Here's another reason not to use Facebook: social networking websites may actually harm brains of its young users!
Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred.
The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. [...]
'We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,' she told the Mail yesterday.
'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.'
Her comments echoed those she made during a House of Lords debate earlier this month. Then she argued that exposure to computer games, instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking sites could leave a generation with poor attention spans.
*Replace with 'bad parenting'
For myself (I'm now in my mid-20's), I can certainly recognise some changes in my attention span that I can attribute partly to the internet. I have lost the ability to sit down and read a big book in one sitting. My mind turns to other topics constantly. This means I wil be reading 3 or 4 books at the same time, going from one book to the next - much like flipping between articles on different tabs of my webpage :)
So I think her argument has some merit but should not be taken as proof that the internet is ruining our children!
There's always something that's at the top of the list of things that are bad for you. take the top off and something new flows right up there.
Like that's possible.
And it actually makes sense, Honestly, I won't dismiss this as pure gibberish.
I'm 15, and I honestly admit that these sites, do seem to affect my attention span and my demand for speedy results. Which is in accord to her statement with "instant gratification" - not in a bad way people.
This, need for speed, so to speak, can be viewed in a positive light, that is, if everyone would be influenced with this idealism. If everyone, would be in the same page of wanting things instant, right dead now, then people would be acting in accordance to that, and things- innovation, can be produced in an even quicker pace. Considering the fact that this would also ignite the youth to demand more than just instantaneous replies through their social networks, naturally, this sort of thinking will apply to everyone's lives (every modern youth) and in the future we can expect innovations that would satisfy that craving.
Thus, the possibility of faster transportation, faster food production, faster transactions, faster- everything! it's the demand of it all. :]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0071508635/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint." -- Hesiod, 8th century BC
Guess what? Kids are self centered and have short attention spans. And if they have crappy parents, they will never outgrow that. Why is it that instead of putting the blame where it belongs, people want to blame the world around them for their kids' failings? It used to be rock and roll and television. Now it's social networking.
-wait- what was this about?
to VampPrincess, I have bad news for you. this idealism and need for speed that you speak of - whew, when you become an adult, you'll see how utterly poorly managed most systems of (anything) are in human society, and that if you don't join in and play the games, you'll be labeled an antagonist, and life will be harder to get thru (ask Greg Palast, or the Unabomber). Even though advertising and parental morality sell you a possible future of idealism, the reality is that all idealistic dreams of youth must be thrown out, because the humans NEED to continue their games of war, domination, greed, religion, power. even though it's clear we could collectively solve all issues (poverty, hunger, disputes) were the political impetus so inclined, it will not go that route. (these 'billions' getting tossed around now to keep failing systems afloat could easily house, feed and educate everyone on the planet - do you see anyone considering that?!) someone said recently in a study that it should take another 300 years before we all get on the same page and actually see something evolved to 'world peace' and coordinated survival. BUT?! we can see it now, so why don't we do it now? because we are losers with short attention spans who need immediate gratification, and in order to defend the ridiculous status quo, we dismiss things outright as bunk, and have convoluted arguments about everything, including this one, so we can prop up our egos
- by the way, faster is not always better. better is always better. a carrot needs to be in the ground and grow - pumping it with chemicals and super nutrients so we can hurry up and feed the too many people we keep producing, is poor logic, and will produce future problems (weaker future soil, lower quality carrots, chemical runoff creating imbalances in nearby lakes killing fish, poorer nutrition for those eating the carrots, possible cancers, other unseen issues) - technology sells us 'speed' as though we need it (where else will it get its money from if it doesn't convince you of its necessity?), when frequently we don't. I saw a 1970's movie the other night, and a 30 year old with me said - "look, no computers in the office"... my god! how did we do it?! how did we survive?
a quote from the article:
'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' she said.
and what about how we grow that meat - look into pig farming for some scrumpdillyishus education on how we turn a blind eye so we can eat that bacon
ps I am not supporting the criminal acts of the Unabomber, but if you read his manifesto, you'll see he was no dummy and quite the angry idealist
(ok, now here comes the vitriol- see below)
But we must agree about the "encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred."
thats 100% true... i see it all the time.
gah! she can speak badly about Facebook/myspace all the time she wants, i hate these websites with a passion.
I agree. those bangs are horrid.
"We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist"
Does not in any way actually support the idea that
‘My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.’
First of all, she hasn't provided any proof that "small babies need constant reassurance that they exist"; so she's assuming facts that are not in evidence. But let's say just for the sake of argument that this supposition *has* been proven. The problem is that she doesn't go on to actually prove in what specific ways specific types of technology might actually cause the same type of effect. Yet another problem is that "needing constant reassurance that (they) exist" clearly isn't the same thing as having difficulties with attention and concentration. Then this supposed "top neuroscientist", who can't understand how her argument lacks the most rudimentary kind of logic, goes on to vaguely mention how she thinks all of this has been proven by some sort of attention problems she sees in children.
I really don't care that she's the Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford. She has to back up her statements with logic and reasoning. Credentials do not impress me and they should not impress anyone if they exist in the absence of basic logic and rational thought.
> could leave a generation with poor attention spans.
Interesting, considering how all recent studies show that computer games actually increase attention span, as well as eye / hand coordination and logical thought processing.