I don't do no brain my damage. Unpossible!

But I thought TV was harmful for our brains. always something

COMPUTERS WILL HARM TEH CHILDRENZ!!!

says the computer article.

This baroness just wants to keep the lower classes ignorant by tricking them into thinking computers are dangerous.

Maybe with today's computers, being more accessible and less "complicated". But back when, floppies and cassets and figuring out how the hell to start a program on a commodore, and then there was the advanced days where you had to get access to the HMA to play any games.

It's not like this stuff is addicting at all...

/ F5 F5 F5 F5 F5

Wait, this isn't an actual done study yet? Just a wild guess?

I think this qualifies as British Whargarbl

Bah. This isn't brain damage. Inter-connected computers are the way of the future, and the brains of young people today are being conditioned for that kind of experience. It's just a change.

/Can't wait for the singularity.

Rolander: Maybe with today's computers, being more accessible and less "complicated". But back when, floppies and cassets and figuring out how the hell to start a program on a commodore, and then there was the advanced days where you had to get access to the HMA to play any games.

Not to mention most games in those days required you to know how to spell to get them to work.

Skimmed the article, looks like this is just someone's wild guess.

Let's see...

*search for "study"* - negative
*search for "results"* - negative
*search for "data"* - negative

Yeah, I'd say it is.

What a bunch of crap. I've been using computers since i was 11, and I am perfectly adjusted to my basement environment.

It depends on what you do on the computer.

Looking up Porn might show much more damage than building computers.

:P

Sounds like yet another Cobra mind control scheme. The Baroness is most likely in it.

isn't this a generation late? i've been glued to the monitor since I was 12-13.

/born 81
//damaged brain apparently


actually...wait, what?

according to the author's way of thinking, how is this any different than television, which has been around for much longer?

.
...
...yay, more bullshiat science.

So... she has a theory.
She has not tested that theory with any human subjects.
She has not tried to disprove this theory with the standard testing methods or even statistically done any "Double Blind" testing of any "heavy computer user" versus "non-computer user" groups to verify prefrontal cortex development ratings with a variety of test equipment.

This is all nice, but where are the results unless she's trying to hit us up for Grant Money for testing this theory?

The real provable results of her theory that we already are aware of is that humans can "Respond on instinct" when thrown into any situation. Some will be passively wait for help to arrive, some aggressively will determine the danger level of local threats, and some will flee for their lives. This is the same result you will get from dropping any cat or dog into the wilderness anywhere on the world.

Computers *MIGHT* screw up the thought processes from the impact of "Immediateness" in information, but then again if this were an entirely alien experience for humanity.

Not everything in life is a continual story format of things progressing to the next stage of plot. A cookbook requires neither plot or a development of characters. A shopping list requires no prior knowledge of events leading to that list or even a conclusion of events after the list has been utilized. A math textbook requires no descriptive scenic paragraphs. A reference encyclopedia does not require a passionate love story or a tragic plotline to retain its usefulness as a historical source or an information device. A dictionary requires no epic battles to take place in its pages to inform people of the meanings and spellings of words.

// Since the "Baroness Susan Greenfield" is a hysterical (in the "not creating intentional laughter" way) alarmist with illogical thought processes and the retarded inability to even formulate lateral thinking processes, I deem her brain damaged in the prefrontal cortex.

joelogic: isn't this a generation late? i've been glued to the monitor since I was 12-13.

/born 81
//damaged brain apparently


You were born 81-years-old?!?

Wow. Your mom must have had a big uterus.

Dnrtfa, but if anything, computers are poised to mark great strides in our overall intellectual heft. The problem is that like any other tool, it can be misused. So instead of having an appliance that can tell you within 14 seconds what the GDP of Turkey is, you have a youtube comments section.

The lack of critical thinking skills is what we should truly be afraid of. Granted, that's always been a problem.

ok, rereading the article because i thought i was a bit hasty with my attack, i have to say, i've read PCP-fueled suicide notes that had fewer logic holes than this train-wreck of bullshiat.

"We have to ask ourselves: Is this what we want?"

I have to ask myself: Did I really want to read a half-crocked "hypothesis" penned by a luddite devoid of any actual or meaningful scientific finding?

The human brain is flexible and adaptive beyond what we pretend to know. It has continually evolved over a much longer timeframe than the meager 5000 years stated in the article. In so much, I actually agree that that our brains have "become different from those of previous generations".

