The Internet Is Altering Our Brains

[Virgil]

I came across this article today. I was wondering if all of us on lit net are getting smarter just by being here. Those of us with over 10,000 posts will soon have their brains spilling out of our ears since our expanding brains will not be able to be contained within our skulls. :D



UCLA Study: The Internet Is Altering Our Brains
Monday, October 19, 2009

Adults with little Internet experience show changes in their brain activity after just one week online, a new study finds.

The results suggest Internet training can stimulate neural activation patterns and could potentially enhance brain function and cognition in older adults.

As the brain ages, a number of structural and functional changes occur, including atrophy, or decay, reductions in cell activity and increases in complex things like deposits of amyloid plaques and tau tangles, which can impact cognitive function.

Research has shown that mental stimulation similar to the stimulation that occurs in individuals who frequently use the Internet may affect the efficiency of cognitive processing and alter the way the brain encodes new information.

"We found that for older people with minimal experience, performing Internet searches for even a relatively short period of time can change brain activity patterns and enhance function," Dr. Gary Small, study author and professor of psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, said in a statement.

The UCLA team worked with 24 neurologically normal volunteers between the ages of 55 and 78. Prior to the study, half the participants used the Internet daily, while the other half had very little experience. Age, educational level and gender were similar between the two groups.

The participants performed Web searches while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, which recorded the subtle brain-circuitry changes experienced during this activity. This type of scan tracks brain activity by measuring the level of blood flow in the brain during cognitive tasks. While the study involves a small number of people and more research on this topic is needed, small study sizes are typical of fMRI-based research. [SNIP]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568576,00.html?test=latestnews

[Janine]

Wow, that is really interesting, Virgil. I had been thinking lately that this has to be true. I think I got smarter or at least better able to think logically, since I found this site. Of course, I may have got smarter, but wiser not; I hang out here, when I am suppose to be doing a zillion other things! What then, is the cost of the stress, if it causes us to be addicted to the internet? I still find this article of interest. I will read the rest of it, when I have more time. I definitely think the stimulation of the brain cells is vital and can improve our quality of life, in the inevitable aging process. In Alzheimer's disease, they are now proving, it can be prevented or delayed with more mind stimulation. It makes sense; "if you don't use it, you will lose it!"

[Virgil]

As one of the older people here Janine, you probably know best. :p :p :p (I'm feeling really devilish tonight :D)

[Maximilianus]

Though my age falls out of the range in that study, I feel (or at least I want to) that interacting with others on certain sites (like Lit Net) has helped me improve my linguistic abilities. To say the least, I've been learning words and phrases I hadn't come across with before, which I find fascinating. I perceive the Internet as an undying power plant of knowledge acquisition, though I admit I sometimes fear to be on the verge of a mental overload :p

[Virgil]

I agree with you both. The internet certainly keeps my verbal skills up. And I enjoy the company. :)

[Janine]

As one of the older people here Janine, you probably know best. :p :p :p (I'm feeling really devilish tonight :D)

Thanks, Virgil, that is really sweet of you to point out! :rolleyes: :lol:


I admit I sometimes fear to be on the verge of a mental overload

Max, I agree with this! Lately I even want to run away from this overload. I have so much to do offline I should be limiting my time on here, but it's soooo addictive!:eek:

[Maximilianus]

I agree with you both. The internet certainly keeps my verbal skills up. And I enjoy the company. :)
I enjoy the company too. Can't be any better :D


Thanks, Virgil, that is really sweet of you to point out! :rolleyes: :lol:
:lol: :lol:


Max, I agree with this! Lately I even want to run away from this overload. I have so much to do offline I should be limiting my time on here, but it's soooo addictive!:eek:

DON'T GO!
You'd be unbearably missed! :(
Besides, off-line life is totally boring... it's better to run a virtual life :lol:

[Gladys]

Having found local book clubs more interested in social chat than books, I much appreciated stumbling upon the William Shakespeare forums and later the Literature Network Forums. I particularly remember enjoying countless posts on the former's Hamlet sub-forum, and many thought-provoking posts on the latter Ghosts (Ibsen) sub-forum with Janine. I'm currently dissecting A Doll's House.

The level of concentration needed to participate vigorously seems to me as high as any I used as an engineer. Mind you, can anything be more demanding than reading Henry James' A Golden Bowl? I’m scarcely halfway through after two months!

At less than 1000 posts, I look forward to a bulging brain when I pass 10 000. :idea:

[Maximilianus]

At less than 1000 posts, I look forward to a bulging brain when I pass 10 000. :idea:

You'll surely have it bulging much before :D

[Janine]

Mine began bulging past 5000! Virgil's is stretching his cranial cavity! Watch out, it might explode or implode. I guess if we go by this article, Virgil is the smartest here, if not the most gregarious and friendly, not to mention downright complementary - see his last post to me concerning my age! :lol:

Max, I won't leave for long or even for a full day, most likely; but seriously, with house renuvations pending I think I have to get organised and do something in preparation real soon. I am stalling and it's beginning to bug me. Action is my only course now. Still it's nice to know I would be greatly missed.

Gladys, we did have a very stimulating discussion awhile back on Ibsen's Ghosts. I have been desiring to watch that film version again lately. I liked it very much and it stars top actors. We will have to celebrate your 'braininess' when you hit 1000 posts!

[Maximilianus]

Mine began bulging past 5000! Virgil's is stretching his cranial cavity! Watch out, it might explode or implode. I guess if we go by this article, Virgil is the smartest here, if not the most gregarious and friendly, not to mention downright complementary - see his last post to me concerning my age! :lol:
:lol: :lol:


Max, I won't leave for long or even for a full day, most likely; but seriously, with house renuvations pending I think I have to get organised and do something in preparation real soon. I am stalling and it's beginning to bug me. Action is my only course now. Still it's nice to know I would be greatly missed.
You would be :nod:

[Virgil]

Having found local book clubs more interested in social chat than books, I much appreciated stumbling upon the William Shakespeare forums and later the Literature Network Forums. I particularly remember enjoying countless posts on the former's Hamlet sub-forum, and many thought-provoking posts on the latter Ghosts (Ibsen) sub-forum with Janine. I'm currently dissecting A Doll's House.

The level of concentration needed to participate vigorously seems to me as high as any I used as an engineer. Mind you, can anything be more demanding than reading Henry James' A Golden Bowl? I’m scarcely halfway through after two months!

At less than 1000 posts, I look forward to a bulging brain when I pass 10 000. :idea:
Great post Gladys. Just out of curiosity, are you or were you an engineer?


Mine began bulging past 5000! Virgil's is stretching his cranial cavity! Watch out, it might explode or implode. I guess if we go by this article, Virgil is the smartest here, if not the most gregarious and friendly, not to mention downright complementary - see his last post to me concerning my age! :lol:


:D I compare the brain to rising doe. This intenet is the yeast and lit net has put too much and this brain of mine is rising beyond control. :lol:

[Emil Miller]

I wonder how much credence to give to the study. It may well be that using computers does improve brain function, but go into any YouTube video and take a look at the comments where you will see grotesque examples of ungrammatical wording by people who are regular contributors to the medium. If they have improved through their use of the internet, they must have been practically brain dead to start with. In my own case, I don't know if using the internet has improved my cognitive powers but it has certainly taught me to reflect on what I am trying to say so that others can readily understand what I have written. I agree about the addictiveness of the internet and therein lies the danger that we may become merely adjuncts to the machine rather than interacting with others on a face to face basis.

[Paulclem]

I think I'm getting smarter after being on the internet until I forget my shoes the next day.

I wonder how much credence to give to the study. It may well be that using computers does improve brain function, but go into any YouTube video and take a look at the comments where you will see grotesque examples of ungrammatical wording by people who are regular contributors to the medium. If they have improved through their use of the internet, they must have been practically brain dead to start with.

Is spelling the definitive measurement of intelligence? I don't think so, but remember the younger kids using the internet are developing a whole new way of communication years before we were able. Kids don't stay the same and neither does intelligence - which is what is being said here.

As a further thought, the use of computers and the internet could be the next evolutionary leap that we make. Particularly if they continue to develop brain/ computer interfaces.

[Janine]

I wonder how much credence to give to the study. It may well be that using computers does improve brain function, but go into any YouTube video and take a look at the comments where you will see grotesque examples of ungrammatical wording by people who are regular contributors to the medium. If they have improved through their use of the internet, they must have been practically brain dead to start with.

:lol: yeah really! :lol: how true....


In my own case, I don't know if using the internet has improved my cognitive powers but it has certainly taught me to reflect on what I am trying to say so that others can readily understand what I have written.

That is true also. I do think it has helped me with reading skills and definitely spelling and vocabulary is much improved now. I can even pronounce better when reading; why I don't quite know, since the computer is all visual; but oddly enough, I think it has forced me to sound out words and see them in a new way, thus improving my own pronunciation.



I agree about the addictiveness of the internet and therein lies the danger that we may become merely adjuncts to the machine rather than interacting with others on a face to face basis.

Yes, "there's the rub!" as Hamlet said. It is a double-edged knife. It can be more addicting than a drug!

[AuntShecky]

I don't know, Virgil. You should see some of the comments to the articles on AOL. Three-quarters of those folks may have fingers with which to type, but their software definitely is malfunctioning, if you catch my drift.

About web browsing helping "older" folks improve their brain functioning, perhaps that is so. It's good for concentration and focusing. But it's also said that working out Suduko puzzles can help stave off Alzheimer's disease.
I don't know about that. When I try to do the ones labeled "difficult," the newspaper disintegrates from the repeated erasures. And when I don't get the "easy" ones right away, I feel like a total nitwit!

[Emil Miller]

I think I'm getting smarter after being on the internet until I forget my shoes the next day.

