Boy, Are We Stupid.
Dumping on the next generation has become a time-honored tradition in this country. Every few years, a study comes out showing how woeful these kids are in history. And I do mean every few years - I looked into this once, and found articles on it going all the way back to about 1935. Really. I'll write it up sometime.
Same goes for innovation. There's always someone out there claiming the latest technology is going to lead to social and moral decay, to the dumbing down of society. And so Susan Greenfield joins their ranks, another "voice in the wilderness" warning us of the technological dysptopia to come. Only she doesn't really seem to understand.
There are two things I always love about these arguments. One, the "accuser" in this story always picks one of the biggest websites to head their dire warnings. But it's never actually about those specific sites. Facebook. MySpace. Google.
Two, that we were once a nation of endless geniuses. Thus, technology has changed that all, and we are all fast becoming morons. Nevermind that say, Alan Greenspan, Henry Paulson, Phil Gramm, Bernie Madoff, George W. Bush, and Dick Fuld all attended school and grew up in a pre-Google, pre-Facebook world. So what's their excuse?
"Facebook is rewiring our brain." Oh no! Sounds horrible! Obviously, as a neuroscientist, Susan Greenwood is well versed in the idea of neuroplasticity, which is what she bases her "theory" on. Of course the Internet rewires our brain. Essentially, according to the idea of neuroplasticity, everything does. Walking down the street. Gardening. Reading. Watching TV. Sewing. Driving. And so on and so on.
What kills me most about all of this is that she's making an argument from authority here. "Top neuroscientist." Well, I can't find any scholarly research mentioned anywhere in these articles.
Ok. So I went to the databases to see what she's published recently. The most recent was an article in New Scientist, from May of 2008, which is essentially the boiled down version of the book she's promoting and doesn't offer much different than the news articles. Theory of evil technology based on theory of neuroplasticity. No studies whatsoever.
Ok. So Moving on.
Back a little further. April 2006, from The Guardian.
"Now imagine there is no robust conceptual framework. You are sitting in front of a multimedia presentation where you are unable, because you have not had the experience of many different intellectual journeys, to evaluate what is flashing up on the screen. The most immediate reaction would be to place a premium on the most obvious feature, the immediate sensory content, the "yuk" and "wow" factor. You would be having an experience rather than learning. The sounds and sights of a fast-moving multimedia presentation displace any time for reflection, or any idiosyncratic or imaginative connections we might make as we turn the pages, and then stare at a wall to reflect upon them."I really can't get past the fact that she doesn't seem to display any understanding of just how various the ways are that people use the Internet and technology. And further back, an article from the New Statesmen, June 2005.
If this current generation is living in an avalanche of answer-rich, question-poor inputs, and if we dons are faced with everyone being "above average", faultless, yet lacking curiosity, then we are heading towards a rather bizarre disconnect between what is taught and what we need and value. Surely we should be determining how we are going to bring back a scenario where young people have the confidence to risk being wrong. They should be taught in an environment where there is no problem in seeming stupid, and asking endless questions, and where they have time to venture down intellectual cul-de-sacs, to explore unlikely possibilities, to weigh up alternatives and, above all, to work out for themselves a framework within which they view the world.I think what's most fascinating about this is that she completely misses that the Internet and technology helps open up that second scenario.
I have not read any of her books, not the latest on this issue nor the first. I'll watch out for them though, even though I'm not expecting much substance. She's been banging this drum for some time, it seems.
I actually do think that there should be extensive research into the effects of technology on our brains. But this type of sensational fear-mongering drives me up a wall. It's about selling books and getting site hits. But I wonder about it as well.
Sometimes, I think of it in the grand scheme of things. The idea of neuroplasticity as it relates to evolution. It's actually incredible to think about - but the history of humankind is the story of an evolving brain, to the use of tools and the evolution of language, and our increased reliance on abstract thought. The Great Leap Forward - Behavioral modernity. Even with serious research, perhaps only time will tell if our brains are once again adapting to our environment.
Well. I'll leave you with this.
