Scientists ask: Is technology rewiring our brains?


Recommended Posts

Source

NEW YORK (AP) - What does a teenage brain on Google look like? Do all those hours spent online rewire the circuitry? Could these kids even relate better to emoticons than to real people?

These sound like concerns from worried parents. But they're coming from brain scientists.

While violent video games have gotten a lot of public attention, some current concerns go well beyond that. Some scientists think the wired world may be changing the way we read, learn and interact with each other.

There are no firm answers yet. But Dr. Gary Small, a psychiatrist at UCLA, argues that daily exposure to digital technologies such as the Internet and smart phones can alter how the brain works.

When the brain spends more time on technology-related tasks and less time exposed to other people, it drifts away from fundamental social skills like reading facial expressions during conversation, Small asserts.

So brain circuits involved in face-to-face contact can become weaker, he suggests. That may lead to social awkwardness, an inability to interpret nonverbal messages, isolation and less interest in traditional classroom learning.

Small says the effect is strongest in so-called digital natives - people in their teens and 20s who have been "digitally hard-wired since toddlerhood." He thinks it's important to help the digital natives improve their social skills and older people - digital immigrants - improve their technology skills.

At least one 19-year-old Internet enthusiast gives Small's idea a mixed review. John Rowe, who lives near Pasadena, Calif., spends six to 12 hours online a day. He flits from instant messaging his friends to games like Cyber Nations and Galaxies Ablaze to online forums for game players and disc jockeys.

Social skills? Rowe figures he and his buddies are doing just fine in that department, thank you. But he thinks Small may have a point about some other people he knows.

"If I didn't actively go out and try to spend time with friends, I wouldn't have the social skills that I do," said Rowe, who reckons he spends three or four nights a week out with his pals. "You can't just give up on having normal friends that you see on a day-to-day basis."

More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates warned about a different information revolution - the rise of the written word, which he considered a more superficial way of learning than the oral tradition. More recently, the arrival of television sparked concerns that it would make children more violent or passive and interfere with their education.

Small, who describes his modern-day concerns in a new book called "iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind," acknowledges he doesn't have an open-and-shut case that digital technology is changing brain circuitry.

Still, his argument is "pretty interesting and certainly provocative," although difficult to prove, says brain scientist Tracey Shors of Rutgers University.

Others are skeptical. Robert Kurzban, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist, said scientists still have a lot to learn about how a person's experiences affect the way the brain is wired to deal with social interaction.

Life in the age of Google may even change how we read.

Normally, as a child learns to read, the brain builds pathways that gradually allow for more sophisticated analysis and comprehension, says Maryanne Wolf of Tufts University, author of "Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain."

She calls that analysis and comprehension "deep reading." But that takes time, even if it's just a fraction of a second, and today's wired world is all about speed, gathering a lot of superficial information fast.

Wolf asks what will happen as young children do more and more early reading online. Will their brains respond by short-circuiting parts of the normal reading pathways that lead to deeper reading but which also take more time? And will that harm their ability to reflect on what they've read?

Those questions deserve to be studied, Wolf says. She thinks kids will need instruction tailored to gaining reading comprehension in the digital world.

Some research suggests the brain actually benefits from Internet use.

A large study led by Mizuko Ito of the University of California, Irvine, recently concluded that by hanging out online with friends - sending instant messages, for example - teens learn valuable skills they'll need to use at work and socially in the digital age. That includes lessons about issues like online privacy and what's appropriate to post and communicate on the internet, Ito said.

Rowe, the 19-year-old, said he and his buddies often debate whether technology might actually be bad for you. That includes kicking around the argument that computer use makes people socially inept.

Of course, he added, "we spend a lot of time on the computer and still have totally normal and perfect social lives."

Winner.

-Spenser

More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates warned about a different information revolution - the rise of the written word, which he considered a more superficial way of learning than the oral tradition. More recently, the arrival of television sparked concerns that it would make children more violent or passive and interfere with their education.

Some say that violence on TV contributes to crime rates.

Some say that violence on TV contributes to crime rates.

And? They say it, but nobody's been able to prove it. Many studies have found no link, and the one's that have found a link can't prove that violent television causes more aggressive behavior. It could be the other way around, or there could be other factors altogether.

Either way I don't see what that has to do with what I quoted and what I implied. The majority of people that use technology have perfectly normal social lives.

-Spenser

And? They say it, but nobody's been able to prove it. Many studies have found no link, and the one's that have found a link can't prove that violent television causes more aggressive behavior. It could be the other way around, or there could be other factors altogether.