Indeed, that's the point. Don't like it? Back to the cave, whereupon frivolous rants such as this can be scrawled upon the wall for future generation to remark: "Witness the primitive misgivings our ancestors had. Why were they afraid of embracing change? Why did they insist on adapting so slowly?"

Or something like that.

Gridlock: joelogic: isn't this a generation late? i've been glued to the monitor since I was 12-13.

/born 81
//damaged brain apparently


You were born 81-years-old?!?

Wow. Your mom must have had a big uterus.

my skin was ribbed for her pleasure

People said the same thing a while ago when people believe TV is [OMG!] harming kids' brain.

I would be more interested in someone doing a study of whether reading the Daily Mail damages your brain.

Uh, the article says the fatter you are, the less functioning your prefrontal cortex is. Isn't that backwards? The less functioning your prefrontal cortex is, the less you are able to control your urges, so the more likely you are to overindulge.

Some dude is speculating? Well, I'm convinced.

SweetHomeNowhere: People said the same thing a while ago when people believe TV is [OMG!] harming kids' brain.

I do have to look at our society and the way it functions and at least throw out a "hmmmmmmm."

Gridlock: Computers *MIGHT* screw up the thought processes from the impact of "Immediateness" in information, but then again if this were an entirely alien experience for humanity.

Not everything in life is a continual story format of things progressing to the next stage of plot. A cookbook requires neither plot or a development of characters. A shopping list requires no prior knowledge of events leading to that list or even a conclusion of events after the list has been utilized. A math textbook requires no descriptive scenic paragraphs. A reference encyclopedia does not require a passionate love story or a tragic plotline to retain its usefulness as a historical source or an information device. A dictionary requires no epic battles to take place in its pages to inform people of the meanings and spellings of words.

But you don't spend 6 hours everyday as children exclusively doing any of those activities. Her argument seems to be, not that this is some novel experience that will screw us up, but that overexposure to it and underexposure to the narrative way of thinking during the period of development of that narrative method is resulting in a retardation in our children - they're not being exposed to narrative thinking enough to properly develop it.

This isn't exactly a left field theory. It's long been known that there are critical times in brain development, such as the development of abstract thought, where you must be exposed to something or you will never properly develop the corresponding ability. The brain simply has a window for certain abilities where you develop that ability, and when that window closes, that's it. The ability to further develop the physical structures needed for it in the brain is forever closed off.

She admitted her argument is only speculation but it's worth considering in my opinion, especially considering the gravity of the consequences if she is correct.

SweetHomeNowhere: People said the same thing a while ago when people believe TV is [OMG!] harming kids' brain.

And the advent of furries I think pretty much proved them correct.

ftfa: What I am advocating is a hypothesis

stopped reading right farking hear. that link was a wast of time and bandwidth that i will never get back. jump off a bridge subby.

Ned Stark: ftfa: What I am advocating is a hypothesis

stopped reading right farking hear. that link was a wast of time and bandwidth that i will never get back. jump off a bridge subby.

You can't stand speculation?

Cathedralmaster: This isn't exactly a left field theory. It's long been known that there are critical times in brain development, such as the development of abstract thought, where you must be exposed to something or you will never properly develop the corresponding ability. The brain simply has a window for certain abilities where you develop that ability, and when that window closes, that's it. The ability to further develop the physical structures needed for it in the brain is forever closed off.

I am not a professional in the fields of neurology, psychology, or the development of language and personality in infants. However, the overarching result of the research I have seen is that most abilities require general and not specific stimulation. You must learn a language while the window is open, but it does not have to be French, or German, or Italian. In the same way, I cannot possibly imagine that computers harm brains by not offering the right kind of intellectual stimulation. I would posit that an average child's use of their computer and the internet provides a expansive and varied array of unique experiences and types of interaction historically unrivaled by anyone who did not grow up under the tutelage of an accomplished philosopher.

Conversely, I would be happy to entertain the idea that too much time spent on computers could lead to an ungraceful, unwieldy body which would benefit from significant physical training. I would, of course, expect her to gather appropriate preliminary evidence, perform the proper studies, and provide relevant data and information on her methodology for the review of other scientists. It's unfortunate she forgot those steps this time.

Cathedralmaster: But you don't spend 6 hours everyday as children exclusively doing any of those activities. Her argument seems to be, not that this is some novel experience that will screw us up, but that overexposure to it and underexposure to the narrative way of thinking during the period of development of that narrative method is resulting in a retardation in our children - they're not being exposed to narrative thinking enough to properly develop it.