Advertisement
Ok I get it.
but remember microwave ovens will make a guy impotent and sterile
February 24, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I hear they say that about cigarettes as well. ;)
February 24, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're missing the boat on how the intertoobz and technology increases the capacity for contextual learning. You're in the middle of reading an article, come across a term you are not familiar with, you can click and learn more about it - not just from one source, but many.
I remember the days of using my sisters' outdated encyclopedias for school work if I didn't have time to get to the library. Kids nowadays can use wikipedia or encyclopedia brittanica etc. This also kids critical thinking skills. You shouldn't believe everything you find on the internet, anymore than you should believe anything you find in an encyclopedia. They can get a much fuller perspective than I could.Who is supplying this information, what are their motivations, are there alternate viewpoints I should factor in? Skepticism is a good thing. Just because the history book says something does not make it so.
February 24, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! I actually think that because there's so much misinformation on the Web, it makes us better at sorting through the bullshit - where in the olden days ;), we just took those encyclopedias at their word. Omnipotent experts. But of course they had biases as well. Same goes for textbooks. But now, with the internet, what a lot of us do is find our own answers, our own interpretations, our own opinions. We do it in research, in discussion, in politics, in governing.
I think there are legitimate critiques of technology but I have a real hard time listening to them come from someone who appears to think that "Click, Get Flashing Lights" sums up the Internet.
February 24, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd!! Don't have time to comment on this now. Was fun to read though. Will try to comment later. ;)
February 24, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand Aristotle was once quoted as saying: "Damn teenagers! We're raising a country of idiots! All they're interested in is playing the lute and watching those mindless plays by Aristophanes" ... But, that could be a mis-translation.
February 24, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
February 24, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As luck would have it, I also came across this today:
http://listverse.com/history/top-30-failed-technology-predictions/
February 24, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worst thing about the internet is all these pictures of black and white cats. What is up with that? Are cats taking over the internet?
February 24, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Hilarym99, this was a great post, really. I espcially liked the vid clip you added. Thank you.
February 24, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic that the current best model of neuron growth and connectivity is pretty much FaceBook, with better-connected (i.e. more friends) neurons getting more resources, and solitaries dying off.
People were assumed to be unable to breathe at 60 mph (they forgot about hurricanes and such), the radio was considered a deadly distraction in cars, man was not meant to fly (much less be bored by it), people routinely talk on the phone while passing each other at a combined speed of over 100 mph.
The mistake is to be categoric in reviling technology, or to be in a religious swoon over its value. But appropriate consideration is not a way to sell books. Just ignore.
February 24, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
The reason given by Decca Records for rejecting the Beatles in 1962.
February 24, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must confess that I share some of the misgivings about the new technology and how it is changing us. I certainly have nothing against the kids, but in myself I have noticed that I have less patience for long articles and books than I used to. There is just so much interesting stimuli out there on the nets.
I recall reading the Atlantic article, Is Google Making us Stupid?, and felt it really struck a nerve.
I know it is foolish to stand in the way of the future, but forgive me if I am not as sanguine. If the internets were as developed in my teenage years, I am not sure if I would have ever discovered the guilty pleasure of pop spy novels, or the rich world of literature. Why read Dickinson or Tolstoy? Boring?. But in my view these things are critical context.
I can't help but feel that something is being lost, but I don't blame the kids. Maybe thoughtfulness has worn out its evolutionary advantage. Today we can do anything with a mouse click so why bother reflecting upon shared sentiments and the lessons of the past.
Or perhaps I am just overly fearful. Maybe with the new networks we will move to a wisdom of the crowd scenario, and the best ideas will become obvious early.
February 24, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think all of your concerns are legitimate. What bothers me about this woman is that she's in a position to actually do research into what she's speaking about but she appears not to. I think there comes a time when we've reached (maybe already have) the point where isolating technology use as a variable in a research study becomes increasingly difficult. I think the best way to actually study this would be to follow individuals and compare their before/after technological introduction brain activity.
