Stunted Emotions. Shortened attention spans. Selfish recklessness. How reading the tabloid press can damage your brain…..
Posted on | April 26, 2009 | 16 Comments
Can you imagine a world in which common-sense and reason take precedence over sensationalism, scare-mongering and counterknowledge, where people are able to think through the consequences of their actions free from lurid pseudo-scientific journalism, and where our happiness and prosperity are no longer hampered by the tawdry illiberality and small-mindedness of the people who write for and edit our tabloid newspapers?
Personally, after reading yet another piece of unadulterated tosh from Baroness Greenfield in the Daily Mail (spotted over a shoulder on my flight north on Friday and torn out later from one of the thousands of free copies of this rag that litter our airports), I cannot wait for the day that the last splutteringly self-righteous techno-phobe is dispatched with the last rolled-up copy of the Daily Mail (pacé Tom Nairn).
See my post on an earlier bit of nonsense from her in the same authoritative journal.
Either Baroness Greenfield is the supreme parodist or she has lost her marbles – some of the statements she makes in this piece are just cringe-makingly ludicrous. She has chosen her outlet well with the Daily Mail, of course, since a more intelligent and discerning readership would, rightly, laugh out loud at some of the nonsense she is promulgating. These are quite simply the pronouncements of the profoundly ignorant.
As an example of her stupidity:
“I believe that much like traditional sources of instant gratification – sex, drugs, drink – social networking sites tap into the basic brain systems for delivering pleasurable experience.
But these experiences are devoid of long-term significance. I find it incredibly sad that people choose to spend their time and money sitting alone playing games with no consequence and no meaning.
But beyond any frustration I feel is concern about the future our screen culture might create. One extreme situation could be a rise in psychiatric problems and fewer babies born because people can’t form three-dimensional relationships.
By the middle of this century, our minds might have become infantilised – characterised by short attention spans, an inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity.
One has to ask: does everything that Baroness Greenfield does in her life have ‘consequence’ and ‘meaning’? She really needs to listen to Dr Stuart Brown on the ‘consequence’ and ‘meaning’ of play, of any kind.
It gets worse:
“…[another] possible change is in empathy. This cannot develop through social networking because we are not aware of how other people are really feeling – we cannot pick up on body language when we are communicating through a screen.
As a result, people could become almost autistic…..We should therefore not be surprised that those within the autism spectrum are comfortable in the cyber world. We do not know whether the current increase in autism is simply due to improved diagnosis of autism, but we must consider whether it can be linked to an increase among people of spending time in screen relationships.
If this sort of millenarian nonsense was tripping from the mouth of some sub-religious blathering techno-phobe, it would be bad enough; that it is written and published by someone claiming to be a scientist is incredible.
Tabloids? They do my head in…….
Technorati Tags: susan greenfield, daily mail, techno-phobe, neuroscience, pseudo-science, counterknowledge, social networking
Comments
16 Responses to “Stunted Emotions. Shortened attention spans. Selfish recklessness. How reading the tabloid press can damage your brain…..”
Recent Posts
- Blogging’s Second Bounce?
- “School is never out!”
- A Moment of Interplay: shifting between worlds
- Bloomsbury Commitment to Open Publishing
- Was that the summer?
- Stephen Wilson, CIO, DET NSW
- US Foreign Policy Deficit
- The Pale Blue Dot, David Hume, and Hollywood’s Distorting Lens
- Bibliophiles’ Paradise
- The Dodgy Dossier on Free Schools
Recently Commented
- Blogging’s Second Bounce?
07/30/2010 09:34 am
10 Comments - “School is never out!”
07/28/2010 09:11 am
3 Comments - A Moment of Interplay: shifting between worlds
1 Comment - The Pale Blue Dot, David Hume, and Hollywood’s Distorting Lens
07/16/2010 07:09 am
3 Comments - Our Addiction to the Printed Page?
07/07/2010 09:24 pm
2 Comments - Stephen Wilson, CIO, DET NSW
07/01/2010 08:24 pm
1 Comment
Currently Reading...
Biography & Speaking
|
My Other Blog
|
April 27th, 2009 @ 10:19 am
What a particularly impressive piece of drivel (from her not you!)…
Twitter creates autism… nice..
moral panic here we come.
Tabloids upset me so much I refuse to read them now.
April 28th, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
John, I sense a loss of objectivity crept into this piece. Let’s put aside that she is one of Blair’s “people’s peers.” Here is a quick resume of what her real peers think of her. Susan Greenfield is a professor of Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford and director of the Royal Institution, perhaps the most renowned scientific institution in the world because it can claim a 200 year history of outstanding scientists who have either led it, or benefited from its backing: amongst them Faraday, Davy, and Thomas Young. She holds 28 honorary degrees, these include: DSc by Oxford Brookes University in 1997, a DSc from the University of St. Andrew’s in 1998, and a DSc from Exeter University in 1998. She has also been awarded the Royal Society’s Faraday medal. The French government awarded her the Legion d’honneur and she is also an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and this year, an ex president of the Classical Association. I could go into her books but I know you struggle to read them.
