If you're a Twitter user - and who isn't these days? - or a telly addict you'd better stop what you're doing and step away from the computer if you want to save yourself from brain rot.
That's the conclusion that might be drawn after reading work from scientists at the University of Southern California, who have studied the effect of today's information age on human brain development.
Emotional development
Researchers at the college's Brain and Creativity Institute say constant input from sources like television (and, possibly, updates from acquaintances on sites like Twitter, Facebook and other networks) are bad for emotional development.
In effect, their 'Nobler Instincts Take Time' paper, suggests the torrent of information bludgeons the senses into a kind of torpor where young users in particular find it difficult to show compassion for others.
Indifference to suffering
One expert explained: "Lasting compassion ... requires a level of persistent, emotional attention. In a media culture ... indifference to the vision of human suffering gradually sets in."
The work posits that the result could be a society of disconnected individuals only loosely bound by social networks and devoid of what might be considered a traditional moral compass.
You have been warned, but let's not take it too seriously, eh?
Your comments (2) Click to add a new comment
scottama
April 19th
2. WRONG!
From Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Column in The Guardian:
"Egged on by a rather fanciful press release from the University of Southern California media office, and a quote from a sociologist, the story was unstoppable. I got hold of the research paper, with some hassle. In a sentence, the study finds that the brain bloodflow changes which are observed when a subject is experiencing compassion for social pain peak, and dissipate, at a slightly slower rate to those seen with compassion for physical pain.
It does not mention Twitter. It does not mention Facebook. It does not mention social networking websites. It makes - and I'm being generous here - a single, momentary, passing reference to the rapid pace of information in "the digital age" in the discussion section, but that is all.
Am I a lone pedant? I emailed Prof Antonio Damasio, the senior academic and "corresponding author" on the paper. "Thank you for your inquiry. As you can see if you read our study, we made no connection whatsoever with Twitter. Some writers did make that connection but it is not ours."
Where did it come from, I asked? He dug. "I found the press release from USC where the writer made, on his own, a connection to social networks. We, the authors, certainly didn't and don't.
"The connection to Twitter and other social networks, as far as I can see, makes no sense. I presume you will reach the same conclusion after reading our article.""
Please remove this news story, as it is a farce and a lie; a story invented purely by the media.
Alert a moderator
zero_cool
April 18th
1. Yeah. But who cares...?
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments