Prof Susan Greenfield (world renown brain scientist) makes the point that our screen culture is conditioned us to think in sound bites/short attention spans. She goes on to argue that this short attention span creates people who find prolonged concentration difficult. She raise the explosion of children being diagnosed as ADD and wonders if they are the consequence of our screen culture. She quotes a study that suggests that approx 40% of a child's (between 10/11th birthdays) time over a period is spent in front of a screen.
She shows how we become locked into process rather than content (my favourite context).
She demonstrates how the brain works and how the effects of gene network to create traits and how these can be modified by environment. She cites a famous experiment with mice with the only known single gene disease Huntingtons Carera by way of their synapse connections.

Watch the lecture .http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/09/2709586.htm

The professor flags the the intellectual and emotional problems inherent in this culture of the screen.
My question then is 'IS this what we want for our future?

Examinator,
It won't let me open that link but from what you stated re the good professor it really doesn't need a brain surgeon to see what's happening but good on her for speaking up on what is a catastrophe in the making. A nation of morons courtesy of IPod & video clips is a frightening scenario indeed.
Did you know that the TV psychologists use the mentality of age 12 for the majority of daytime programming ? Just look at documentaries made in the past few years, any clip longer than 4-5 seconds is deemed an eternity by editors. Just read up in video makers' forums & see the new "standards". Just about anything to do with any kind of education has been manipulated into progressive regress. Why ? because if you make an impressionable youngster believe he/she is clever by following the latest trends you have a moron consumer sign up for life.
I happen to sit opposite a young lawyer at times on public transport & from three metres away I can hear the thumping of her IPod "music" over the noise of an engine. Now there's a future pillar of society !

Oh come on you old fuddy duddies!
Don't you remember your parents or grandparents saying that your generation was doomed for one reason or another?

For goodness sake- the older people who were around when Elvis first twisted his pelvis on screen had all the young people of that generation damned to hell!

Young people who liked rock and roll music when it first came out on radio were called devil worshipers.
Some of these same people now hold important jobs in our society.

The young people of today are certainly brought up differently to us, and even more differently than our grandparents. That doesn't mean they are any better or worse than previous generations, just...different!

We had better deal with whatever they come up with anyway, because they will be responsible for all decision making when we are too old to do it! Vive la difference

In today's society we are constantly being
influenced by the media.

We take this barrage for granted.

Today, the media provides instant coverage of events
and social changes ranging from news and opinions
to fads and fashions. The media offers role models,
viewpoints, and glimpses of lifestyles that people
might otherwise never have access to. And let's not
forget about media advertising. Changing social norms
and values are quickly reflected in the media and may
be readily adopted by people who might not otherwise be
exposed to them.

There's not denying the fact that the most influential
medium is probably television. A television set is
switched on for more than seven hours a day in the
average home. If you doubt the influence of television
think back to the coverage on the war in Iraq. The
daily footage of scenes from that conflict undoubtedly
encouraged the growing domestic opposition to the war.
The same goes for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
More recently, television coverage of the "Ute-gate scandal"
in Canberra brought the controversy to the
public attention in a way that traditional print could
not have done.

Television is often acclaimed as a marvellous
educational instrument. However, some critics charge
that the medium actually impedes learning by
hindering the acquistion of reading skills and encourages
intellectual passivity. We have to remember that although
television does bring a flood of information into the
home, much of it is highly selective or distorted.
As I've said earlier, news programs tend to feature visually
exciting or emotionally moving stories that draw large
viewing audiences - even if this means omitting issues that
are more sober but perhaps more significant also.

I guess the bottom line is - everything in moderation.
It's best to remember - television is a neutral
technology - it's people who decide how to use it.
Much of what's seen on television is inappropriate for
children (or just plain stupefying). Yet in families
where television viewing is an on-going part of daily life,
it has even become the moral authority for children, with
mostly bad results.

Ban it.

ban-aminator!

This is an extremely important topic.

>>She goes on to argue that this short attention span creates people who find prolonged concentration difficult<<

We should... oh look, a butterfly.

Individual,
Sorry about that go to ABC then Fora on the far right hand side there is a past list select 'the dangers of social networking'. It ran that way yesterday. If you google there are other similar clips on line.

Suzie,
This isn't some granny saying this it's a world renown specialist brain Scientist! She backs up her claims with brain scans, evidence etc. If you Google her her bio is spectacular if she doesn't know what she's talking about then nobody does. I really think this is something we should think about. See her MRI differences between reading and playing a game stunning stuff. Its really needs thinking about.

And banning.

Foxy and others,

The real point of what she was on about was the computer games and how it loads the brain up with certain skills. She talks about 2nd life and a number of popular instant adrenaline games etc. How they disassociate us from emotion and intellectual commitment thus is sheer brain 'now' stimulation.
PS when you go to Fora there is a 5 minute summary but nowhere near as detailed or convincing.

She raises so many issues and lines of thought. To me she indicates that we genetically are like a canvas and a pile of colours environment effort etc defines what sort of picture we paint i.e. Hieronymus Boche(spelling?), Tipolo, stick men or anything in between.

Inherent in this is that we are determining the direction of our evolution or our destruction because it makes us less adaptable.
On the other hand she might be showing because of our ultra flexibility (as opposed to Yabby's determinism) why we have survived thus far.
To follow Yabby's point of instincts/genes rule we should have either evolved to homo communititus or become extinct.
The fact that we haven't bodes well that we CAN choose the nature of our societies that they don't have to be violent.

H.
No one is wanting to ban any thing least of all me. Watch the video, exercise your under used intelligence and you MAY realize What both the topic and I generally are on about. Without doing so you are making a fool of yourself.

Waah! Watch my video damnit! You're as bad as Fractelle.

