Throughout history, people have always worried about new technologies. The fear that the human brain cannot cope with the onslaught of information made possible by the latest development was first voiced in response to the printing press, back in the sixteenth century. Swap “printing press” for “internet” and you have the exact same concerns today, regularly voiced in the mainstream media, and usually focused on children.
But is there any legitimacy to these claims? Or are they just needless scaremongering? There are several things to bear in mind when considering how our brains deal with the internet.
First, don’t forget that “the internet” is a very vague term, given that it contains so many things across so many formats. You could, for instance, develop a gambling addiction via online casinos or poker sites. This is an example of someone’s brain being negatively affected via the internet, but it would be difficult to argue that the internet is the main culprit, any more than a gambling addiction obtained via a real world casino can be blamed on “buildings”; it’s just the context in which the problem occurred. However, the internet does give us a far more direct, constant and wide ranging access to information than pretty much anything else in human history. So how could, or does, this affect us and our brains?
Information overload
It’s important to remember that the human brain is always dealing with a constant stream of rich information; that’s what the real world is, as far as our senses are concerned. Whether staring at a video being played on a small screen or watching people playing in a park, the brain and visual system still has to do the same amount of work as both provide detailed sensory information.
It’s too detailed, if anything. The brain doesn’t actually process every single thing our senses present to it; for all its power and complexity, it just doesn’t have the capacity for that. So it filters things out and extrapolates what’s important based on experiences, calculation and a sort of “best guess” system. The point is, the brain is already well adapted to prevent damaging information overload, so it’s unlikely that the internet would be able to cause such a thing.
Is Google destroying my memory?
Another concern is that the constant access to information stored online is atrophying or disrupting our memories. Why bother to remember anything when you can just Google it, right?
Memory doesn’t quite work that way. The things we experience that end up as memories do so via unconscious processes. Things that have emotional resonance or significance in other ways tend to be more easily remembered than abstract information or intangible facts. These things have always required more effort to remember in the long term, needing to be rehearsed repeatedly in order to be encoded as memories. Undeniably, the internet often renders this process unnecessary. But whether this is harmful for the development of the brain is another question.
Doing something often and becoming good at it is reflected in the brain’s structure. For example, the motor cortex of an expert musician, proficient in fine hand movements, differs from that of non-musicians. An argument could be made that constantly committing things to memory rather than just looking them up as and when needed would enhance the brain’s memory system. On the other hand, some evidence suggests that a more stimulating, varied environment aides brain development – so maybe the constant, interesting information found online is better for you than rehearsing dry facts and figures.
But, counter to this, other evidence suggests that the detailed presentation of even simple web pages provides too many features for the human brain’s small-capacity short-term memory to handle, which could have knock-on effects for the memory system. It’s a mixed picture overall.
What about my attention span?
Does the internet impact on our ability to focus on something, or does having 24/7 access to so many things prove too much of a distraction?
The human attention system is complicated, and so again, it’s an unclear picture. Our two-layer, bottom-up and top-down attention system (meaning there’s a conscious aspect that enables us to direct our attention, and an unconscious aspect that shifts attention towards anything our senses pick up that might be significant) is already something that can make focusing 100% on something quite a challenge. It’s for this reason that a lot of people prefer to have music playing while they work: it occupies part of the attention system that would otherwise look for distractions while we’re trying to do something important.
The internet, however, provides a very quick and effective distraction. We can be looking at something enjoyable within seconds, which is a problem, given that much work in the modern world is done on the same device we use to access the internet. It is such a concern that apps and companies have sprung up specifically to address this.
But it would be unfair to say that the internet is responsible for distracting us from work. The brain’s attention system and preference for novel experiences existed long before the internet did, the internet is just something that makes these aspects particularly irksome.
Competing for likes
Social interactions with other people are a major factor in how we develop, learn and grow at the neurological level. Humans are a very social species. But now the internet has allowed social interactions and relationships to occur between vast numbers of people over great distances, and for them to occur all day, every day.
This means that everything we do can be shared with others at the press of a button, but this has consequences. The positive feelings gained from social media approval are said to work on the same neurological basis as drugs do; providing rewards via the dopamine system. Thus, social network addiction is slowly becoming an issue. By creating a situation where we’re constantly trying to impress and being judged by others, perhaps the internet isn’t doing our brains much good after all.
But, as with most things, the actual problem comes down to other people, not the net.
Dean Burnett’s first book, The Idiot Brain, all about the weird and confusing properties of the brain, is available now.
Throughout history, people have always worried about new technologies. The fear that the human brain cannot cope with the onslaught of information made possible by the latest development was first voiced in response to the printing press, back in the sixteenth century. Swap “printing press” for “internet” and you have the exact same concerns today, regularly voiced in the mainstream media, and usually focused on children.