I wonder how much credence to give to the study. It may well be that using computers does improve brain function, but go into any YouTube video and take a look at the comments where you will see grotesque examples of ungrammatical wording by people who are regular contributors to the medium. If they have improved through their use of the internet, they must have been practically brain dead to start with.

Is spelling the definitive measurement of intelligence? I don't think so, but remember the younger kids using the internet are developing a whole new way of communication years before we were able. Kids don't stay the same and neither does intelligence - which is what is being said here.

As a further thought, the use of computers and the internet could be the next evolutionary leap that we make. Particularly if they continue to develop brain/ computer interfaces.

Yep, you could be right. Maybe gobbledegook is the new form of communication.

[Lynne50]

But it's also said that working out Suduko puzzles can help stave off Alzheimer's disease.
I don't know about that. When I try to do the ones labeled "difficult," the newspaper disintegrates from the repeated erasures. And when I don't get the "easy" ones right away, I feel like a total nitwit!

I hope you're right about Suduko puzzles. I'm addicted to them. I'm not sure if they will prevent Alzhemer's though. My mother died of the disease, so it has me a little bit worried. I heard that the best way to prevent 'old age diseases' was to walk and stay active. I don't think sitting at a computer qualifies. I guess I'm doomed because I'd rather do the puzzles than walk.

[Maximilianus]

I hope you're right about Suduko puzzles. I'm addicted to them. I'm not sure if they will prevent Alzhemer's though.
We can never be sure as to how to prevent a disease, much more a neurological condition, given the fact that our brains still conform a little-known territory, but we can take all measures possible just in case. The most important question is to keep the brain moving. The lazier it turns, the likelier it is to malfunction, in my humble view.


My mother died of the disease, so it has me a little bit worried. I heard that the best way to prevent 'old age diseases' was to walk and stay active. I don't think sitting at a computer qualifies. I guess I'm doomed because I'd rather do the puzzles than walk.

So sorry for your mom, Lynne. I think the best you can do is to try to divide your time between quiet amusements and physical activities, so you be balanced on both. Even if you dislike walking, try to give it a chance. It's been proven to be the most effective and complete form of exercise :nod:

[Janine]

Good advice you gave to Lynne, Max. I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. I think minds need exercise just like bodies do!

My own brain is becoming a little too congested from all this Litnet activity lately. I used to stick to one or two threads but now I feel like I am popping all over the place and I might just have a brain that eventually short circuits! eeekkk....

[Paulclem]

Yep, you could be right. Maybe gobbledegook is the new form of communication.

You'd better enrol in a night class Brian.

[Scheherazade]

Is spelling the definitive measurement of intelligence? I don't think so, Agree that spelling is by no means an indicator of intelligence (or lack of it). I have come across many learners who struggle to spell even the simpler everyday words but they do not have any trouble solving mathematical problems and such.

I have to admit that internet has helped me improve my practical English beyond words. When I had graduated from university, I had good theoretical knowledge but did not know how to use it (internet was not active in those days) but internet helped me learn "daily" English as well... just another skill.


Yep, you could be right. Maybe gobbledegook is the new form of communication. Well, as the saying goes...

One man's gobbledegook is another man's philosophical talk...

:rolleyes:

[motherhubbard]

There's hope for me! I'm so glad, really.

[Paulclem]

I also find this forum useful in practising formulating arguments. There are plenty of clever and challenging people with which to engage.

[Jozanny]

I hope you're right about Suduko puzzles. I'm addicted to them. I'm not sure if they will prevent Alzhemer's though. My mother died of the disease, so it has me a little bit worried. I heard that the best way to prevent 'old age diseases' was to walk and stay active. I don't think sitting at a computer qualifies. I guess I'm doomed because I'd rather do the puzzles than walk.

I am off-topic, but if I may address this, the evidence related to getting Alzheimer's is both genetic and environmental. Poor diet, which leads to heart disease, seems related to the famous Alzheimer's plagues. My mother's father died of it, and my mother had significant short term memory gaps which worsened before she died suddenly, so I am in your camp, Lynne, with the worry. Modify the diet, and keep the brain active. That is the best one can do, but if you do get it, there are new aggressive drug therapies that fight the plague formation between the neuro-transmitters.

[billl]

...That is the best one can do, but if you do get it, there are new aggressive drug therapies that fight the plague formation between the neuro-transmitters.

I am reluctant to chime in on a typo in this thread (and maybe it's a trap, some sort of test...), but I think that in the context of a disease, correcting the misspelling of "plaque" might help people that want to research Alzenheimer's. :brow:

[Maximilianus]

Good advice you gave to Lynne, Max. I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. I think minds need exercise just like bodies do!

My own brain is becoming a little too congested from all this Litnet activity lately. I used to stick to one or two threads but now I feel like I am popping all over the place and I might just have a brain that eventually short circuits! eeekkk....
Tell us when the sparks begin jumping Janine, so we can take cover :lol:


I am reluctant to chime in on a typo in this thread (and maybe it's a trap, some sort of test...), but I think that in the context of a disease, correcting the misspelling of "plaque" might help people that want to research Alzenheimer's. :brow:

Smart observation billl. Remember, however, that Jozy is a biting writer :brow: though the clarification is opportune as for Alzheimer's terminology.

[billl]

Smart observation billl. Remember, however, that Jozy is a biting writer :brow: though the clarification is opportune as for Alzheimer's terminology.

I know Max, I know... I tried to pick just the right emoticon.

[Janine]

Tell us when the sparks begin jumping Janine, so we can take cover :lol:

Brain cells are jumping around so fast now; you might wish to prepare! I hear some sputtering between my ears. :eek:

[Stargazer86]

It really comes down to what is being looked up on the internet. It's the quality of what is being read and the information being sought after rather than just regular usage. I doubt the all day facebook user is getting even a quarter of the substance from reading the updated home page as one would get by reading substantial posts on, well lit net, for example.

The internet, while rich in information, is also a treasure trove of crap

[Janine]

It really comes down to what is being looked up on the internet. It's the quality of what is being read and the information being sought after rather than just regular usage. I doubt the all day facebook user is getting even a quarter of the substance from reading the updated home page as one would get by reading substantial posts on, well lit net, for example.

The internet, while rich in information, is also a treasure trove of crap

That's the truth! Maybe being on Litnet is making people smarter, but Facebook, never! :lol: I certainly agree with that.

[Maximilianus]

I know Max, I know... I tried to pick just the right emoticon.
Well done :D

Brain cells are jumping around so fast now; you might wish to prepare! I hear some sputtering between my ears. :eek:
Already prepared :D

It really comes down to what is being looked up on the internet. It's the quality of what is being read and the information being sought after rather than just regular usage. I doubt the all day facebook user is getting even a quarter of the substance from reading the updated home page as one would get by reading substantial posts on, well lit net, for example.

The internet, while rich in information, is also a treasure trove of crap


That's the truth! Maybe being on Litnet is making people smarter, but Facebook, never! :lol: I certainly agree with that.

Totally agree with you both. I once opened an account on Facebook, being invited by a former teacher who apparently found some use for Facebook... surely due to being unaware of Lit Net :D

However I am never on Facebook, mainly because I can't find myself comfortable there. As though I wouldn't know what link to click because I find nothing appealing and the very few times I've logged in, I've ended up wondering what I was doing there... I suppose some of you have experienced a similar feeling.

[Paulclem]

Our Facebook accounts are great for casual contact with far flung relatives. It's not the content that may be useful but definately the processes involved in acquainting with the net.

[Jozanny]

I am reluctant to chime in on a typo in this thread (and maybe it's a trap, some sort of test...), but I think that in the context of a disease, correcting the misspelling of "plaque" might help people that want to research Alzenheimer's. :brow:

It was a typo and it is in fact plaque, but neither you nor Lynne spelled Alzheimer's correctly:eek:. Posting tends to lead to spelling errors, even in those who are careful with grammar; I usually catch mine, but I don't have a lot of time to dilly dally as I used to, and I do not resent the network for my financial hardship as I resented some communities in the past for it, so instead of lurking for an hour I am in and out.

A few points:

Alzheimer's is not natural dementia as part of aging.
You can get it even if you do everything right, and the evidence increasing points to indicators that the disease begins before early on set symptoms begin.

Short term memory loss, like forgetting where the keys are, is not Alzheimer's, but forgetting that you have a car might be a sign to go see your doctor. Puzzles do not work for the highly educated, actually, but your mind stays more vigorous if you train it in new things, and for me that would be trying something like wheelchair golf. But breaking habits, doing something new, keeps those neurons working.

Since I already have a disability, if Alzheimer's gets me I'm checking out unless they have something by then to really slow it down.

[Paulclem]

I suppose it is altering our brains just as any actvity we do alters it. If we all gave up the internet, then the potential development would divert into whatever we choose to do.

[Virgil]

It really comes down to what is being looked up on the internet. ...The internet, while rich in information, is also a treasure trove of crap

You make a good point, which leads me to an overwhelming thought. If lit net and other brainy internet sites are enlarging our brains, do you think all those guys addicted to the porn sites are enlarging their penises? :p :p :lol: :lol:

[Paulclem]

I wonder what will happen when touch screens arrive...

[Jozanny]

In general, search engines and digital technology have:
1. Made me more anxious not to miss something
2. Incapacited my ability to rely on my own insight and do drafts at the typewriter (how can I say anything relevant without Google?) although my own recent pc problems have renewed my faith in hard copy
3. Made the pace of my life unrealistically faster even though I am only a self-employed freelancer whose earnings have depreciated. I.E., I cannot watch movies all day on Netflix, read, write, socialize online, stay on top of the kitty litter and my personal affairs even with only six hours sleep, and so on.

