Digital Dementia - We are harming our brain.

A realy interresting article has appeared on a german news and documentary channel its website about the effects of the Digital media on our brain its health. The study claims it to be proven that children and people whom intensly use digital media and computers are being subjected to mental degradation - Digital Dementia. The article is based upon multiple studies and proffesor Manfred Spitzer. He states: "The brain can not do one thing; not learn."

A study on young men who are intensly using computers and internet shows them being subject to thought-, attention-, and concentration-dissorders. They also have degraded emotions and are generally being dumbened. The name they gave to this is Digital Dementia. Dementia in medicinal terms means the general decline in mental abillity.

The Human brain constantly rebuilds, newly builds, and demolishes. When we learn something new it builds new connections, these are our synapses between braincells. When they are not used they are demolished, this is what synapses do. The brain holds one milion billions of synapses which are constantly changing.
The brain can not do one thing: not learn.

A) A lot of people have lost the abbility to navigate with maps or without GPS because the brain demolished, or never made the necesarry navigational synapse based modules.

B) Children do not develop their real life communication with other humans and the needed modules in their brain. They do not learn to understand body-language, tones in speech, do not develop empathy, have fears and multiple disorders because they do not interact enough in real life. the article "the misery of social media."

C) People and children are mentally becoming dumber because the digital media is taking away our brain its work , which makes it slow down or develop less connections.

D) things like a playstation already do damage to your brain its devellopment in terms of having bad notes when reading and writing and behavioural dissorders.

They also state that people with more brain development because of how they lived their real life (not the fake digital life) have more synapse connections, so if they reach their old age the brain will have big backups to replace the "broken" hardware when actual Dementia is appearant. This means ; people with a developed brain could have dementia but you wont notice it because the brain can re-wire itself using the existing connections.

Source :
http://www.3sat.de/page/?source=/specials/183916/index.html


I would say ;
Tough luck for the modern Human and youth. It has been scientifically proven that the digital media is sabotaging their brain and mental ability. the way i see it this could already be proven without you knowing about it. People are writing online in the digital world not knowing the difference between real life vocal communication and the written word. Even Doomworld holds users who think you can know and read sarcasm when its written like and everyday normal sentence... or people whom fail to understand that they are not talking, but are writing in general. Actually... a lot of people online have severe problems with understanding others, or communicating with others. Empathy is also clearly lacking in the online world where people just think everything is funny or deserved. heh. take that. It has been proven, computers, GPS, internet... its realy bad for your brain.

I could have told you years ago that social media rots your brain, but for the most part I put that down to brain cells being killed off due to the batshit spastics of the world sharing every single excruciating thought that wafts through their head.

Yeah, I'm not fond of Facebook. Also your spelling needs work: perhaps that's Digital Dementia in action.

Obsidian said:

Yeah, I'm not fond of Facebook. Also your spelling needs work: perhaps that's Digital Dementia in action.

English is not my main language and i never got a complete english course during my school life, so i will take that as a "normal" part of my use of English at the moment. i constantly try to improve though by not cheating by means of spellcheckers. I am already happy enough that i can understand english, german, dutch, french, etc. :)

So, uh, we've drawn the conclusion of "reliance on technology leads to less ability to do stuff without it", yet the following statement of "less ability to do stuff without technology is less necessary with access to it being far more reliable?"

A and C just plainly state that skills that were once highly necessary, like navigation via roadmaps and mental math, are less so because the tool we use for them have improved to the point where they're basically unneeded. I mean, GPSes are so widespread that not being able to use a map well is not really important, especially since those who don't have access to GPSes will use maps anyway and thus have the skills to navigate well with them. And no matter what your math teacher says, while doing math in your head or through paper is a handy skill, you'll barely ever not have a calculator to do your logarithms or sines ( or arctangents! ) for you. If you even need to use more than basic arithmetic in your daily life, anyway.

D just flat-out seems like people making correlation sound scary via wording it like causation. Behavioral issues are believable depending on the context of the child's home life, but reading and writing? If anything, playing video games should improve a child's ability to do both, as they're being exposed to narrative they're interested in. From that statement alone, I'd assume the actually issue is lack of interest in schoolwork, which of course would lead to the child playing more video games with their greater amount of free time.

