?. Interestingly, the point she was making then was that Second Life was so realistic that players might become confused about their personal identity. "
If this Susan did make this statemen then she should never be brought on the BBC to talk about computer related issues again.
When on eplays a computer game one is moving around computer generated 'avatars' constructed from 'pixels'.
If she really thinks that human beings might confuse their personal identity with that of coloured shpaes on a screen she is the one that needs some serious help in identifying what is 'real life' and what is 'fantasy'.
And I thought iPM was the programme that would cut through this pseudo-intellectual rubbish. Just get rid of these 'experts' please.
Complain about this comment
After many years of experience with small children (teacher, mother, granny) I have found that those who have very large amounts of one-to-one time with their mother/carer are those who are the calmest and have the most ability to concentrate. "Zap-happy brains" may be the result of far too little quality time with a deeply loving nurterer.
Complain about this comment
I believe Nicholas Carr's may have a point.
Whilst reading his article my concentration started to drift after two or three paragraphs, I got fidgety, lost the thread, began looking for something else to do. I felt as if was dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally had become a struggle.
Can't think why that might be.
Complain about this comment
besottedgran @ 23
I agree with your comment but I would add the word "attentive" before mother/carer.
I so often want to speak to parents who are spending time with their children but not listening to them or giving them an explanation that would give them a small but valuable insight about the world and human behaviour. I know what is going to happen next and often it does, the child is shouted at for being 'naughty'.
It is easier to spot this behaviour in others rather than in ourselves so I make no claims for myself in saying this other than I know its importance.
As for the net, no child under school age should use it without a parent present and computer games should be family games like many of those available for the Wii. Older children should only use the net for a specific piece of research.
As they get to adulthood, they can also use it as an amusement as, by then, they should have learned to balance work and play.
Time to do my chores.
Complain about this comment
I was paraphrasing Susan Greenfield re Second Life, but I am confident I am paraphrasing her accurately. However, like Rowan Williams, she uses language pretty loosely so I am sure she would be able to claim that I had "misunderstood" her.
Complain about this comment
I would agree with a previous commenter that Susan Greenfield seems not to know how to use the Internet or at least she does not seem to use it frequently enough to judge those who do spend many hours of their day at a screen. Which happens to include most working scientists and journalists.
I think one must always distinguish between different technologies when passing judgement on them. To say that all "screen" usage is "brain zapping" is as sweeping as suggesting that, for instance, all books are educational. But are text books, novels by Jane Austen, Mills & Boon romances, holiday thrillers, great works of philosophy, crossword puzzle books all created equal? I would suggest not.
Gaming, tv watching, computer usage and internet usage must all be considered as separate media and even then each medium breaks down into multiple levels and flavours of activity. I am 28 and have spent, on average, at least 5 hours a day at my computer every day since I was about 17. I have made close friends, learned skills, applied for jobs, payed my bills, kept in touch when my friends or family were away from me, I have created all kinds of things including blogs and shared resources. And for the record I spend 8+ hours a day working plus at least an hour and often as many as 6 hours an evening online communicating, creating and learning. I love what I can do wth my computer and with the internet but I can also happily read a book through in a sitting or watch a three hour film or participate in day long meetings or spend a week on a sewing project very happily.
At the moment I am undertaking a five year part time MSc which is taught entirely by e-learning but by a university I actually work for and previously studied in. I find the online course infinitely more accessible and I am a far more active and reflective learner in this context than I ever was in physical studying situations. I will work for 5 or 6 hour stretches when I need to. Indeed I find the internet is so information rich that rather than spend an hour looking for a book in a library you can instead spend your time comparing sources, reading around your subject, investigating other works by academics, analyzing their influences and perhaps bias in their views as well as forming your own views. I am so much more stimulated by being able to use information and discuss and reflect on it in a community than I have ever been by the printed word. The only problem tends to be the snobbery and licensing terms that can make it harder to use resources freely online.
Any new type of resource can only be what you make of it. If you choose to be a passive recipient then the experience you will have will be shallow. If you engage and are interested and are encouraged to develop the skills to participate then the fact that the information you encounter happens to be on a screen rather than printed on paper should make no difference to that. Indeed the connectivity, communication, metadata and referencing possibilities of computer based information should be an advantage.
If there was one trend that proved the value and active and reflective benefits of computers it would have to be blogging. Blogs can be increadibly enriching to write (even if they have very few readers) as both a way to share and record information (for instance films seen, books read, seminars attended) and to reflect on what you learn in the every day world. This is both more active and more social than reading a book and as a reader it can be all the more involving than even the best fiction. Blogs can be like the very best documentaries or they can be, as a reader, an intellectual exercise in whether you choose to believe or deconstruct what you read. Whatever the case they can be extremely engaging and blend the best of traditional literature (reading, recording, paying attention for long periods, visualizing or analyzing what someone is writing about) with the strengths of the web (providing feedback to authors, social sharing and discussion, navigating to resources which may include all the references to replicate physical experiences (such as visiting a location or seeing a work of art), experiencing sound and visual material along with text).
I do think it's worth noting, however, that the idea of screens as childminders is a profoundly different issue. I do not see how computers differ from television in this regard though I do think active play when young will certainly help develop motor and cognitive skills that will effect how you go on to use technology. I would imagine both screen and non screen forms of play would be important for such development.
Complain about this comment
" I would agree with a previous commenter that Susan Greenfield seems not to know how to use the Internet or at least she does not seem to use it frequently enough to judge those who do spend many hours of their day at a screen. "
I didn't find that Ms Greenfield was specifically commenting on the medium, rather its effect on developing babies and children - therefore the comments wouldn't seem releavent to a person who was most likely largley educated in a very different computer environment.
Complain about this comment
I think the effect of the Internet (as against gaming) on children and young users is only half of it. Adults too get addicted to the 'real timeness' of it all. The reason is the immediacy of the Net. This feature, combined with (semi)interactivity and speed of access, makes the internet very like 'life'...but tamer.
Still what interests me more is what IS useful and feasible on the net and what isn't. I think the Net is best used as a (fantastic) source of facts and material (the biggest CDRom in the world, if you like). It is NOT a place to form opinions, let alone air ideas and analyse concepts. Individual thought is not its strong point. Of course an uploaded philosophical tome becomes 'on' the Net a series of concepts. But it was not written on that basis, but in the quiet of the study or moor (or wherever). The Internet is space to compile and 'become acquainted' with a scientifically orientated argument - if you're lucky. Or for fun. It is not really a place for artistic creativity or long-breathed (-winded?) analysis.
Complain about this comment
I have listened to her views, and am left wondering if she has actually "googled" anything. If one wants to find something akin to what one wants, then the query must be put in a way that just might achieve one's aims. It appears that she is portraying the whole internet as something akin to a scapegoat for the failings of society! I do not play games on the net, rather I USE it to listen and learn!
The bit about Ritalin was kind of pathetic. I attribute any study (in the USA) about the use of that drug to DRUG COMPANIES and their TV ads, which portray all the "good" effects and say(in small print) to ask your doctor about whatever might be applicable.
How was she made a "Baroness" anyway? It must be an honorary title; for from hearing her interview, she is no more than a 21st century Luddite!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS