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?