Modern technology is KILLING OUR YOUTH?
If I was to be uber sensationalist, I would use this title to reflect what Susan Greenfield and other scientists are saying about video games, and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter.
Lady Greenfield does believe something along these lines however. For at least several years now she has been involved in studies to do with the impact of modern technology on attention and behaviour in general. Essentially, what changes it's making to how young people of today think.
She has written several books that deal with these topics. She's world-renowned in this area. She knows her stuff in other words.
As the BBC, NZ Herald and other news agencies are running with, she has recently been speaking to the British House of Lords on these topics, giving warning to potential consequences and urging further investigations into damage caused by things like video games, Facebook and Twitter.
She contrasts real world relationships with virtual ones, saying things such as how real world relationships...
...require a sensitivity to voice tone, body language and perhaps even to pheromones - those sneaky molecules that we release and which others smell subconsciously.
Moreover, according to the context and, indeed, the person with whom we are conversing, our own delivery will need to adapt. None of these skills are required when chatting on a social networking site.
It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations.
This seems all very plausable. Our behaviours tend to mould our brains in operating best to meet the needs of these behaviours - this is related to an area of neuroscience called neuroplasticity and more and more is being discovered about how our brains can and do change, even as adults to a limited extent.
Lady Greenfield goes on to say that ADHD and Autism may be connected to the "near total submersion of our culture in screen technologies."
And this is where I feel the scaremongering comes in. It would be great to get a full copy of what she said in order to get a clearer picture. I wasn't able to find one online quickly. However I can get a decent sense going by the quotes and her other writings, along with a book of hers I've read.
One big issue with linking modern technologies with ADHD is that researchers have been unable to ascertain a reliable reason for the attention difficulties of children labelled with ADHD - or even how attention (as defined by researches) factors into the mix.
Studies comparing ADHD children and non-ADHD children in regard to computer and video game usage tend to give mixed results. For example, one study showed no differences concerning video game use, although ADHD children exhibited more problems associated with videogame playing, suggesting that some ADHD children could be vulnerable to developing dependence.
One area that is not brought up often when people go on the war path over technology's impact on children are the many studies which show the benefits of electronic media for children, such as increased coordination and actually enhanced visual attention skills.
As for technology causing autism, that is even more of a stretch it seems. In the BBC article Professor David Skuse makes clear the reverse logic of this connection, saying...
The young people with autism we see do have a problem with face-to-face communication although they can be very articulate. They need to communicate and the internet is giving them a channel that they would not otherwise have.
So, modern technology and kids...what do we do? Last year a Psychologist Tanya Byron created a paper for the UK Government called Children and New Technology. As the title suggests it outlines guidelines for dealing with issues of high modern technology usage by youth. It's a good level-headed approach as she recognises the role of technology and how it can be a force for good if managed correctly.
One thing that strikes me about these relatively sensational claims by researchers such as Lady Greenfield is how they seem to follow the "oh no, it's new and a little scary, and I don't understand it properly, and things are changing, ahgrghrhh ban it!" type of thought process. This thought process seems to be one that has long been part of the human psyche and comes up every generational change.
We should not let the exaggeration of danger get in the way of the very real issues at play however. As Lady Greenfield mentions above, this modern world where young people can be constantly stimulated by texts and tweets most likely impacts to some degree on brain functioning. And as with most areas of psychological research, it is difficult to tease the causation out of the correlations.
The key questions are how much is this modern world really different to 200 years ago in terms of stimulating events and distractions? And what strategies do we need to put in place to ensure that modern technology enriches the lives of young people.
Abortion Revisited
So I wrote about my personal views on abortion early this year. After publishing this it definitely made me think more about what personal views I'm comfortable sharing online. Also why I'm sharing these views in particular.
There's no easy answer to this. I like to write my views in order to solidifying and make sense of them, and I'll happily talk to another about them, but somehow publishing them in text online is a significant leap into the uncomfortable zone.
I did decide however to republish the abortion piece, albeit with some changes brought about by comments on the old one. So maybe that is a good enough reason to publish - it lets your views get scrutinized a bit which is always a good thing.
I just need to finish making the changes now... 
Bhuja Mystery
I was happily munching away today on my recently purchased bag of bhuja mix when my teeth came across a rather unpleasant surprise.
I'll let my letter to the manufacturer say the rest...
February 23, 2009
Trumps Limited
5B Andrew Baxter Drive
Airport Oaks
Auckland
Dear Sir or Madam:
I purchased a 500g bag of bhuja mix branded under the "Bulk Foods for value" brand from Woolworths supermarket in Kaori, Wellington on Sunday 22nd February 2009.
Approximately 10 minutes into eating the product from the bag my teeth discovered a large solid object which definitely did not seem like bhuja mix. In fact, upon closer inspection, I found that this approximately 1.5cm3 object was a stone!
This was, to put it mildly, surprising. Upon checking the ingredients I could find no mention of stones, twigs or other inedible objects. I can only assume that bhuja mix is not supposed to include stones. One possible theory is that it was masquerading as a peanut...it did look a little similar.
My teeth got quite a fright as well. I fear I may have chipped one or several of my front teeth in unknowingly biting into this stone; it certainly caused considerable pain. A visit to the dentist will be in order.
I am therefore seeking to know what you will do to put this unfortunate situation right. For your reference, pictorial evidence of the offending item accompanies this letter.
I expect a response and resolution within 2 weeks.