[The Atheist]

I came across this article today. I was wondering if all of us on lit net are getting smarter just by being here. Those of us with over 10,000 posts will soon have their brains spilling out of our ears since our expanding brains will not be able to be contained within our skulls. :D

Interesting theory, although I find the most interesting thing about it searching for the title of the article you used : UCLA Study: The Internet is Altering Our Brains.

I'm quite used to searching for scientific articles and I would have expected to see UCLA's website on the first page.

Instead, I see page after page of forum discussion on the subject. I guess the message was taken on board pretty quickly!

Can you find a link to the study itself? I have a few questions:

24 people? Using controls as well - or the study doesn't count - I make that a sample of twelve people. That's an extremely small sample to base a study upon.

Given the age of participants, were they a fair match for existing mental faculties? Did both control and test groups have the same number of medication, etc?

A properly-conducted scientific enquiry, as I'm sure you're aware, would actually be made up of three groups, giving a sample size of 8. 8 on the internet, 8 doing whatever they usually do and 8, being the placebo control, doing additional brain work such as extra reading or some form of tuition, because we do know that use makes nimble, and it could just be that all 24 worked online rather than watched TV. That'd make you smarter in hours, not weeks.

As Groucho Marx said, "I find the TV very educational - every time someone switches it on, I pick up a book."

Verdict: unknown, but the premise seems unlikely. The study sounds flawed, but I'll withhold public flogging of the perpetrators just for the moment.

Now if you'd said; "Reading The Atheist's posts make you smarter" I'd have ben in full agreement!

:D


You make a good point, which leads me to an overwhelming thought. If lit net and other brainy internet sites are enlarging our brains, do you think all those guys addicted to the porn sites are enlarging their penises? :p :p :lol: :lol:

:lol:

Now, that's some classy thinking.

I bet they live in hope!

:lol:

[gbrekken]

The qualities of the challenges determine their effect on the brain. While you may not find going on-line very challenging, an old newbie is significantly challenged, creating(?) neural paths. Someday I'd like to be able to play a different speed with each hand on the piano. I'm sure it will challenge me.

[OrphanPip]

The small sample size is probably a reflection of the cost of fMRIs, it would get astronomically more expensive to rent out this machine from a hospital for extended periods. This kind of study doesn't really require a placebo group. Since, they are looking at experimental alteration. Their control was technically the 12 who had high internet usage prior to the experiment, it was a positive control rather than a negative control. They noted a difference between the brains of the internet users and the non-users in their first scan. After being instructed to use the internet for 2 weeks the non-users were retested and their brains showed the same activity as the control regular users. What they are testing is if internet uses is responsible for this change in brain function, which the study supports. It would have been better to also have a negative control that continued their regular behavior. I'm guessing this was probably part of someone's graduate work so they didn't have that high of a budget.

The researchers themselves acknowledge that these findings aren't definitive, but are interesting and suggest that more research into the area is likely warranted.

[Stargazer86]

You make a good point, which leads me to an overwhelming thought. If lit net and other brainy internet sites are enlarging our brains, do you think all those guys addicted to the porn sites are enlarging their penises? :p :p :lol: :lol:

:lol:
I have no doubt there are men who truely believe that! Or at least believe that porn is helping thier sexual technique or approach.

Paul- as for touchscreens, those seem really cool and I'm sure Windex will be profiting greatly once touchscreens hit the mainstream. Personally, I'm happy with my mouse and keyboard

[The Atheist]

The small sample size is probably a reflection of the cost of fMRIs, it would get astronomically more expensive to rent out this machine from a hospital for extended periods. This kind of study doesn't really require a placebo group. Since, they are looking at experimental alteration. Their control was technically the 12 who had high internet usage prior to the experiment, it was a positive control rather than a negative control. They noted a difference between the brains of the internet users and the non-users in their first scan. After being instructed to use the internet for 2 weeks the non-users were retested and their brains showed the same activity as the control regular users. What they are testing is if internet uses is responsible for this change in brain function, which the study supports. It would have been better to also have a negative control that continued their regular behavior. I'm guessing this was probably part of someone's graduate work so they didn't have that high of a budget.

The researchers themselves acknowledge that these findings aren't definitive, but are interesting and suggest that more research into the area is likely warranted.

Yes, it has all the hallmarks of some student's PhD theis.

First off, it is at best, a very minor work of no startling significance. We've known for a long time that a new mental activity will open new pathways, just as a new sport will increase muscle mass.

Therefore, if the study's conclusion is that playing on the internet is one of those activities, it's probably worth conferring the PhD, but is it really news?

Going by media reports, it's not just news, but quite earth-shattering news; I was astonished to see how much coverage it had been given in USA.

I know the students didn't seek the media interest, but it just seems to be a case of some mildly interesting project which has been snapped up by media because it's a bit trendy.

The biggest problem is, if there was no group who were given other intellectual and dextrous challenges, then the study is actually invalid from a scientific perspective. Without that, we don't know that reading a book while knitting may create the identical result in the brain.

Anyway, I'm not bagging the students, it's an interesting study, but the reaction is concerns me.