Now in my simple, literary-minded world view, doesn’t this make her just a tad more credible as a scientist in our field than the likes of …well you choose?
April 29th, 2009 @ 8:00 am
Joe,
I am very well aware of her CV. I also am equally sure that she is using those credentials to give credence to a set of prejudices of quite monstrous proportions. Even scientists, unfortunately, sometimes find it hard to escape their own set of preconceived notions. She has chosen her medium well in which to display those prejudices.
I can’t help thinking that if you are able to read that latest Daily Mail piece without recognising the nonsense she is promulgating, then your own objectivity has to be in question. Anti-techno-zealotry is a difficult position from which to argue your own evenhandedness in this case.
I do actually make regular use of many, though not all, of the applications and technologies that Greenfield rails against. Given the seriousness of the ‘charges’ she makes against their use, she really needs to be able to demonstrate at least a rudimentary knowledge of them – she singularly fails to do that, with statement after statement that allow even moderate users of such technologies like me immediately to spot her manifest ignorance in this area.
She is a scientist. She really needs to rein in her personal distaste for tools that she clearly has little wish to understand, for whatever reasons, and start to operate as a scientist here. You, with your knowledge of, and deep experience, of great writing, must be able to read her prose in the latest piece (and this really is her own writing this time – it can’t be dismissed as the exaggerations of the tabloid journalist or sub-editor, as has been suggested in her defence previously) and recognize the series of non-sequiturs, the appeal to simplistic parental fears, and the threadbareness of her own position in this question.
I, like most sensible people, would seriously question the judgement of any parent who permitted their child to sit at a screen all day long, every day – but, as I have said previously, I would also question the parent who permitted their child to read books all day long, every day, or play chess all day long, every day, or indeed, do any single activity all day long, every day. However, there is a long long way from that simple common sense and understanding of good parenting to the sort of drivel and the amplified fear-mongering going on in Greenfield’s piece in the Daily Mail last week. She appears to have made her mind up already about the effects of the practices she outlines – she does not appear to be seeking a genuine debate. If she does want a genuine debate, she really ought to act more like the scientist she is than the tabloid journalist that she appears to want to be. Raising fears, for example, that the ’screen generation’ could become ‘almost autistic’ is unforgiveable from a reputable scientist – there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that such an outcome is possible or likely, and it is a ridiculous piece of prejudiced hyperbole to offer to an audience already credulous enough to choose to read the Daily Mail anyway. And that is just one amongst a string of unfounded and hair-raising assertions. From a hack journalist, they would be bad enough. From a scientist, they are ludicrous.
April 29th, 2009 @ 10:27 am
The word “bampot” comes sharply to mind. It’s very fitting even though it might not chime with previous illustrious achievements and might be considered a little disrespectful. Respect has to be earned, however, and it can be lost. Everyone screws up from time to time, but to do so in such an ignoble cause and so cringingly publicly, does take an otherwise wonderful person into the realm of the bampot.
April 29th, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
John, I’m 100% with you. She has an impressive CV, but for me has ruined that with a series of indulgences in the media, where (in my view) she has seriously misrepresented research. She is giving neuroscience a bad name, which is truly shameful. She also misunderstands (or misrepresents) how young people are using these services. Perhaps her next PhD should be in ethnographic studies?
April 29th, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
John,
I’d love to respond but having spent a couple of hours at the computer this morning I fear that all the literacy and communication skills I have learned over the past fifty years have almost dissipated – in fact I fear that I may have “become almost autistic”. I had been blissfully unaware of Baroness Greenfield and her mind-numbingly simplistic viewpoint until now, and in some ways I wish it had stayed that way, but on the other hand it does you good now and then to be reminded that even “intelligent” can have irrational fears. Now if you’ll excuse me I must nip out and meet some real people before my social skills and ability to empathise just vanish like snaw aff a dyke.
Bill
April 29th, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
What is everyone so upset about? The Daily Mail or Susan Greenfield’s views? All the extracts you quote John will be snippets taken by a Mail sub-editor (possibly with the brain of a guppy) from a phone interview. If you want to engage with her ideas then you have to read what she has written. Surely that is the least we should expect of our peers?
Ironically, by engaging with the tabloid text and not with her academic work, I think everyone ends up echoing its outrage.
April 29th, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Joe,
That just doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid. She obviously chose the medium here and the choice in itself is illustrative of her mindset. If this piece or any previous piece in the Mail are somehow not accurately reflective of her views on the subject, then she should say so, somewhere. I have seen no such word from her. Indeed, she has chosen to amplify those views through the pages of the same paper that previously set out her views in lurid form -if those guppy-brained earlier articles were inaccurate, she would surely not have chosen to use the same medium again.
I would be interested to know, incidentally, which snippets you think are the output of a guppy sub.
April 29th, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
While i don’t share her views i believe she is entitled to them as those who oppose them are equally entitled to their own viewpoint. I would however be very keen to to know what evidence/research she can point to that support/confirms her viewpoint – what evidence have the rest of us perhaps missed – would be interested to know.
April 29th, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
I wasn’t at all suggesting she was being misrepresented, or that a sub had written her words for her, only that the it might be better to separate her ideas, from the context in which you react to them…the tabloid press. Here’s my response to her ideas you selected, in isolation.