Sincerely,
So please pay attention with bhuja mix, you never know what might be in there. At least it wasn't a fossilised cicada, although that would have been much cooler than a stone.
Here are some pics for evidence:
It’s so shiny!
So this is my new blogging home, welcome!
I need to still go through the site and add some bits and pieces here and there. I haven't used WordPress much before but so far so good. I love the admin interface - compared to other CMS' it's amazing.
One change in direction for me will be to start writing neuroscience and cognitive psychology themed posts targeted at a general audience...well, probably not a "Woman's Day audience" but more of a "The Economist or New Scientist audience."
I hope to advance my skills in this area of science writing and also it will help my studies in neuroscience. That's the plan anyway.
DubTech mix from Grievous Angel
http://blog.grievousangel.net/dubtech-mix
cool dubstep mix I likes!
On the techo/house/electro-inspired vibe.
Ex-Atheist
Below is a video I came across recently. Be careful, it's really, really bad:
So what is so wrong with this video? Well it all starts when this poor girl states "Once upon a time, billions of years ago...time and chance came together and magically created this entire universe..."
She then goes on to say that evolution is a "fairy tale for adults", apparently just a "story" which was "created by" Charles Darwin. She misrepresents Darwin further by saying he came up with his ideas without any scientific evidence or methods! She also radically misquotes from Origins and makes a mockery of his life time's work.
There's a whole lot of wrong here, and this is just in the first minute. Maybe it's a good point to stop and reflect on a few points...
- Saying that time and chance came together billions of years ago is a misleading statement, and evolutionary theory certainly doesn't involve any magic. She implies that it all happened at once - maybe she has some serious misconception of the big bang theory. She certainly is hiding any knowledge she might have of the very slow nature of evolutionary change over time - especially the theories on early cell development.
- The whole fairy tale for adults thing is a turnaround of a statement commonly directed at religions, which made me think this was a parody at the start!
- To say Darwin created the idea of evolution is again misleading. Evolution by natural selection and by genetic drift occurs all around us in the world today. Darwin helped formalise the theory of evolution by natural selection. Like most significant steps in science, other scientists were thinking along the same lines at the time of Darwin and scientists before had laid the ground work allowing Darwin to reach his conclusions.
- One only has to read the first chapter of On the Origin of Species to realise that Darwin was incredibly cautious about gathering evidence and applying it in a scientifically appropriate way.
But of course, no point going into detail here...this is obviously the dramatic and ear-catching opening to her speech/argument. She's clearly more focused on projecting and winning the audience with hype than truth or knowledge.
On the other hand, this opening and the rest of the speech is dangerous. Dangerous because it implants these blatantly false notions into susceptible young minds.
She obviously hasn't given any serious thought to a lot of what she is saying. It seems to be to be a collection of popular anti-atheist and anti-evolution writings stitched together. This isn't necessarily a "bad thing" in terms of talking about a view, and in this case, it makes sense when one thinks about another motive for this speech: to promote P4CM...
The focus of her organisation, Passion for Christ Movement, is focused on youth. Judging by their website one could easily get the idea they're all about selling tshirts and being hip.
Their latest shirt, the Ex-Masturbator, is testament to this. Along with their other shirts, this one is pushing the risqué/edgy angle as much as any theological angle. Make a stand, be different, belong to something.
Is this a common method of operating for youth-oriented churches? The only way in 2009 to get the kids involved? It begs the question if the majority of members are in it for the hype and the sense of belonging, or the actual message and the ideas. Actually, wait, hasn't that been the story with all religions over the years?
Young people are also more prone to lapping up anti-establishment ideas, e.g. anti-science ideas. An essential part of growing up is critically analysing or dismissing the existing ideas and paving ones own road. However this church is giving poor youth a faulty compass to work with with.
Later on in the video she pulls out the latest and greatest anti-science idea of recent years: intelligent design. All the usual popular arguments for ID are present. No major surprises.
The worst thing she comes out with is comparing a single cell to New York City. She goes to town on someone's probably offhand remark that a cell is more complex than NYC - dramatically describing how complex NYC is on the way, like the analogy is actually valid and can be taken further...subways!
As expected her conclusion is that NYC is massive and complex and functions and hence can not have been created by random chance. Therefore, cells as well can not be created by chance (her view of evolutionary processes) but must have been designed by god! Some points are needed here:
- First off, comparing a single cell to a city is not a valid analogy. Any conclusions drawn from this do not follow. A city is a complex man made entity only really defined in sociological terms. A cell is a distinct biological entity.
- Parts of the evolutionary process, such as genetic drift and mutations, are relatively governed by chance. Others, such as natural selection are not: species are selected by their ability to reproduce, which often involves being the fittest for the environment. This is not a random process.
- She is also making the "change must have purpose" mistake. There is no hidden or greater purpose behind the evolutionary changes in an organism - simply adaptation to the environment and survival of the reproductive fittest. These are obviously completely context dependent. NYC on the other hand is designed and planned by humans with purposes in mind.
- NYC didn't just spring up over night in a perfectly functioning state. It is the process of years and years of ongoing human labour and problem solving.
She then goes into the irreducible complexity argument. Sigh. I'll pass you on to the excellent article by Steven Novella on breaking down the arguments of ID.
So all in all a real shocker. I hope she isn't indicative of any sizeable chunk of modern day US youth! Maybe it's just a Texas problem?