But is there any legitimacy to these claims? Or are they just needless scaremongering? There are several things to bear in mind when considering how our brains deal with the internet.
First, don’t forget that “the internet” is a very vague term, given that it contains so many things across so many formats. You could, for instance, develop a gambling addiction via online casinos or poker sites. This is an example of someone’s brain being negatively affected via the internet, but it would be difficult to argue that the internet is the main culprit, any more than a gambling addiction obtained via a real world casino can be blamed on “buildings”; it’s just the context in which the problem occurred. However, the internet does give us a far more direct, constant and wide ranging access to information than pretty much anything else in human history. So how could, or does, this affect us and our brains?
Information overload
It’s important to remember that the human brain is always dealing with a constant stream of rich information; that’s what the real world is, as far as our senses are concerned. Whether staring at a video being played on a small screen or watching people playing in a park, the brain and visual system still has to do the same amount of work as both provide detailed sensory information.
It’s too detailed, if anything. The brain doesn’t actually process every single thing our senses present to it; for all its power and complexity, it just doesn’t have the capacity for that. So it filters things out and extrapolates what’s important based on experiences, calculation and a sort of “best guess” system. The point is, the brain is already well adapted to prevent damaging information overload, so it’s unlikely that the internet would be able to cause such a thing.
Is Google destroying my memory?
Another concern is that the constant access to information stored online is atrophying or disrupting our memories. Why bother to remember anything when you can just Google it, right?
Memory doesn’t quite work that way. The things we experience that end up as memories do so via unconscious processes. Things that have emotional resonance or significance in other ways tend to be more easily remembered than abstract information or intangible facts. These things have always required more effort to remember in the long term, needing to be rehearsed repeatedly in order to be encoded as memories. Undeniably, the internet often renders this process unnecessary. But whether this is harmful for the development of the brain is another question.
Doing something often and becoming good at it is reflected in the brain’s structure. For example, the motor cortex of an expert musician, proficient in fine hand movements, differs from that of non-musicians. An argument could be made that constantly committing things to memory rather than just looking them up as and when needed would enhance the brain’s memory system. On the other hand, some evidence suggests that a more stimulating, varied environment aides brain development – so maybe the constant, interesting information found online is better for you than rehearsing dry facts and figures.
But, counter to this, other evidence suggests that the detailed presentation of even simple web pages provides too many features for the human brain’s small-capacity short-term memory to handle, which could have knock-on effects for the memory system. It’s a mixed picture overall.
What about my attention span?
Does the internet impact on our ability to focus on something, or does having 24/7 access to so many things prove too much of a distraction?
The human attention system is complicated, and so again, it’s an unclear picture. Our two-layer, bottom-up and top-down attention system (meaning there’s a conscious aspect that enables us to direct our attention, and an unconscious aspect that shifts attention towards anything our senses pick up that might be significant) is already something that can make focusing 100% on something quite a challenge. It’s for this reason that a lot of people prefer to have music playing while they work: it occupies part of the attention system that would otherwise look for distractions while we’re trying to do something important.
The internet, however, provides a very quick and effective distraction. We can be looking at something enjoyable within seconds, which is a problem, given that much work in the modern world is done on the same device we use to access the internet. It is such a concern that apps and companies have sprung up specifically to address this.
But it would be unfair to say that the internet is responsible for distracting us from work. The brain’s attention system and preference for novel experiences existed long before the internet did, the internet is just something that makes these aspects particularly irksome.
Competing for likes
Social interactions with other people are a major factor in how we develop, learn and grow at the neurological level. Humans are a very social species. But now the internet has allowed social interactions and relationships to occur between vast numbers of people over great distances, and for them to occur all day, every day.
This means that everything we do can be shared with others at the press of a button, but this has consequences. The positive feelings gained from social media approval are said to work on the same neurological basis as drugs do; providing rewards via the dopamine system. Thus, social network addiction is slowly becoming an issue. By creating a situation where we’re constantly trying to impress and being judged by others, perhaps the internet isn’t doing our brains much good after all.
In this blog we have looked at the arguments around the impact that the internet is having on the way that we think. Concerns have been expressed historically that technologies will have a negative impact – including that the printing press would inhibit our ability to think and that radio and television would reduce our ability to think critically because we would be reading less.
Arguments about the internet have usually focussed on two areas. First, that the behaviours adopted when using the internet (especially surfing quickly from one page and topic to another), would limit the ability to concentrate and think deeply – qualities gained when reading books, the argument went. Nicholas Carr is a leading exponent of this theory, along with others, who said that the internet would make people less intelligent.