This isn't exactly a left field theory. It's long been known that there are critical times in brain development, such as the development of abstract thought, where you must be exposed to something or you will never properly develop the corresponding ability. The brain simply has a window for certain abilities where you develop that ability, and when that window closes, that's it. The ability to further develop the physical structures needed for it in the brain is forever closed off.

She admitted her argument is only speculation but it's worth considering in my opinion, especially considering the gravity of the consequences if she is correct.


Heh, did you click the Baroness's name in the link?

(Loves that Internet)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Baroness+Susan+Gre en field (pops)

How Facebook addiction is damaging your child's brain: A leading neuroscientist's chilling warning
By Baroness Susan Greenfield
Last updated at 1:26 AM on 23rd April 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1172690/How-Facebook-addiction-damag in g-childs-brain-A-leading-neuroscientists-chilling-warning.html (pops)

Can you imagine a world without long-term relationships, where people are unable to understand the consequences of their actions or empathise with one another?

Such conditions would not only hamper our happiness and prosperity - they could threaten our very survival.

Yet this imagined existence isn't as far away as it seems. It is a plausible future. For we are developing an ever deeper dependence on websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Second Life - and these technologies can alter the way our minds work.

As a neuroscientist, I am aware of how susceptible our brains are to change - and our environment has changed drastically over the past decade. Most people spend at least two hours each day in front of a computer, and living this way will result in minds very different from those of past generations.

// Can you say, "Alarmist See-Demons-in-Every-Shadow Hysterical (not in the causing intentional laughter way) Attention-Whoring Idiot"? She's pulling her "facts" so far out of her rump that it looks like she's making balloon animals with the result.

// I can see her being possibly a NEUROtic SCIENTIST, but not a trustworthy medical practitioner.

Cathedralmaster: She admitted her argument is only speculation but it's worth considering in my opinion, especially considering the gravity of the consequences if she is correct.

I speculate the next time you urinate the world will explode. Sure, it's only speculation, but the gravity of the consequences should I be correct. . .

meat0918: Wait, this isn't an actual done study yet? Just a wild guess?

I think this qualifies as British Whargarbl

It just isn't cricket, that's all.

Addendum: Who's forwarding the chain emails about Obama's secret Muslim heritage, cancer-causing electromagnetic signals, and the black helicopters that are obviously about to abduct us all?

It's important to remember that today's 50 year olds were children once. Whatever was supposed to give most of them the capability of deep thinking failed rather miserably. I have higher hopes for today's generation.

Cathedralmaster: And the advent of furries I think pretty much proved them correct.

But furries started out from mascots from Disneyland and the idea had been intervened in many sci-fi and comic conventions that made into this eccentric animal-groping fandom today.

You know why some people avoid Marvel and DC comic books, aka North American comic book scene? It's because those fans have had serious associations with the furry fandom.

This is mostly far from TV issues.

/weird people

That's funny. Alcohol is said to do the exact same things.

Alright. Lets look at the brains of children who are given a computer by their parents, and the computer takes the roll of a nanny. They'll be just as stupid as parents who have set them to the TV, or Video games, or what have you.

/My youth was a fight to spend more time with the computer.
//Or TV.
///Or video games.
////Then, years later, I found Fark, and the slashies make me happy.

Gridlock: As a neuroscientist, I am aware of how susceptible our brains are to change - and our environment has changed drastically over the past decade. Most people spend at least two hours each day in front of a computer, and living this way will result in minds very different from those of past generations.

Baroness Susan Greenfield is well known for talking out her arse (new window), this is another example. No studies have shown any link which she is talking about.

RemyDuron: I speculate the next time you urinate the world will explode. Sure, it's only speculation, but the gravity of the consequences should I be correct. . .

A better analogy is: if there was a chance your balls could explode the next time you had to take a leak, wouldn't you be holding it in as long as possible?

I hypothesize that reading fark for extended periods of time may lead to decreased prefrontal cortex activity. This may lead to decisions being made without realizing the consequences of said decisions.

My proposed solution: Nuke everything from orbit.

fallingcow: Skimmed the article, looks like this is just someone's wild guess.
Bacontastesgood: Some dude is speculating? Well, I'm convinced.

Not all dudes are equal in the value of their opinions, though. The Prof is a girl: does that invalidate her argument too?

AmazingRuss: What a bunch of crap. I've been using computers since i was 11, and I am perfectly adjusted to my basement environment.

I think that's a pretty good summary of the concerns in TFA.

joelogic: i have to say, i've read PCP-fueled suicide notes that had fewer logic holes than this train-wreck of bullshiat.