B is the only real issue but it's really unavoidable since who would really want to make friends with nearby people when there's far better friends a hundred miles away? Especially with communication technology and online activities growing and improving by the day, sharing interests with those living nearby becomes more and more important to actually making friends offline and that's basically purely random. That said, if more and more webcam usage starts to trend, we could see this issue vanishing as video chatting allows for full communication through tone and body language. Online communication's just in an awkward valley where the tech to avoid its issues is there, just not quite as widespread or often used to actually take full advantage of it. With such features and programs being actively advertised with computers and tablets, however, we might just be about out of said valley and the cases of lowered social skills could be beginning to trend downwards soon.

Overall, this just seems to be looking at statistics without actually reading them or looking at the context. Although considering the attitudes of a certain group of people, I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of those tech-haters who will use any excuse to explain why smartphones are sucking out our souls and will bring the end of humanity.

Arctangent said:

Overall, this just seems to be looking at statistics without actually reading them or looking at the context. Although considering the attitudes of a certain group of people, I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of those tech-haters who will use any excuse to explain why smartphones are sucking out our souls and will bring the end of humanity.

His writings are based upon multiple studies made in multiple nations. There have been year long studies on living elderly women whom had their brains studied after death, monkeys have had their brains studied to understand the development of the social modules, the relation between less brain development because of the digital media taking away its work and Dementia because there are less backup plans for your brain... And also the actual real life communication where you are inbetween and near humans instead of behind a machine (lack of empathy, etc.).

This does not read or sound like a cyber hater, but serious research by a brain researcher and psychiatrist based upon multiple studies by different people. They cant just write "we like" or "we hate" digtal media. They need to write about what they monitor.

Also, my A, B, C sum up of the german article is correct but because of it being a sum-up it will lack a certain depth. Its either that or translate the entire article which is a bit beyond the need or scope here. not to mention the otherwise possible copyright isseus.

Still, it seems like the proper conclusion is less "technology is literally killing our brain" and more "human biology is evolving far slower than human society." I mean, yeah people less reliant on technology are showing better resilience against dementia according to this. Yet at the same time modern technology tremendously speeds up our ability to solve the issue of dementia in the first place. Overall, these conclusions are half-done at best and I'm not sure how much business they have being displayed this way to the general public; certainly, it's handy for medical workers and such to flat-out know the modern human is more vulnerable to dementia, but showing most people statistics like these without presenting the upside leads to misinformation and poorly considered reactions.

As for the empathy thing, well if someone told me that I have far less empathy towards your white text on blue background than I would with a living being I can actually see and hear, I'd certainly believe them. Entirely lacking empathy would be entirely difficult to believe, a middle-ground not so much. However, to reiterate my point, I'd have really difficult time believing someone looking at and speaking to another person, face-to-face, would not be able to develop empathy for that person unless said person was an utter asswipe. Whether or not this occurs offline or through Skype doesn't matter. Perhaps the in ability to actually touch the other person would have some impact, yes, but really people don't regularly touch each other unless they're already well familiar with them anyway.

Heck, that's entirely discounting the fact that one can develop empathy through text alone. Perhaps not as effective, but we literally do it with entirely fictional characters with books and stories. I think it goes without saying that we can do it with real people, too. Though understandably, this doesn't quite help with the body language thing ( with other people at least, fictional characters can be quite the gold mine for body language and all that; online role playing could probably technically count for other people, but it's still via proxy through their characters so it's kind of muddled ).

One last thing I'd like to mention is that while we've replaced a lot of skills with technology, we still develop skills through using said technology. If you've ever compared to how you use a computer to how a random someone from a past generation uses one, you'll pretty obviously see what I mean. It seems unlikely that technology use actually leads to mental suicide. Granted, being a master at math is quite a bit above being a master at using a non-programmable calculator, so perhaps our minds aren't as well fortified as our forerunners', but it seems rather inane to draw the conclusion that they're far worse to wear. Especially when we have just as complicated or even more complicated skillsets to replace the older ones.

Arctangent said:

...

Yeah i get what you mean. We might be losing or slowing down one part of our brain-development but at the same time (and by all logic) it should be wiring itself (by means of the synapses) to sustain and use the knowledge needed for our current day life, including the digital one. The problem i see with psychology and brain studies is that the former is basing itself on studies which sometimes where made by humans whom lived 100 years ago while observing humans from that era. But people changed, how we think changed, what we do changed. People even have completely different standards for "normal" mental behaviours based on their culture outside of the "book". The latter is creating articles by comparing people whom grew up in another era with people from the now. Its a conflict i guess. what do we preserve, how do we remain healthy, should we accept it, and how to progress.

But at the same time humanity should not lose its old skills as technology isnt permanent. War, the end of the needed natural resources, a change in cultures and mindsets, global warming... there are a huge amount of factors which could revert or change our entire lifestyle. Those who would survive in such a theoretical situation are those with a classicaly developed brain containing the knowledge or instincts to live that way, and a good body.

we are in a "twilight zone" where both sides are there and attempting to find a way, but chosing sides and becoming defensive in name of computers or the natural lifestyle will never solve anything untill they have more data and research. Or if humanity clearly degrades too much without any data. ;)

I thought this would be about how there is too much information on the internet you encounter everyday and how all that makes you go crazy from overload of sorts.

FireFish said:

But at the same time humanity should not lose its old skills as technology isnt permanent.

Well, most of us already lost hunting skills since the stone age, people living in cities lost farming skills, etc. "Technology" (note that I use the term loosely) isn't permanent, but it's widespread enough that in practice, people don't really need to care about living without technology until they're somehow forced to. Whether particular people will adapt easily or hardly to this loss of technology, that will always be a case by case issue for every individual.

Manfred Spitzer is wellknown for being anti mass media, be it TV or digital media. So his studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Though some of his arguments are interesting nontheless.

scifista42 said:

Well, most of us already lost hunting skills since the stone age, people living in cities lost farming skills, etc. "Technology" (note that I use the term loosely) isn't permanent, but it's widespread enough that in practice, people don't really need to care about living without technology until they're somehow forced to. Whether particular people will adapt easily or hardly to this loss of technology, that will always be a case by case issue for every individual.

basically it boils down to "what you do for a living" in this current day world. farmers farm, cops run, the military needs muscles who follow and brains to command, etc. (lol). looking at individuals and what they are and do is kind of being silenced by current day media and research... we are generalizing to much. so yeah, i too agree. It depends.

Edit:

scifista42 said:

"Technology" (note that I use the term loosely)

In retrospect i should have written "certain technologies" to avoid a bad form of generalization.

I know a lot of research is valid despite this, but I can't help but think that it's hard to assert that "person X did not learn Y because of too much computer," when there's no control of that particular person learning Y in absence of technology. Who's to say they'd be adept at navigation in absence of GPS? Maybe they'd always suck, and it's inane to claim technology is to blame when it is us, the human animals, that inherently suck.

I base an opposing claim on personal experience. I use the computer pretty intensely on a daily basis and have noticed no symptoms of any such disorders in myself.

I have been a heavy computer fiend since a child. I'm actually pretty bad at navigation, but I blame it more on poor attention when traveling. Not focusing on many signs nor taking note of the streets I past and where they connect. I'm known within my friends to be frequently lost. Could this be a valid example? Or maybe I have ADD lol.

But I take such findings with a grain of salt until it has been unquestionably proven multiple times by multiple researchers for a good few years. As for verbal communication, I do very well and yet I'm certain I am a introvert. However a good few years in sales coupled with a natural analytical ability due to being more reserved can mix to form some handy diplomatic abilities. Leaving good impressions, being on everyone's good side, building credibility quickly and never saying something obnoxious or offensive etc.

It is when I'm posting and chatting online I could be the opposite, primarily due to priorities in expressing my opinion over building relationships with strangers on the internet.

This topic has always interested me greatly, but B is the only one that I personally see as a major issue. C, I'm not so sure of - I understand the reasoning, but easier access to information does not inherently mean people will not think more deeply/critically about whatever the topic may be. Reading the information from a screen or a newspaper or encyclopedia is no different, other than eye strain I suppose.

Arctangent said:

B is the only real issue but it's really unavoidable since who would really want to make friends with nearby people when there's far better friends a hundred miles away?

I still would assume the hardcore reliance on a device to enable communication will always have it's fair share of psychological effects. Using this stuff in moderation is important for our mental health - I agree entirely about meeting awesome people hundreds of miles away, and about improvements in communication-oriented tech being very high priority, but it's important for us to understand this cannot replace face-to-face human interactions. (I don't necessarily think that's what you were implying, but there are people out there who feel this way.)

EDIT: Maybe I just feel this way because I'm very much an extrovert.

Chezza said:

But I take such findings with a grain of salt until it has been unquestionably proven multiple times by multiple researchers.

Point.

Chezza said:

It is when I'm posting and chatting online I could be the opposite, primarily due to priorities in expressing my opinion over building relationships with strangers on the internet.

Usually i end up being an ass on purpose, or being to straight to the point on purpose. I have no need to connect with people "online". What i do not do is the act of deliberatly offending people. unless i am out for a laugh... ah well.

I have a genetic pre-disposition to Alzheimers, so I'm fucked regardless. I may grow to forget my own name, see my family as strangers, the government caretakers will mistreat me because I'm a barely functional husk of my former self, but hopefully I'll have the ability to play Doom.

Obsidian said:

Also your spelling needs work: perhaps that's Digital Dementia in action.

That was petty and unnecessary.

"Digital dementia" sounds like a badass name for a D&B album. Also, the fact that this exists makes me feel like my cyberpunk fantasies will finally become a reality

I've had a major gripe with GPS systems for a long time. I can't remember if I made a thread about them or not, but when I first started driving into areas I didn't know about, I would normally go to mapquest or google maps to look at a map of my area. I would plan to drive to a familiar location I knew how to get to that's closest to my destination, then use my finger to follow the map to highways and the main roads that get me to my destination with the simplest directions so that I could get somewhere many miles away using a few basic instructions. I would then jot the directions on a piece of paper.

R smith
L cedar
R main
L church

And carry it with me. Turn right when I see smith road, turn left when I get to cedar street, and so on. The cool part is you can usually get home by following the directions from bottom to top, going left when it says right, and right when left, as long as you remember the direction you came from. This really helped me understand how to navigate and figure out how to get to places by looking at a map, instead of following someone's instructions. I started using GPS devices later and found them extremely hindering my ability to understand where I'm going and how I got there. Many GPS devices dont show you a zoomed out view of the route, so you don't even know the general cardinal direction you're supposed to go in. You just blindly follow its instructions until it gets you there.

They're designed to make you more adventurous and go to new places but there's no educational value in them and you're fucked if your battery dies while you're using it. I don't know what the agenda is in not allowing you to see the general route you'll be taking so you have a general idea of what's going on before you put your blind faith in this thing to take you hundreds of miles away from familiar territory. Not all gpsses are the same but many of the ones ive used are either very limiting in what you can see and/or have too many controls that make it extremely unsafe to use while driving.

If you want killer navigation skills, just run around in forest and play Wolfenstein3D without automap when you're back home.

And I think webcam/mic conversations don't qualify as full communication and body language.

Also I just read today that intelligent women go for career and not have children. Then the future generations are just getting dumber and dumber.

I used to be able to calculate a lot of stuff without calculator really fast. After using calculator for some time, the previous fast math seems to have gone. Doesn't help that my computer has a calcutor button that opens the calculator program.

I run.. and usually I see cops driving their cars on roads, including the ones that are only meant for pedestrians. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the cop cars were just remote controlled from home sofa.

Jimi said:

Also I just read today that intelligent women go for career and not have children. Then the future generations are just getting dumber and dumber.

Mike Judge's predictions with Idiocracy have always seemed likely to me.. Unfortunately

Also, about being slower without a calculator, that proves the "brain is a muscle" analogy - since you haven't been exercising that part of your brain, it's gotten a little weaker. I think this is the key to fighting digital dementia in this age: Ensuring the brain's many facilities are used regularly to keep them strong. The computer can be used for many of these, but many - namely social skills and development - simply can't be emulated.

All I know is to much Facebook and Twitter and cause people to be really really...







...wait, what were we talking about again?

Jimi said:

Also I just read today that intelligent women go for career and not have children. Then the future generations are just getting dumber and dumber.

Too bad this isn't actually happening. In fact, average intelligence has gone up in the last 100 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Cynical said:

Too bad this isn't actually happening. In fact, average intelligence has gone up in the last 100 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

I think that generally, that would be true. There's a bit definitely worth nothing from that very article though:

There is debate about whether the rise in IQ scores also corresponds to a rise in general intelligence, or only a rise in special skills related to taking IQ tests. Because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years.

Jimi said:

Also I just read today that intelligent women go for career and not have children. Then the future generations are just getting dumber and dumber.

... Man there are so many things wrong with this statement I have no idea where it starts and where it ends.

Stupidity harms our brains, more news at 11 on Fox.

Arctangent said:

... Man there are so many things wrong with this statement I have no idea where it starts and where it ends.

He really wants Idiocracy to be real.

Sounds to me like the typical type of study where some dumbass 'scientist' set out to prove his pet theory and of course set everything up that he got the outcome he wanted.

rf` said:

He really wants Idiocracy to be real.

To be fair, their president was kind of awesome.