But about your comment - the Google article is also linked to in the post - personally, I have no problems sitting down and reading a long book. And one of the things I love about the Internet is the ability to find books I never would have known existed. Discussions here, on TPM, for example, has led me to several books and authors I may never have found. Palfrey and Gasser's Digital Natives classifies me as one, but the first time I had an Internet connection full time was in college. But I look at my seven-years-younger sister and my 11-years-younger stepsister and they are both brilliant young women - who still read and socialize and reflect outside of technology - and they are more certainly "Digital Natives."
In high school, my sister was reading Sartre and I believe it was Dostoyevsky amidst checking her Myspace and instant messaging.
I think the important thing here is balance. There aren't many activities I can think of that should be done for hours and hours.
Myself - I'm less concerned that technology will decrease reading or reflecting (I think it's increased mine and also had the effect of turning me back into a writer). What I do worry about is that we are becoming a nation of indoor-people. (Or maybe more aptly never-go-outside-people.)
I still want the kids to get time to play outside. To find frogs and dig holes and play in the woods and build forts and ride bikes and all that. I was riding my bike around town up until the day I got my license. I can't say I think that technology is at fault for what seems like the decrease in that type of life - but I do think it's part of it.
February 25, 2009 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, a bike is technology too. ;-)
February 25, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the fact that the modern automobile and the modern bicycle began to hit mass production at roughly the same time.
Which means neither is really newer, or more advanced. So we can create quite different tools, at the same point in time, to meet certain needs - yet with wildly different results in terms of experience, relationships, environment, cost, etc.
February 25, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Yeah.
For whatever reason, I find myself unable to muster much outrage with regard to people like her because they have always existed. They were there to tell us that trains are bad, computers are bad, technology is bad. Has not exactly kept them from using said technology, has it? I think what they are really bemoaning is that they feel left out or perhaps they feel things going out of their reach too fast? It could be. And instead of saying that, they dump on the technology and think they are contributing some contrapuntal argument, when really they sound eternally luddite.
As for reading Tanizaki, Tolstoy, Trollope, Tagore, Calvino etc, I do that, have done it and will continue to. Google, MySpace etc won't stop me from doing that. My concerns/curiosities with these are not about how they affect the brain but how they affect our perceptions about self and society.
February 24, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do wonder about the excessive pre-occupation there is with online social networks.
I wonder about our obsession with having instant access to everything, including nothing of any value whatsoever.
I wonder about our desire to know what someone, anyone is doing, saying, thinking, photographing, filming at any given moment.
I wonder whether or not immersing ourselves in virtual worlds will help us build keener instincts with which to process reality.
I wonder if an over-reliance on supercomputing stops us from discovering things by accident. From making brilliant intuitive leaps.
The internet connects us all but does it bring us closer?
You can possess all the knowledge in the world and yet
have no idea how to think.
I do wonder about that.
February 24, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's also remember that most cognitive scientists feel the evidence is in that social networks, i.e. group politics, is what rewarded and advanced human intelligence.
And the payoff for popularity is selective advantage, i.e. more mate choice. It's why most Americans would rather be famous than rich. (See: groupie, sports, movie star).
February 24, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's also remember that most cognitive scientists feel the evidence is in that social networks, i.e. group politics, is what rewarded and advanced human intelligence."
Could you explain that a little more?
February 24, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm think maybe that our social nature was a great force behind the evolution of the human mind - two heads better than one, in a sense - the collective knowledge of groups allowed for innovation and forward movement.
Even the earliest hunter-gatherer groups of humans lived and hunted in groups, which some attribute to the success of human evolution. (Hunting, specifically.) The transition and success of the move to agricultural society can also be seen through a social lens.
When you guys imagine how we discovered fire, how do you picture it?
February 24, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cavemen gather to witness the first demonstration of rubbing two sticks together to create fire. As they ponder the amazing possibilities of this enchanting and wondrous blaze of orange, Republicans storm the camp and douce it with water, cursing the dangers of innovation.
February 24, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then they take all the sticks back to their own cave and try over and over again to get a spark!