“I believe that much like traditional sources of instant gratification – sex, drugs, drink – social networking sites tap into the basic brain systems for delivering pleasurable experience.”
Sounds entirely plausible to me, or do you think social networking sites aren’t pleasurable or addictive?
“But these experiences are devoid of long-term significance. I find it incredibly sad that people choose to spend their time and money sitting alone playing games with no consequence and no meaning.”
I honestly can’t understand how anyone doesn’t find it “sad” that some people spend huge tranches of their time playing the kinds of games that are most popular, when they could be living a real life. When I delivered my paper on computer games at the ICICTE conference, I did a mass of research, including into the 18 rated games, and some of the most popular of these are inhumanely offensive on so many levels.
“But beyond any frustration I feel is concern about the future our screen culture might create. One extreme situation could be a rise in psychiatric problems and fewer babies born because people can’t form three-dimensional relationships. By the middle of this century, our minds might have become infantilised – characterised by short attention spans, an inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity.”
Again what’s to argue about? She says she is concerned, surely an entirely rational, sensible, indeed socially responsible position to adopt, and adds one “extreme” situation.
“…[another] possible change is in empathy. This cannot develop through social networking because we are not aware of how other people are really feeling – we cannot pick up on body language when we are communicating through a screen.
As a result, people could become almost autistic…..We should therefore not be surprised that those within the autism spectrum are comfortable in the cyber world. We do not know whether the current increase in autism is simply due to improved diagnosis of autism, but we must consider whether it can be linked to an increase among people of spending time in screen relationships.”
As you and I both know John, commercial organisations have struggled with video conferencing technology for exactly the reason she gives: people can’t read the body language or subtleties and when there are millions resting on a discussion…better not screw it up! And again, given that we know autistic children are more comfortable in the virtual world, surely it is entirely rational, sensible and responsible to “consider” whether or not there might be a link.
Susan Greenfield’s general position is perhaps best represented by this quotation: “At the moment I think we’re sleepwalking into these technologies and assuming that everything will shake down just fine.”
If we’re not “sleepwalking” into them: what are we doing? And you only need to add the word “children” and then you have reached my position, which is that surely as educators, we all have a responsibility to be even more cautious?
April 29th, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Joe, how you can read a line such as ‘One extreme situation could be a rise in psychiatric problems and fewer babies born because people can’t form three-dimensional relationships. By the middle of this century, our minds might have become infantilised’ and respond ‘what’s to argue about?’ is simply incredible.
You really need to try to get your critical faculties back.
Greenfield is moralizing, plain and simple, and you obviously agree with her position. Fair enough, but let’s not pretend there is any scientific basis for any of the assertions made in these strange articles.
As for ’sleepwalking’ I would seem to have more trust in my fellow educators than do you. Not all are techno-zealots, and even some who might be termed as such are good people who are a damned sight more intelligent and thoughtful than the likes of Greenfield and others seem to think.
April 29th, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
John
I have to agree with your analysis of this piece of “science fiction” writing. I do, however, worry a little that it may reflect a subtle shift in government enthusiasm for ongoing investment on educational technology. This is a budget that our political masters might want to rein-in in the not too distant future.
April 29th, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
[...] given my own recent weary sojourn in the la-la land of Susan Greenfield’s Armageddon-like pronouncements, it’s nice to [...]
April 30th, 2009 @ 8:57 am
[...] so I have not had a real opportunity to keep up with the various blogs I regularly read. I see John Connell has rattled a few cages with his posts about Professor Susan Greenfield and her take on young [...]
September 15th, 2009 @ 1:50 am
John, why such a hysterical reaction to a fairly modest statement from Greenfield? She’s identified a trend in modern life which, she hypothesises, could be problematic for society down the track. Greenfield appeared on Australian TV last night and freely admitted there is no firm evidence to support or disprove the hypothesis. She simply stated that she believes it may be beneficial to put some money and research into this area, and that she has applied for a grant to do so.
What’s so outragous about that? Why such an emotional rant?
September 15th, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Hysterical? Emotional? I’m the least hysterical or emotional person you’re ever likely to meet. Please don’t throw silly epithets around simply for effect.
If Greenfield or anyone else wishes to put money into the kinds of research she believes is necessary, that’s fine.
My problem is with people who use the tabloid press in the way that she does to raise fears that -as she admits – are unfounded. That is not what a reputable scientist should be doing.
Her ‘fairly modest statement’ is just a continual series of quite ridiculous claims about the neurological, and other, effects of ’screen-time’. Given her status, she is given a platform from which to air them. She is misusing that status and that platform. Anyone can raise fears on the basis of ‘belief’ or supposition – a real scientist would go out and start to test them. Instead, she chooses to shout them from the top of a tabloid roof, with hysterical headlines and – to anyone who actually makes regular use of the tools she so obviously knows little about – quite rash and reckless claims.
I suspect, of course, that all of those who see her claims as ‘fairly modest’ actually agree with her. If you are amongst these, then again that’s absolutely fine. But please don’t try to grab a spurious high moral ground on the basis of some affected objectivity on these issues.