I am aware of this research thanks. As well as the no tele for under 2 year olds recommendation brought out recently.

'IS this what we want for our future?'
I take it as a no for nannyaminator.

So what Nanny legislation are you gonna put in place to stop this one pontificator? Or are you just gonna run an awareness campaign and have articles in 'essential' Baby or Fretful Mother magazine?

The medium is the message is old news man, it came from the 60s (So by definition, it must have been right aye?). Didn't you read Amusing Ourselves to Death? Just because a scientist looks to add further weight to that weighty hypothesis of 'TV is Bad mmmkay' doesn't change the question of what's nannyaminator gonna do about it.

You need a cape and a big picture of Granny Smith on ya chest.

H,
It has nothing to do with telly under 2 year olds. a whole different level.

Apart from your attitude confirming what she says, what other blinding revelation do you have to amuse yourself? Don't tell us this site might be read by younger people and it might scare them for life.

'It has nothing to do with telly under 2 year olds.'
I never said it does. But the research, in nannyaminators hands is great fuel for legislators. As is the under twos. They can both be safely put under the ban-aminator 'TV is bad' heading.

' a whole different level.'
Ah, so now it is something to do with telly for under 2 year olds, but just at a different level. Make up your mind.

'
Apart from your attitude confirming what she says, what other blinding revelation do you have to amuse yourself? Don't tell us this site might be read by younger people and it might scare them for life.

Sorry, don't know what you're on about. You made the topic, it's your 'revelation', your concern, so what do you propose is done about it? What is the point of your topic? Or are you just Parroting stuff? Can you make us a mix tape too?

Dear Examinator,

I can understand Susan Greenfield's concern regarding
children and computer games. Especially kids
who don't receive any other sort of stimulus.
As she points out - when kids play computer
games they live for the thrill of the moment. They
don't pick up on abstract concepts like loyalty, fair play,
respect, honour. You can't convey such concepts through visual
mediums alone. Also, as she points out -
if you're playing a game and there
are no consequences - that's not a good lesson to learn
in life. Most parents want their children to grow up to
be decent human beings. What's important is the content
of our children's hearts and minds, or what is often
described as character. How that character is formed
depends on the type of things that children are exposed
to.

Purely visual mediums deliver a thrill in a flash,
and then it's gone.

Stories found in books, by contrast, seep into our very
being. We've all had books that lifted the fog for us,
caused the Great Aha!, and literally changed our lives.
The printed word is pondered, and it is received only when
the mind is fully engaged. Like no other medium it has
the power to stay with us.

I believe that children need a balance - we as parents
need to ensure that they do have a wide exposure to
many concepts and not be limited to only a few - or
worse - to only the same ones over and over again.

Every parent I know lives with the uneasy sense that their
children are growing up too fast, without clear values or
a real code to live by. While we pander to our kids with
computer games, and television, Susan Greefield is
simply pointing out that our children may be missing the
real basics like, respect, loyalty, and a sense of fair play.
Abstract concepts that can't be taught on purely visual
mediums alone.

Is this what we want?
That's the question Examinator is asking
us to consider.

Sorry Foxy, but whether we want this sort of media affecting our children or not, it is already here.

I agree that parents need to be vigilant in ensuring that their kids receive a balanced upbringing and are given a wide variety of education and entertainment, as well as time alone to use their own imagination.

I am with Houellebecq on this one. The horse has already bolted and we have had online gaming and other electronic excitements for kids for years.
The kids love them and thus the parents buy them (for the adults too!), and I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop it now.

Suzie,
Yes the horses have bolted but it isn't too late that is the take away message I got from the lecture. Susan Greenfield made the clear point that *the brain grows/develops in accordance to the environment it isn't fixed, static. The synaptual connections continue to grow unless affected by disease.

I would suggest therefore that simply shaking our head and doing nothing is not a viable option.

H has a tendency to see things in terms of black or white. In reality it is neither. I get terribly frustrated with absolute anything.
In truth there is much as parents we can do. Sure it is easier as they grow. i.e. if you have an unruly 14 yo the old wisdom was that it's 12 years too late. But Professor disproves this however it is clearly more difficult.

Given my first career was in computers my lot were weaned on them.
BUT I also was the SOB that banned some games, limited both TV and computers. I was active in 9 separate clubs with them over a period.

No I wasn't the greatest Dad ever. Now grown up, they tell me that regularly but...they maintain that the one thing I got right was that I helped them to know the difference between right and wrong. And organized fun and interesting activities.

They all read which goes back to the fact that I read to them 4 out 5 nights regardless untill they were 11/12. Wrote stories for them, created fanciful characters when they were young to help them cope with situations.

What I'm saying is that it takes effort which sadly is something that many, many parents don't do.

Foxy what did you think the take away for you?

suzie,
the horse has bolted alright but quickly, close the gate before the foal follows.
yes generations of people have said that the young are getting worse. It's plain for anyone to see that that is the case. When we say the young are getting worse that means not by generation after generation. If that were the case then the world would have a lot more bad than we actually have. Each generation experiences the same symptom as they go from cradle to grave. So, as you get older your kids are either getting worse as they grow older or they stay or become better. Same for your grand children. What the interfering "experts" don't get is that learning from mistakes is not genetic whereas mentality is. Each generation has it's goody goody social experts & they always get it wrong. Generation after generation of experts fail. Why is it that supposedly stupid animals have instinctive disciplinary behaviour whereas the "intelligent humans" do their best to destroy such instincts in humans. They're just not smart enough to comprehend the importance of discipline.

Dear Examinator,

I can't understand your last question to me.

Could you re-phrase it?

He's asking whether you like McDonald's or KFC.

Dear Houellie,

Neither!

My preference is Pizza (thin-crust)

or

Chinese.

Although, an occasional Big Mac - is delish!
(no fries - of course).