Either way I don't see what that has to do with what I quoted and what I implied. The majority of people that use technology have perfectly normal social lives.

-Spenser

Not according to the Psychiatrist that said:

There are no firm answers yet. But Dr. Gary Small, a psychiatrist at UCLA, argues that daily exposure to digital technologies such as the Internet and smart phones can alter how the brain works.

When the brain spends more time on technology-related tasks and less time exposed to other people, it drifts away from fundamental social skills like reading facial expressions during conversation, Small asserts.

You implied that what you quoted was the Winner. The good Doctor above does not concur. Maybe this is why most teenagers talk in Text Language. BMBF. ...etc.

You implied that what you quoted was the Winner. The good Doctor above does not concur. Maybe this is why most teenagers talk in Text Language. BMBF. ...etc.

And I take the good doctor's word into account, but it's part of going into psychology to question things. One doctor saying something like this does not make it true. He even stated that there aren't firm answers yet. I'm not even sure he ran a true empirical study. It sounds more like conjecture. Just because something looks like it might be true doesn't make it so even if a psychiatrist says so (and he doesn't really say so).

-Spenser

Studies like this just assume that it has to be a good thing to comprehend non-communicative "language". My question is: why? It's arguably better to communicate directly what you're thinking so other people know exactly what you want, than to play guessing games which introduce a plethora of misunderstanding.

And I take the good doctor's word into account, but it's part of going into psychology to question things. One doctor saying something like this does not make it true. He even stated that there aren't firm answers yet. I'm not even sure he ran a true empirical study. It sounds more like conjecture. Just because something looks like it might be true doesn't make it so even if a psychiatrist says so (and he doesn't really say so).

-Spenser

Psychiatry is not an exact science. Any Psychiatrist will tell you that. I am just stating my own observations. My teenage Daughter never talks on the phone, all of her communications is through IM's . There is less one on one relationships going on today as compared when I was growing up and had to either call someone or actually leave my house to go visit them. I actually had real friends and not just "Internet Friends". This is just some Doctors opinion, it will take years to determine if he is right. If you talk to three different Psychiatrists you will probably get three different or varying opinions.

Psychiatry is not an exact science. Any Psychiatrist will tell you that. I am just stating my own observations. My teenage Daughter never talks on the phone, all of her communications is through IM's . There is less one on one relationships going on today as compared when I was growing up and had to either call someone or actually leave my house to go visit them. I actually had real friends and not just "Internet Friends". This is just some Doctors opinion, it will take years to determine if he is right. If you talk to three different Psychiatrists you will probably get three different or varying opinions.

I'm not sure what the disagreement is about anymore. I'm just saying anecdotally as a 21 year old male who uses the internet to chat a hell of a lot with friends and who knows a lot of people who do the same, that myself and all of the rest of them that I know have real friends and lead perfectly fine social lives. It's very difficult to escape a real social life when attending school whether it be college or before college.

-Spenser

I'm not sure what the disagreement is about anymore. I'm just saying anecdotally as a 21 year old male who uses the internet to chat a hell of a lot with friends and who knows a lot of people who do the same, that myself and all of the rest of them that I know have real friends and lead perfectly fine social lives. It's very difficult to escape a real social life when attending school whether it be college or before college.

-Spenser

There is no disagreement. I am comparing how it was back in the 50's which you cannot do as you were not around then. Yes attending College is sociable. Times have changed and so did the form of communications for the better or worse. The use of the Net has brought the world closer together which is a good thing.

Technology changes our lives, but I don't think it runs them (I hear there's a thing called drugs that'll do that).

After all, emoticons/smilies are simply used to express something that can't be expressed with words, though sometimes they can be used to convey the intent of something that might be read incorrectly.

For example, if I'm correcting what one user said because it was incorrect, it might sound like I'm yelling "You're doing it the wrong way, idiot!!" when really I'm saying "This is the correct way; do it this way, and your family won't turn into frogs."

OK, so that was a bad example... XD

Honestly though, this article is just a bunch of scientists with hypotheses. Has anything conclusive been found after all of the studies they've done? It doesn't appear to be that way.

I do think that using certain technologies while doing certain other things is dangerous (texting while driving anything (bicycle, motor vehicle, horse and buggy) comes to mind rather quickly).

However, I doubt that technology itself is screwing with us. We're doing exactly what Apple has told us to do since...forever? - we're thinking differently.

Gimme a cookie now...

I :heart: cookies!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!