PS: Ever see the movie "Quest for Fire," a film that showed the discovery of fire's advantages and then learning to make it. I think it was French, but didn't matter because all the dialogue was cave-man. It was great -- get it on Net-Flix for a real treat. I believe Rae Dawn Chong was in it, and the movie even showed the evolution of the "missionary position!"
February 25, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree with the two heads are better than one. Its about the moments when determining which head to listen to that concerns me.
To play with tpmgary's answer I can see this:
The first guy discovers rubbing two sticks together makes fire and he is so excited that grabs the stick and runs around showing everyone the miracle of what he is done, and they are entranced. But tragically the fire spreads and burns the forest down.
One caveman survives and limps to another cave group where they begrudgedly accept him but think of him as crazy for his fantastical stories of "fire". One day a caveman in that group rubs two sticks together, and that caveman springs up and warns the group don't let it get out. But the group is really really happy about this fire thing, and it is hard to contain their emotion. So they have a choice.
Oftentimes it is the wisdom of the crowd, but sometimes it is the madness. History is filled with examples of both.
February 24, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes lots of brainpower to keep track of the hierarchy in primate troops, researchers argue. They show some glimmerings of an important human skill, called "theory of mind". This is imagining what the other guy is interested in, as in noticing where he is looking, and looking in the same direction.
February 25, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
#28: “Dear Mr. President: The canal system of this country is being threatened by a new form of transportation known as ‘railroads’ … As you may well know, Mr. President, ‘railroad’ carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by ‘engines’ which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children.
Insert high-speed rail for railroad carriages and automobiles for canals and we have an up to date prediction.
February 25, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm. Maybe if we had stuck with canals we'd be in a better position, natural resource-wise? ;)
February 25, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's the rub! How do we avoid becoming isolated and believing interaction means exchanging e-mails? In addition, because I believe it is important to be exposed to alternative ideas in order to evaluate those we hold dearest, how can we ensure the "blogger(?)/student" is not getting a managed exposure so that there are only one set of ideas passing in front of him/her?
It appears we must do all we can to prevent the internet from becoming a controlled area. In the market of ideas, I am a Libertarian. This only means that one has the right to express any idea they may have, however, they do not have the right to be respected and honored if those ideas are irrational or harmful, which are not mutually exclusive. Hitler had a solution.
It is also critical that we get out more. In the end, we need a clean environment. I suppose people getting connected can lead to some tremendous efficiencies in delivery of personal need items and staying inside prevents pollution outside. I'm just not at all interested in meeting people all pasty white who have not seen the sun in more then a year. I'm just sayin'.
February 25, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Hilary. Sorry I couldn't comment sooner.
Greenfield is simply voicing plain old elitism, and it's well documented that elitism makes you stupid.
I have to admit I'm not at all impressed with her. Where's the science in any of her warnings? Where's the brilliance? She sounds rather unimaginative to me. One quote out of many I could pull from the Guardian article:
Seriously? I learned empathy from Stuart Little? That might explain why I can't kill a mouse, but it doesn't explain why I cried every time I listened to the melancholy yearning expressed on a scratchy 45 of Tammy before I could even read.
In any case, narrative storytelling has survived many technological advances since cave painting, and I predict it will survive many more technological advances in the future. I hypothesize J. K. Rowling would agree.
Whatever Greenfield's personal issues are with other human beings I am not qualified to say, but everything she says about people keeps them at arm's length. Perhaps she herself lacks empathy. She certainly didn't have much for her baby brother when she was well past novel-reading age and he was a toddler.
I would stop paying attention to Greenfield altogether if I were you. Life is too short.
But I would definitely reread E. B. White. ;-)
February 25, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the first non-picture book I read to my sons, (who were not interested in listening to a book without a picture on every page). I said, I'm going to read the first two pages and if you don't like it we'll pick up a different one. They were hooked from the 3rd paragraph and they weren't even 3 years old. I always got books on tape for our long car trips, and Stuart Little was narrated by Julie Harris -- ah, the memories!
February 25, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink