K retweeted
This paper answers why you can't think straight even when you're not touching your phone.
Researchers from UT Austin and UC San Diego published a paper that explains every unfinished task, every reread paragraph, and every afternoon that vanished.
It's called "Brain Drain."
they took 520 people and gave them tests of memory and problem solving.
the only difference was where their phone was.
on the desk, face down. in their pocket or bag. or in another room.
every phone was on silent. no buzzing. no notifications.
And the results are wild.
the people whose phones were in another room did significantly better than the people whose phones sat face down on the desk.
the closer the phone, the worse they scored.
then they ran it again and made half of them turn their phones completely off.
it didn't matter.
off and face down on the desk still drained the brain.
the paper revealed a brutal paradox:
most people said they weren't thinking about their phone at all.
75.9% said its location didn't affect their performance "at all."
they were wrong.
your brain spends energy just to not pick it up. a quiet, constant effort to ignore the most interesting object in the room.
that effort comes from the same tank you use to think.
and the more dependent people were on their phones, the bigger the hit.
you are not distracted because you're weak.
you are distracted because the most powerful attention machine ever built is sitting three inches from your hand.
the fix is almost insultingly simple.
put it in another room.
K retweeted
Cell phone addiction is an absolute thermonuke to the brain and nobody 'takes it seriously' because it is not clear that there is any solution in a world where the revealed preference of everyone across the globe, regardless of income, race, age, any factor whatsoever, would rather be on their phone than do *anything* else. Deciding "I use this too much" and meaningfully altering one's behaviour doesn't seem to have much success for any of the very small minority of people with the sentience or self-reflection to realize how bad it is. Most people seem to think of it as an unproductive habit at most, rather than an addiction. Any attempt to speak seriously about this is met with derision, accusations of pretentiousness. There is no real solution to it. The future of human cognition fifty years down the line is horrifying if you stop and think about it for even a moment.
@FCisnotScience @FCisnotComm
I came across an interview with FC proponent Joe Infranco promoting his book. In the interview, he said he was open to debating someone from ASHA. I wonder if this offer might be open to any FC critic.
K retweeted
We've had some comments about the Clever Hans effect and comparing people to horses. Maybe this blog post will help:
facilitatedcommunication.orgā¦
Genetic potential certainly plays a role in something developing into what it is.
Environments will help, hinder, provoke and facilitate change.
This is a good point of response. Still, we cannot ignore the current landscape of young people continuing to grow up under the influence of tech devices and social media. The answer lies in the development.
There is an important point hereābut also a false dichotomy.
Problematic social-media use can produce or amplify inattention, and clinicians absolutely should ask about it before labeling every distracted young person with ADHD.
But demonstrating an environmental contribution does not disprove a neurodevelopmental one.
The relationship may also be bidirectional: an attentionally vulnerable brain may be especially attracted to rapid-reward digital environments, while those environments may further impair attention.
The real clinical question isnāt āADHD or TikTok?ā
It is: What is producing this particular personās inattentionāand what is maintaining it?
Our diagnostic categories are maps. Biologyāand environmentāare the territory.
Indeed. After I was given an ADHD diagnosis a few years ago, I started to wonder what was really true and what was really to blame. I heard from friends and acquaintances who were diagnosed both before and after me, and I couldn't help but wonder about factors of social contagion
This is creepy as hell.
I suppose it's easy for people to write this off as a problem of mental illness because accepting the possibility of such a degree of invasiveness from technology / weaponry is a scary thought indeed.
It's interesting coming from a religious background where you are taught to "follow the spirit" (i.e., you are trained to listen for the "still small voice") who will give you spiritual promptings (i.e., thoughts and impressions) about any number of things.
It's a weird world we live in where people can go crazy.
But what is making people go crazy?
Magical thinking?
Deception?
Infiltration?
Denial?
I've noticed this in past conversations with a few people. I wonder what underlying philosophical / spiritual beliefs are to blame.
Is it a misapprehension of what technology is, of what certain technologies or tools are?
A few notes about The Lord of the Rings that people suddenly seem to be misrepresenting:
The One Ring is NOT "just a tool"
It was infused with the evil of the being that crafted it
The only way to deal with it is to completely destroy it
youtu.be/WoIgX-i2hSs?t=460
I haven't read the Catcher in the Rye, but this review is telling. Phoniness, disillusionment, resistance to the norms of a decaying societyāthese are is relatable themes.
youtu.be/GF64afzlAQ0?si=irupā¦
