• Question: According to the book the shallows by nicholas Carr, excessive use of social media and its accordant distractions and surface engagement results in superficial thinking and an inability for the brain to 'deep think'. I wonder if there is any validity to this. Isn't it too early to tell? He makes a compelling case!

    Asked by howard scott to Sue, Paul, Nikki, Michael, Katherine, Daniel, Catriona, Anna on 20 Apr 2015.
    • Photo: Paul Howard-Jones

      Paul Howard-Jones answered on 20 Apr 2015:

      In the 90’s the amount that a teenager used the internet was predictive of how socially isolated they were. Research on use of social-networks in the 2000’s reversed this trend – so teens who use social network sites (SNS’s ) more are better connected in the “real” world. The important caveat is that this only holds if they are using it to support existing networks. Use of SNS’s to make new friends is still associated with negative social outcomes.
      NB Use of Facebook does change your brain. In a study by Kanai at al. (2011) showed that the size of parts of the brain involved with social memory is predicted by the number of virtual friends you have. That’s the plastic brain adapting to the new world…..but is this is bad thing or a good thing?
      Another example – more related to deep thinking – is that work by Betsy Sparrow in the US, showing we are primed to think of computers now when we need to solve a difficult problem – and when we know where to find an answer we are less likely to remember it, and more likely to remember where to find it…..i guess that’s the “google effect” 😉

    • Photo: Sue Fletcher-Watson

      Sue Fletcher-Watson answered on 22 Apr 2015:

      Hi! I haven’t read this book but I am extremely skeptical about these sorts of claims. You’re right that it is too early to start making bold claims about how the most recent forms of social media are changing us, especially at a neurological level.

      I think there’s another issue as well, to do with interpretation. People are using a priori attitudes to technological innovation when they interpret scientific findings which don’t have a good/bad value attached to them. For example, evidence that playing video games changes brain structure could be interpreted negatively (oh no, gaming changes your brain!) or positively (wow, gaming can even change your brain!). Here’s a sample article which takes a very positive position, which I personally agree with:
      http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n2/full/mp2013120a.html%3FWT.mc_id%3DFBK_NPG_1402_MParticle?message=remove&WT.mc_id=FBK_NPG_1402_MParticle

      Another issue which is relevant here is the concept of ‘extended cognition’. This has a lot of meanings and applications, but one idea is that we use tools such as books, diaries, computers or iPhones to store knowledge so that we don’t have to store it ourselves. As noted by Paul, instead of hanging on to the facts, we hang on to the knowledge needed to find the facts. Again, depending on your position this could be interpreted negatively as a loss of knowledge but I prefer a more positive spin. Using technology such as Google or wikipedia has vastly increased the amount of knowledge to which we all have access. There is a parallel here with the “give a man a fish… teach him to fish…” principle in international aid. Give a pupil a book, he’ll read for a week. Give him a computer, he’ll read for a lifetime (and write, and play games, and hang out with his friends, and create and share new ideas…)

Comments