The second area of concern was that information technology would make people more violent, based on their exposure to violence in video games. Supporters of this argument tried to associate violent video games with spree murder events such as Columbine and their efforts led to legislative efforts to limit access to the games.
Previous posts in this blog reviewed the arguments that had been presented in support of both of these arguments and concluded that in both cases evidence that information technology was causing the effects argued (that we were becoming more stupid and violent) was very weak and did not logically lead to the conclusions that were reached.
Over the past few years this debate has continued though, with frequent public discussion of the impact that the internet is having on our brains. A wide range of areas are now cited as negative impacts of internet use and includes:
- The internet is causing people to become autistic
- There is now physical internet addiction. Some argue that heavy internet use can result in addiction symptons that are similar to those experienced by gamblers and alcoholics.
- People are more withdrawn and/or narcissistic
- We have reduced empathy due to video games – we become numbed to the meaningless violence.
- Our attention span has been reduced as we engage in surfing behaviour
- More people have low self esteem
- Our memory is becoming weaker as we become more reliant on externally available information and less focussed on remembering things.
- Learning is impacted – education does not use rote learning as much
- Our research skills are weaker – we can just Google a question
- Our concentration is weaker
- We are focused more on new information rather than understanding existing knowledge
- Creative thinking is impaired
- People are becoming lonely and jealous
- The internet is a suicide risk
This list is not exhaustive but illustrates the wide range of ills that are being attributed to the internet today. Others argue that the evidence that supports these assertions is weak or non existent and does not justify the case that has been made for them.
Susan Greenfield is a leading advocate of the risks to our brains that have been associated with the internet. An Oxford academic, Greenfield has provided a coherent framework for many of the claims that are in the list above. Her case is based on neuroscience and states that internet use affects the way that our brains are wired – how the connections within our brain take place and which then influence the way that we think. In the following video, Susan presents her research:
Greenfields arguments have received much attention, have encouraged parents to exercise caution in the guidance provided to children on the internet and have raised serious questions about the impact that these brain changes may have on society. If peoples’ brains are changing in the way that Greenfield suggests then the implications for society may be profound. We might expect an overall reduced ability to think and hence poorer decision making at all levels of society, for example.
Support for Greenfields’ arguments is not unanimous though. many have argued that the case that she presents is weak, unsupported by solid evidence and resulting in unnecessary alarm. While not arguing that unlimited internet use is desirable (there are many non brain related reasons why we shouldn’t spend excessive time online – like physical fitness and the development of our social skills) it is suggested that there also may be many positive benefits of internet use:
- It may counter aging
- Improves decision making
- Better complex reasoning
- People are becoming more adaptive to change
- Improved academic performance
- Improves multitasking
- Better visual acuity
- Better at finding information
The arguments against Susan Greenberg are articulated by the Economist and by professors at the University of Melbourne as well as others. Kathryn Mills, from University College London presents a summary of her arguments against Greenfield from a neuroscience perspective – significant as Greenfield bases her case on this area. Kathryn’s presentation here considers the development of the brain in adolescence:
This post has reviewed the arguments on the impact that information technology is having on peoples’ brains. We have seen that some argue that there is a negative impact from technology that may have a damaging impact on people and society. Others argue that the evidence to support this case is weak and that there are substantial societal benefits of internet use.
The Internet is no doubt changing modern society. It has profoundly altered how we gather information, consume news, carry out war, and create and foster social bonds. But is it altering our brains? A growing number of scientists think so, and studies are providing data to show it.
What remains to be seen is whether the changes are good or bad, and whether the brain is, as one neuroscientist believes, undergoing unprecedented evolution.
Texting and instant messaging, social networking sites and the Internet in general can certainly be said to distract people from other tasks. But what researchers are worrying more about are the plastic brains of teens and young adults who are now growing up with all this, the «digital natives» as they’re being called.
«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,» said Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, in The Daily Mail today. «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.»
Odd analogy, but one worth pondering.
Inevitable brain change
Every generation adapts to change, and the brain gets used for different purposes. For ancient man there was the spear, the mammoth, and the rock to hide behind. Agriculture changed the world, as did writing. Then came gunpowder, the Industrial Revolution, radio, and TV dinners. Man would never be the same. Adapt or die, hiding behind a rock with no friends, no family.
The pace picked up. Cell phones changed everything. Smart phones made them seem quaint. Our brains adapted. I used to have dozens of phone numbers committed to memory. Now that they’re all in my Blackberry (and before that the Palm, going back a decade now) I can remember only those I’d memorized when I was a child. I don’t even know my wife’s cell phone or work number. I’m not sure what all that brain capacity is being used for now, other than struggling to focus on writing columns like this while checking email several times and surfing from valid research sites to unrelated pages detailing the latest condition of Jane Goody, who I’d never heard of until recently, to reaching for my hip when my stomach gurgles but I think my phone is vibrating (a modern condition called phantom vibration syndrome (opens in new tab)).