Many people take the study as gospel, simply because it came from UCLA and was in the news. That's horrible.

Nothing to do with the study, but a thought along similar lines: it could well be that the proliferation of information on the internet, available without a validity filter, might just make people a whole lot dumber.

[Koa]

As much as I love the Internet and as much as I agree that it has broadened my views, provided entertainment and support when I wasn't a sociable being, and improved my language skills, I think it has altered my brain not in a positive way.

I have completely lost any ability for concentration and I kind of blame it on the Internet. I am so used to quick reaction and to multitasking, that sitting still on something has become an impossible task for me. I can't watch tv because it's not interactive enough... ok no big loss. But I can no longer read books either, I just can't concentrate for more than two minutes. I'm more restless. While that can be partly due to growing older, study overload and simply changing of life circumstances, I think the Internet has something to do with it...

[Paulclem]

Yes, it has all the hallmarks of some student's PhD theis.


Many people take the study as gospel, simply because it came from UCLA and was in the news. That's horrible.

Nothing to do with the study, but a thought along similar lines: it could well be that the proliferation of information on the internet, available without a validity filter, might just make people a whole lot dumber.

That could be the next skill - developing validity filters. It hasn't worked that well in terms of filtering news found in newspapers, but the internet provides a vastly speeded up access that papers do not. Perhaps it will become a benchmark of intelligence.

[Virgil]

Can you find a link to the study itself? I have a few questions:

24 people? Using controls as well - or the study doesn't count - I make that a sample of twelve people. That's an extremely small sample to base a study upon.

I'm afraid I just pulled it off the news wires. It caught my eye, but I don't have any access to a scientific paper.


The small sample size is probably a reflection of the cost of fMRIs, it would get astronomically more expensive to rent out this machine from a hospital for extended periods. This kind of study doesn't really require a placebo group. Since, they are looking at experimental alteration. Their control was technically the 12 who had high internet usage prior to the experiment, it was a positive control rather than a negative control. They noted a difference between the brains of the internet users and the non-users in their first scan. After being instructed to use the internet for 2 weeks the non-users were retested and their brains showed the same activity as the control regular users. What they are testing is if internet uses is responsible for this change in brain function, which the study supports. It would have been better to also have a negative control that continued their regular behavior. I'm guessing this was probably part of someone's graduate work so they didn't have that high of a budget.

The researchers themselves acknowledge that these findings aren't definitive, but are interesting and suggest that more research into the area is likely warranted.
Good points from both you and Atheist on sample size. Sample sizes of 12-24 are usually for screening out variables, not confirmation. With a sample size of 24 you can see a trend if the parameters aren't interacting with each other. This is scertainly not a confirmation, but I don't think they claimed it was either. I suspect there is something to it.


As much as I love the Internet and as much as I agree that it has broadened my views, provided entertainment and support when I wasn't a sociable being, and improved my language skills, I think it has altered my brain not in a positive way.

I have completely lost any ability for concentration and I kind of blame it on the Internet. I am so used to quick reaction and to multitasking, that sitting still on something has become an impossible task for me. I can't watch tv because it's not interactive enough... ok no big loss. But I can no longer read books either, I just can't concentrate for more than two minutes. I'm more restless. While that can be partly due to growing older, study overload and simply changing of life circumstances, I think the Internet has something to do with it...

I completely agree Koa. Me too. My ability to concentrate has degraded, and my spelling too. And I definitely blame computers and the computer screen. I do think there is something to the study. I feel like I think differently and focus differently since I've been a regular on the internet now for a number of years.

Hey nice to see you after a long absence. Hope you are well. :)

[Paulclem]

The new developments on brain/ computer interfacing may reverse the statement on this post eventually - from "The internet is altering our brains" to "Our brains are altering the internet" - or am I just getting ahead of myself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7254078.stm

Perhaps then the biggest brain will be in control!!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2008/09/23/kelly-brook-and-harry-enfield-with-tefal-heads-115875-20748708/

[Jozanny]

I do not think the study points to anything particularly revealing or not already known. Cognitive activity increases when new skills are acquired. This is not indicative of the fact that sitting at a computer literally alters brain chemistry, nor requires the nuance that Atheist seems to desire.

I did not actually surf to Virgil's url. I know of countless studies that point to regeneration in the aged under controlled conditions. As a disability reporter, my research necessarily spills over into the health sciences, and this stuff is old hat. Sorry.

[Paulclem]

It's not old hat to those who haven't seen it. I think it's quite interesting. It posits some interesting lines of thought too, as seen in the earlier postings.

[Jozanny]

Yes, but are we talking about sociological adaptation or physiological? Some of the posts, mine included, confuse this issue, and there is near zilch evidence that the web will have any effect on our physical capacity to evolve or adapt. Most in biological sciences think that homo sapiens has basically reached physical stasis, and that there are no further evolutionary advances possible.

The social psychological issues can be reversed by shutting down the pc. It is that simple.