Excellent argument. Perhaps YOU should apply to be Oxford professor of synaptic pharmacology.

Computers are nowhere NEAR as dangerous to your children as swords. Swords will cut you wide farking open.

As a child psychiatrist, I'm getting a kick...

Actually, I have been extensively studying and am working on a research proposal for this very topic, and I can assure everyone here that the good baroness is talking completly out of her baronass. We know that computer use stimulates the brain, and we know that computer use can be addicting. The science does not show evidence of brain damage, rather there are more complicated pathways (such as the pathways involved in any system of intermittent reward) involved for people who have problematic computer use. In other areas, such as visuospatial skills, rehabilitation from injury, or preventing and/or treating dementias, computer use has been of great benefit.

/my favourite so far is the use of Rise of Nations (the video game) to improve performance for patients with dementia

Cathedralmaster: Ned Stark: ftfa: What I am advocating is a hypothesis

stopped reading right farking hear. that link was a wast of time and bandwidth that i will never get back. jump off a bridge subby.

You can't stand speculation?

speculation is fine. baseless fearmongering is not.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Any activity with rewards that produce dopamine in the brain can damage your child's brain.

Gotcha. No rewards for my kids now, ever. Slave labor for them... FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR MINDS!

meat0918: Wait, this isn't an actual done study yet? Just a wild guess?

I think this qualifies as British Whargarbl

What i came to say. its a random hypothesis based on someone wanting to say that socializing through teh computer is bad for you. what trupe.

Do a few hundred scans of kids with known use patters, THEN come talking to me.

Greenfield has form in junk science media-whoring.

Darn it, I drooled on my keyboard again.

More like the Baroness from Cobra.

This is the Daily Mail, do not take time to respond to any of its so-called 'articles' it is fox-news, the print edition. It is useful for two purposes 1) to wrap your fish n chips in 2) to recycle into ass-wiping paper.

/that is all

"Screen life has no memory: it is reaction-action-reaction-action-reaction. If you live in that cacophonic environment for six hours or more a day and at a time when the prefrontal cortex is forming, becoming developed and active, what is going to be the effect?"


If you allow your children to play video games for six hours a day, you shouldn't be surprised if they have issues.

/If you allow your children to play video games for six hours a day, you likely have issues.

I'm just trying to figure out just what kind of scientist thinks that the order is "reaction-action-reaction-action-reaction". That phrase itself casts doubts on her abilities as a scientist, or even any kind of intellectual, to me.

/Can't have a reaction without a preceding action

Rolander: Maybe with today's computers, being more accessible and less "complicated". But back when, floppies and cassets and figuring out how the hell to start a program on a commodore, and then there was the advanced days where you had to get access to the HMA to play any games.

I think you're right. I've been using computers since I was a kid in the early 80's and a lot of games were primarily text. I wrote little games in Basic for fun. It's all rather dumbed down and user friendly these days. You don't need to know any code to make a website and you don't need to know how to spell. And once they can make computers that are purely voice input, no need to type.

There is a chance that a certain percentage of people have a tendency towards attention problems when exposed to certain stimuli. Then there's other people who don't have that tendency who can be exposed to that stimuli and it won't have any effect on their attention span, memory, or cognitive function. Some kids stare at the tv like zombies, not even responding when you yell their name repeatedly. Other kids can watch tv and hold a conversation at the same time.

chizzle: I hypothesize that reading fark for extended periods of time may lead to decreased prefrontal cortex activity. This may lead to decisions being made without realizing the consequences of said decisions.

My proposed solution: Nuke everything from orbit.

I lol'd.

Studies show the using Windows will quickly speed up the brain damage of using Computers.

Cathedralmaster: RemyDuron: I speculate the next time you urinate the world will explode. Sure, it's only speculation, but the gravity of the consequences should I be correct. . .

A better analogy is: if there was a chance your balls could explode the next time you had to take a leak, wouldn't you be holding it in as long as possible?

No, not really. You're gonna have to go eventually, why hold it and make it uncomfortable?

But, really, the question is "How big a chance?" And if the answer is 1 in 10 I'd be worried. If the chance was the chance to win the lottery, I'd piss freely and without a worry.

The problem is humans can't deal with really, really rare events. If there is a chance, we tend to think it's relatively likely. There seems to be a minimum possibility that we can conceive of, and things less likely than that get rounded up. We figure that, if there is a chance, it must happen sometime, so the right thing to do is to assume it will happen, just at an unknown time. Which would be fine if we were immortal, but we are not. For very rare events, the better approximation would be that they never occur (within our probably lifetimes).

Like the lottery. Sure, there is a chance you could win. But if you played it for your entire life from birth to death I doubt you'd raise the probability of winning to something humans can properly conceive of. We're evolved to deal with odds about crossing that river without drowning, or getting up that tree before the wild boar gores you.

This is why people play the lottery, this is why people can't understand evolution (along with the idea that, if you can't see it happening over a 100 year timespan, it isn't happening).

So, I don't think we should give consideration to this article. It's a hypothesis. If she comes back with actual evidence, then pay attention. But until then. . .

/I hypothesize carrots cause cancer, worse than cigarettes
//Gonna throw out all those delicious orange crispy things in your fridge now?

Massa Damnata: "Screen life has no memory: it is reaction-action-reaction-action-reaction. If you live in that cacophonic environment for six hours or more a day and at a time when the prefrontal cortex is forming, becoming developed and active, what is going to be the effect?"


If you allow your children to play video games for six hours a day, you shouldn't be surprised if they have issues.

/If you allow your children to play video games for six hours a day, you likely have issues.

But she's also just wrong. Video games are not entirely in the present activities. What has gone on in the game before the present moment must be, usually, kept in mind in order to win. It is not a disconnected narrative, but a narrative which can be reset if you make a mistake.

Now, the question of what instant access to information does to the brain could be an interesting study, but I fail to see how video games are more rewarding or immediate than actual, real life games. Unless they are those crappy little casual games.

/If I have kids, they will start with DOS games like XCom, Master of Magic, and Scorched Earth. If they can figure those out, they will get whatever they want.

RemyDuron: Massa Damnata: "Screen life has no memory: it is reaction-action-reaction-action-reaction. If you live in that cacophonic environment for six hours or more a day and at a time when the prefrontal cortex is forming, becoming developed and active, what is going to be the effect?"


If you allow your children to play video games for six hours a day, you shouldn't be surprised if they have issues.

/If you allow your children to play video games for six hours a day, you likely have issues.

But she's also just wrong. Video games are not entirely in the present activities. What has gone on in the game before the present moment must be, usually, kept in mind in order to win. It is not a disconnected narrative, but a narrative which can be reset if you make a mistake.

Now, the question of what instant access to information does to the brain could be an interesting study, but I fail to see how video games are more rewarding or immediate than actual, real life games. Unless they are those crappy little casual games.

/If I have kids, they will start with DOS games like XCom, Master of Magic, and Scorched Earth. If they can figure those out, they will get whatever they want.

This. My kids start with an atari and a nes.

please can I go and remove these stupid reporters from my country??

Really, they make us look bad.

My 18 month old daughter loves the online site Starfall, and begs me saying 'E O?' and pointing at the screen to go look at the letters and get to press the keys to make the letters make sounds. On the other hand, she probably does 4 or 5 letters before one or both of us want to do something else. Now when we are not on the computer she is sounding out letters (correctly, usually) and 2-3 letter words on everything else that has writing. I see this as a major help for her brain development, not damaging it.

This author wants us all to retreat from technology back to 'campfire stories' where everyone was happy and thrilled to hear a long story told by someone else. It's true few kids would sit and listen to that now. They want to see flashing lights and hear music etc etc... I'd say that was the case even in my generation but we were actually allowed to play outside and with other children, make up pretend games to keep from being bored etc... Too many kids are kept locked up in their houses now or being ushered from one event to another. It is a major difference in society that is yielding some of these effects the author pretends is solely caused by computer games and chatrooms.

FTA:

One can look at the world through experience or poetry, or one can view it in terms of science. Science does not invalidate other ways of perceiving things, but it can help explain what we see. And it can do so with regard to young people who spend several hours of the day playing computer games, or in online chatrooms.

The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to every event. We cannot complacently take it that our ways of learning and thinking will remain constant. Humans are highly responsive to change and so quick to adapt - in part because of the prefrontal cortex.

You ever just look at your hand, man. I mean, REALLY look at it . . . .

bionic implants

Who is this crazy bint?

That's strange.. I've learned more from reading digitized books on the intartubes than by listening to some poorly educated adults spewing off about their antiquated sense of "knowledge." I can sure as hell process real-world work functions a lot faster than this baroness.

What a dirty british aristocratic biatch. 5,000 years of human civilization and we still publish her mindless drivel? Good lord, you would think we could have evolved by now.