But I digress. And I’m touching on the «Google is making us stupid» notion, written about last summer in the Atlantic by Nicholas Carr, who notes how he used to «spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text.»
Carr blames the lack of concentration on a decade of being online.
But forget us old folks. What about the kids, whose online use we, er, monitor?
The Daily Mail article today points out that students tend no longer to plan essays before starting to write: Thanks to computers and MS Word, they can edit as they go along. I grew up learning to do an outline on paper before writing any essay or story, a habit that was reinforced in journalism school. I rarely do so anymore (though when the writing doesn’t go well, it’s still a great tactic). Good or bad? I’m not sure. Change, yes. Nowadays I think with my fingers, and my brain bounces around a lot more when I write, outlining on the fly.
Yet I worry about my children and what skills they’ll develop spending hours a day either on a computer, using a cell phone to talk or text or surf (while driving?!) or watching TV, and whether all that activity will enhance their well being, help them make lifelong friendships, find a mate, get a job. Teens have always hidden out (in the woods, under the grandstands, or in their rooms), but now, thanks to their various electronic social networks, a cell phone and perhaps a laptop tuned to Hulu, they can truly become hermits, harder than ever to coax out. The dinner bell, long ago replaced with a shout down the hallway, has now given way to an evening SMS.
Learning experience
On the assumption that technological progress can’t be stopped, the flip-side to the inevitable digitalization of life is the simple argument that kids need to learn new digital skills to survive and thrive in our fast-changing society.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota last year asked 16- to 18-year-olds what they learn from using social networking sites. The students listed technology skills as the top lesson, followed by creativity, then being open to new or diverse views and communication skills.
«What we found was that students using social networking sites are actually practicing the kinds of 21st century skills we want them to develop to be successful today,» said Christine Greenhow, a learning technologies researcher at the university and leader of the study.
One example Greenhow gave: A student might take up video production after seeing a cool video on MySpace. «Students are developing a positive attitude towards using technology systems, editing and customizing content and thinking about online design and layout,» she explained. «They’re also sharing creative original work like poetry and film and practicing safe and responsible use of information and technology. The Web sites offer tremendous educational potential.»
It’s up to educators [and parents?], Greenhow believes, to figure out how to leverage all this.
Evolution of a new human brain?
Meanwhile, much more research needs to be done to determine if social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are good or bad for children and teens, or neither. Studies going back to the late 1990s have flip-flopped on this as often as new social networking sites pop up.
For now, there are only hints and indications that all this change may indeed lead to young brains that work differently than those of previous generations. But evidence is indeed mounting.
«We are seeing children’s brain development damaged because they don’t engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia,» says Sue Palmer, author of «Toxic Childhood» (Orion, 2007). «I’m not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.»
Others think a profound evolutionary change is underway.
UCLA neuroscientist Gary Small thinks the dramatic shift in how we gather information and communicate has touched off a rapid evolution of the brain.
«Perhaps not since early man first discovered how to use a tool has the human brain been affected so quickly and so dramatically,» Small contends. «As the brain evolves and shifts its focus towards new technological skills, it drifts away from fundamental social skills.»
(Can you keep up? That may depend in part on how your brain is wired. People who welcome new experiences have stronger connections between their brain centers associated with memory and reward than people who tend to avoid anything new, scientists recently reported in the journal Nature Neuroscience.)
Small, author of «iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind» (Collins Living, 2008), puts people into two categories: digital natives (your kids) and digital immigrants (the rest of us who cope with varying degrees of success with all this). The former are better at snap decisions and juggling lots of sensory input; the latter are great at reading facial expressions.
«The typical immigrant’s brain was trained in completely different ways of socializing and learning, taking things step-by-step and addressing one task at a time,» Small says.
Interestingly, while Internet use causes changes in brain activity and wiring among people of any age, as a brain-scan study showed, the changes are most pronounced among digital natives. As Small puts it, just searching the Internet «appears to engage a greater extent of neural circuitry that is not activated during reading — but only in those with prior Internet experience.»
For the sake of balance, perhaps we should require all children to learn how to skin and butcher an animal.
Robert Roy Britt is the Editorial Director of Imaginova. In this column, The Water Cooler, he takes a daily look at what people are talking about in the world of science and beyond.
Robert is an independent health and science journalist and writer based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a former editor-in-chief of Live Science with over 20 years of experience as a reporter and editor. He has worked on websites such as Space.com and Tom’s Guide, and is a contributor on Medium (opens in new tab), covering how we age and how to optimize the mind and body through time. He has a journalism degree from Humboldt State University in California.