Something is missing

@RVTurnage: It's for exactly the reasons that you state that the citation of a study is so important. The study should go into exactly the methods used to come to the conclusions. And then others could analyze whether or not such biases (as you mention) were at least considered, and attempted to be controlled for.

Obviously there's not study or facts cited. But there's something else here too...apparently this doctor doesn't appreciate what advances in making things more efficient can mean for society. Look at this quote:

"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sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' she said."

Seems to me society as a whole is far better off now that we have the convenience of going to a store and buying packages of meat rather than still living as hunter/gatherers or in a dominantly farming society raising our own cattle.

What special knowledge does this nurse possess that allows her to know that a drop in the number of "real time" conversations in favor of more immediate "screen dialogues" won't be equally as beneficial to society?

Oh, c'mon! I usually disagree w/muirgeo's comments, but the mac/pc thing was very funny! Of course, if muirgeo were old school, he'd have pulled out vi vs emacs.

Morongeo.

One more name added to the list!

I think that's Number Nine :D

Sense, that's what's missing.

The iSheep are a pretentious bunch...

Oh sweet jesus. Is that the pot calling the kettle black at 5:56? Or is that someone who just smokes too much pot?

What was missing was the missing link and now that Morongeo has posted, we know it's safely tucked away in California endangering children. And that's not a joke.

Methinks, if you substitute "radiological experiment" for "study" I think you've got it pegged.

I understood it as a joke, son. It just wasn't funny.

I dunno.... maybe there was a study and Muirdiot and his kin were the only subjects. It would explain a lot.

MnM,

Yeah I had you pegged as a PC user. Indeed you show evidence of affliction completly incapable of recognizing wit or satire.

That was a joke son... a joke. Now you have me thinking my comedy is mis-placed as maybe this Oxford professor has a point.

Right, because the internet is appreciably different on the Mac than the PC...

The biggest point missed was that these problems disproportionately effect PC users while Mac users seem to be immune from the effects. I was heartened to see the young lady in the second frame down had an apparent 24-inch: 2.8GHz 24-inch: 3.06GHz iMac with accompanying matching white accessories and desk top. She'll be fine!

"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,"




You betcha. It's called the redirecting of resources, Professor.

I can see some genius psychologist going in front of parliament 60 years ago saying: "We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia", namely speaking to a friend face to face.

What is missing is telephones. The kind she has in her office, but for some reason, doesn't seem to freak her out nearly as much.

I'll bet my brain works completely differently than the brains of my ancestors who did not have the convenience of technology and whose brains were wiped out by things that my brain doesn't even consider minimally taxing. So while my arithmetic is a disaster, my brain has the energy to think of things that only the geniuses of my ancestors generation had the energy to think of.

So while they worked their brains harder for some things, mine has the energy to work hard at other things.

People will socialize differently in twenty years in the same way we socialize differently than a century ago.

I know why, MnM. It's a hilarious comment. I laughed out loud and pretty heartily when I read it. Nice one, Jrod!

(I wonder if he had the focus to finish reading our comment about his comment)

USA Grosbank IN KRIZE

von Raivo Pommer -Eesti

Die bisher in der Finanzkrise stets profitable US-Großbank J.P. Morgan Chase streicht ihre Dividende drastisch zusammen. Die Quartalsausschüttung werde um fast 90 Prozent auf lediglich noch 0,05 Dollar je Aktie gekürzt, teilte der Konzern mit.

Der Bank blieben so pro Jahr fünf Milliarden Dollar (4 Mrd Euro) mehr in der Kasse. Im laufenden ersten Quartal sieht sich J.P. Morgan weiter in der Gewinnzone. Die Reserven etwa für faule Kredite hätten allerdings nochmals aufgestockt werden müssen, hieß es am Montagabend (Ortszeit) nach US-Börsenschluss in New York. Mit ihren Zahlen sieht sich die Bank derzeit im Rahmen der Analystenerwartungen. Experten gehen bisher von einem Ergebnis je Aktie von 0,35 Dollar aus im Vergleich zu noch 0,68 Dollar ein Jahr zuvor.

I'm not certain why, but Jrod's comment has me laughing somewhat uncontrollably.

A "Buy It Now" link to her book?

That and any kind of empirical evidence. Who needs that though...

beats me I got distracted and couldn't finish hey lookie a sparkly thingy!

Facebook: Letting would be ax-murderers know how much you like Will Ferrell movies since 2005.

What's missing is some input from some Mennonites. As you know, the auslanders bring nothing but trouble. We must remain of the world but not part of it.

Fred Dent is on the right track, I believe. Fretting over new technologies and the ensuing "alarming changes" the article discusses is hardly new. A classic example is one of Socrates--being quoted by Plato in Phaedrus--who considered a then new technology, writing, an inhuman thing which destroys the memory and weakens the mind.

I think the lack "actual research" and "evidence" is less the issue: To me, the studies inspiring such articles are rarely well done and satisfying, though disturbingly compelling to readers not as smart as the Cafe Hayek audience. :)

"Inability to use social networking websites is causing alarming problems in the minds of people over 40, an eminent scientist has warned."

Two words: brain scans.

Also lacking, apparently, is any significant playing of computer games by this person:

"Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning."

A Mr. Scientific Method wishes to express his condolences over his failure to attend to the aforementioned article.

I was going to say "actual research", but Methinks beat me to it by about thirty minutes.

What a bunch of Nazis!

I get all my news & information from blogs now, so I only got about 2 paragraphs in before I lost interest. Can you sum it up for me? Maybe in a lolcats format?

What were we talking about anyway.....God, I need a Muirgeo hit right now. Muirgeo, say something dumb about this to help me focus.....

Sometimes, journalism is actually an unintended consequence for the journalist.

What's missing is any reference to the study that was used to make these claims. Instead we have "an eminent scientist has warned" and "claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield" and "a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe".

This makes it impossible to check the claims. It's impossible to determine if these conclusions are correctly drawn or simply speculation.

My dad claimed the same was affecting me when I watched Saturday morning cartoons. My grandfather claimed the same thing was happening to my dad when the pinball machine hit the scene. His father said the same thing about my grandfather when he was driving that ol' jalopy down the road and playing bridge. His father said to be careful of that gun Eugene, you'll shoot your eye out. etc....

What's missing? Evidence. Lots of conjecture, but nothing to back it up. We have no way of knowing whether the people quoted are describing a real phenomenon or not.

They are glossing over the benefits of these new ways of interaction. They further seem against change because it may change how brains are wired, not necessarily a bad thing. Furthermore, Ms Greenfield compares these sites effect on kids' conversation to how supermarkets affected home butchering. No one is stopping people from buying their own animals and killing them, but most/all consider the ability to buy meat from the grocery store progress.

This may not be the same, but I am very hesitant to agree with her and others who lament the lack of map reading because of GPS systems, lack of analog clock understanding because of digital, lack of butchering skill because of higher incomes, etc. These are signs of change, and they don't signal that something is inherently bad.

What's missing? What's missing is science. It's called offering a hypothesis, and testing it. It's called publishing results of an experiment. It's called n>1.

Whereof the baroness speaks, she ought to be silent.

It appears to be missing any reference to the existence of any kind of evidence (beyond one second-hand anecdote) that any of the fears mentioned by the people quoted in the article are in any way related to actual reality.

What's missing is any actual research.

What's in abundance is the hubris of the psychologists and scientists quoted in the article.