[OrphanPip]

Yes, but are we talking about sociological adaptation or physiological? Some of the posts, mine included, confuse this issue, and there is near zilch evidence that the web will have any effect on our physical capacity to evolve or adapt. Most in biological sciences think that homo sapiens has basically reached physical stasis, and that there are no further evolutionary advances possible.

The social psychological issues can be reversed by shutting down the pc. It is that simple.

Well I'm in the biological sciences and I don't think this. First of all, evolution is adirectional, saying advances suggest some sort of directionality. Evolution will continue short of us developing advanced enough genetic techniques to maintain a genetic status quo in the population.

Also, the study isn't saying that cognitive activity is increased by learning a new skill. It found that people who used the internet more regularly prior to being examined had higher function in centers related to memory. When the other group was exposed to regular internet activity as well, they showed the same amount of function in the same centers. What this says to me is just that the internet may be an easy and accessible way for seniors to exercise their memory. I doubt it is any more beneficial than doing sudoku puzzles.

[The Atheist]

Well I'm in the biological sciences and I don't think this. First of all, evolution is adirectional, saying advances suggest some sort of directionality. Evolution will continue short of us developing advanced enough genetic techniques to maintain a genetic status quo in the population.

Very good point.

We are sure to continue to evolve, but it doesn't mean we're going to get faster or smarter and could be the opposite.

[Jozanny]

Well I'm in the biological sciences and I don't think this. First of all, evolution is adirectional, saying advances suggest some sort of directionality. Evolution will continue short of us developing advanced enough genetic techniques to maintain a genetic status quo in the population.

Also, the study isn't saying that cognitive activity is increased by learning a new skill. It found that people who used the internet more regularly prior to being examined had higher function in centers related to memory. When the other group was exposed to regular internet activity as well, they showed the same amount of function in the same centers. What this says to me is just that the internet may be an easy and accessible way for seniors to exercise their memory. I doubt it is any more beneficial than doing sudoku puzzles.

I am not sure about adirectional. Species are either very well suited by design, less well suited but multi-skilled, or die out due to a variety of factors. Put a chimpanzee and Ari and a modern huminoid side by side and you have three very closely related primates, but only humans have cultural memory, self-recognition that is a daily utility, and an awareness of mortality that it trys to circumvent through group community adhension and identity. I am willing to take the risk and say this is an advance over many of the mammalian cognitive abilities we study.

We are the only animal with mind, and as you know, the brain mind duality is not necessary for the survival of a species. Cats have about a nine to one ratio ability to learn behavior over its innate behaviors, in dogs it is a bit closer, and so on, but only the great apes have been shown to be self aware, and the majority of those apes have the cognitive level of a human with high to median mental retardation.

We're a possible animal, obviously, but we exist because we beat a slim set of odds. Give or take a thousand years and we may lose that bet.

[OrphanPip]

I am not sure about adirectional. Species are either very well suited by design, less well suited but multi-skilled, or die out due to a variety of factors. Put a chimpanzee and Ari and a modern huminoid side by side and you have three very closely related primates, but only humans have cultural memory, self-recognition that is a daily utility, and an awareness of mortality that it trys to circumvent through group community adhension and identity. I am willing to take the risk and say this is an advance over many of the mammalian cognitive abilities we study.

We are the only animal with mind, and as you know, the brain mind duality is not necessary for the survival of a species. Cats have about a nine to one ratio ability to learn behavior over its innate behaviors, in dogs it is a bit closer, and so on, but only the great apes have been shown to be self aware, and the majority of those apes have the cognitive level of a human with high to median mental retardation.

We're a possible animal, obviously, but we exist because we beat a slim set of odds. Give or take a thousand years and we may lose that bet.

Biologist do not compare fitness between species, because it is purely meaningless. Are we measuring evolutionary success (if the concept can exist) as the measure of a specie's biomass? If so I think the ants and cockroaches are winning.

You are applying circular logic, you are saying humans are superior, because they have human qualities. The point to take away from this is that you can't determine superiority between species in any significant way.

Are humans smarter than other primates? Certainly.

Are humans somehow superior to other primates? I think not.

[Paulclem]

Yes, but are we talking about sociological adaptation or physiological? Some of the posts, mine included, confuse this issue, and there is near zilch evidence that the web will have any effect on our physical capacity to evolve or adapt. Most in biological sciences think that homo sapiens has basically reached physical stasis, and that there are no further evolutionary advances possible.

The social psychological issues can be reversed by shutting down the pc. It is that simple.

Doesn't physiological/ physical adaptation begin with behaviour? I think the study was saying that behaviour - internet use - leads to increased brain function - physiological.

I think your comment about evolutionary advances is pure speculation too. With the improved diet, training etc we have pushed the bondaries of the athletics in a very short time. They are now speculating that in the West we will live for 100 years as an average. Is this physical stasis or just the maximisation of the model?

[Gladys]

Are humans somehow superior to other primates? I think not.

On the contrary, human populations are increasing as other primate populations decrease: humans are best adapted to the current environment.

Were our environment to change dramatically, as has happened in the past, our current evolutionary fitness may count for nothing. We would either evolve or die out. And we may even get smarter...over a million or so years.


Doesn't physiological/ physical adaptation begin with behaviour? I think the study was saying that behaviour - internet use - leads to increased brain function - physiological.

As for the internet making our descendants smarter, isn't this the discredited Lamarckian proposition that 'new characteristics acquired through interaction with the environment are passed on to progeny'?

[The Atheist]

Biologist do not compare fitness between species, because it is purely meaningless. Are we measuring evolutionary success (if the concept can exist) as the measure of a specie's biomass? If so I think the ants and cockroaches are winning.

Gosh, you make some good sense.

I'd only say I think that biomass isn't a great example, because there have clearly been lots of explosions of life which died out just as quickly, and on evolutionary time scales, we could easily join the list as we haven't been going very long.

I'd class "success" from an evolutionary perspective as the age and longevity of the species.

Being one of the very newest species, calling us an evolutionary success is pretty naive. We certainly sit at the top of the food chain, but we also sit by far at the top of the destroying other species and the planet chain.



Are humans smarter than other primates? Certainly.

Are humans somehow superior to other primates? I think not.

Baboons! We're better than them - they're violent, disgusting beasts....

Then again, you might be right!

:)


On the contrary, human populations are increasing as other primate populations decrease: human are best adapted to the current environment.

Not quite.

We're just better at adapting the environment to our needs and discovered medicine so we can raise the life expectancy to the stage where we pretty much run the planet.


As for the internet making our descendants smarter, isn't this the discredited Lamarckian proposition that 'new characteristics acquired through interaction with the environment are passed on to progeny'?

Looks that way to me too.

[Gladys]

We're just better at adapting the environment to our needs and discovered medicine so we can raise the life expectancy to the stage where we pretty much run the planet.

Exactly so. For the last few millennia, at least, we have adapted to our environment better than other primates, some of which border on extinction. Of course this happy situation could change in the blink of an eye. :eek2:

[Paulclem]

As for the internet making our descendants smarter, isn't this the discredited Lamarckian proposition that 'new characteristics acquired through interaction with the environment are passed on to progeny'?[/QUOTE]

Er.... depends how you mean passed on. I would envisage change in behaviours being passed on and gradually altering physiology over time.

[The Atheist]

Er.... depends how you mean passed on. I would envisage change in behaviours being passed on and gradually altering physiology over time.

That is what Gladys meant about discredited Lmarckism. You can't pass on learned behaviour, no matter how much it changes the physiology of the being/animal.

[OrphanPip]

As for the internet making our descendants smarter, isn't this the discredited Lamarckian proposition that 'new characteristics acquired through interaction with the environment are passed on to progeny'?

That's what Lamarckian evolution is. How this would function in Darwinian evolution, the one that actually happens, is if a heritable ability that affected ones ability to gain more from using the internet would somehow increase reproductive fitness. Or a genetic predisposition to internet use somehow increased fitness, thus leading to more people with a genetic predisposition to internet use. In Darwinian terms it is highly unlikely that the internet would have an effect on human evolution from altering brain physiology.

However, it can effect cultural evolution. If we notice that using the internet somehow improves an individual's performance, it could lead to changes in how and why we use the internet.

Edit: That quote somehow got messed up gah.

[Virgil]

That's what Lamarckian evolution is. How this would function in Darwinian evolution, the one that actually happens, is if a heritable ability that affected ones ability to gain more from using the internet would somehow increase reproductive fitness.

He with the biggest brains gets to reproduce. :p

[OrphanPip]

I feel so bad for Lamarck, he'll forever be remembered by biologist as the man who was wrong about evolution.

[The Atheist]

He with the biggest brains gets to reproduce. :p

That's very good!

:lol:


I feel so bad for Lamarck, he'll forever be remembered by biologist as the man who was wrong about evolution.

You can't blame him though, it looked good at the time.

[Paulclem]

That's what Lamarckian evolution is. How this would function in Darwinian evolution, the one that actually happens, is if a heritable ability that affected ones ability to gain more from using the internet would somehow increase reproductive fitness. Or a genetic predisposition to internet use somehow increased fitness, thus leading to more people with a genetic predisposition to internet use. In Darwinian terms it is highly unlikely that the internet would have an effect on human evolution from altering brain physiology.

However, it can effect cultural evolution. If we notice that using the internet somehow improves an individual's performance, it could lead to changes in how and why we use the internet.

Edit: That quote somehow got messed up gah.

That seems to make sense. As you can tell, I'm no biologist. An interesting discussion though.

[Scheherazade]

OP:
I came across this article today. I was wondering if all of us on lit net are getting smarter just by being here. Those of us with over 10,000 posts will soon have their brains spilling out of our ears since our expanding brains will not be able to be contained within our skulls. :D


[SNIP]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568576,00.html?test=latestnewsWhat do you think?