Psychologist: Twitter Makes You Stupid

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

r0x0r

Distinguished
May 9, 2006
364
0
18,930
I remember reading a report on Alzheimer's which states the best way to prevent the disease is to be multi-lingual or play video games...seriously.

On another note, I haven't been on Facebook for 3 weeks and I feel happier.

[citation][nom]metro88554[/nom]And to think all those days I skipped school to play master of orion, Sim city or civilization back in the 90's was actually more productive than going to school. LOL well I got all C's and D's in high school never went to college. Yet I am a self taught engineer who makes double than my wife who has a Master's.[/citation]

Such is life; A-grade students work for C-grade students :)
 

bin1127

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2008
380
0
18,930
[citation][nom]metro88554[/nom]And to think all those days I skipped school to play master of orion, Sim city or civilization back in the 90's was actually more productive than going to school. LOL well I got all C's and D's in high school never went to college. Yet I am a self taught engineer who makes double than my wife who has a Master's.[/citation]

if you enjoy sim city or civilization then you understand handling complex situations better than 99% of working society.

Different games develops different skills. They might not be valued at IBM or some other hotshot company, but it certainly adds to being a more capable person. Not to say you should spent your life playing games but it would be wrong to view it a detriment.
 

snarfeck

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2009
43
0
18,580
[citation][nom]Andraxxus[/nom]You can't beat face to face conversation.[/citation]

unless the dude you're talking to is extremely ugly.
 

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
412
0
18,930
I find "Dr." Tracy Alloway's conclusions to be both spurious and trite. The quality of intelligence, or lack thereof, is not something that is under the control of the individual. Basically, you got what you got when your DNA coalesced after your mom and dad got busy. Nuture affects on intelligence simply act to maximize or minimize your potential, but all of that is pretty much set by the time you would even be able to use Twitter/Facebook/Myspace etc.

Futhermore, the conclusion that Youtube is bad for you is nothing more than the recycled nonsense from decades past about how "TV is bad for you" and how it will "make you stupid" and/or "rot your brain." Today, it is will known that those arguments are completely fallacious. And by extension, so are the good doctor's conclusions. I suspect she is just trying to establish herself by getting her name mentioned in some quasi-controversial fashion with the popular social-networking sites that seem to dominate the news these days.
 

mustwarnothers

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2009
36
0
18,580
[citation][nom]brendano257[/nom]I wouldn't doubt it honestly, it's kinda on the same lines as rap, how much can you butcher the language before you begin to lose something, be it language skills, IQ, general intelligence, common sense, or all of the above. Being a high school Junior, I am sometimes appalled at the amount of people who just can't spell for beans. It's sad really. Now I don't text much, and even when I use Facebook, AIM, or text, it's FULL words but with abbreviated grammar and sentence structure (if any). And I'm still a good English student, none the worse because I don't over-do it. i has good english, how 'bout u?[/citation]

I really like your Blanket statement that "Rap" butchers the english language.

Being someone who enjoys music throughout a vast range of genres, I find it funny that your concerns are "General Intelligence" and "Common sense", but obviously not generalized ignorance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Let's get things in the proper perspective.

1) Reading is not a cause of intelligence, but rather a sign of intelligence.

2) Using Twitter is not a cause of stupidity, but rather a sign of stupidity.
 

tmike

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
64
0
18,580
[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]I find "Dr." Tracy Alloway's conclusions to be both spurious and trite. (followed by additional questionable intuits) [/citation]

The brain's inclusion in the bromide "use it or lose it" is neither new nor novel. Mental performance is demonstrably improved or diminished by activities that include or exclude, respectively, the regular performance of complex tasks. Therapies exploiting this relationship are used to improve the prognosis for a number of pathologies. While I've not heard anyone argue that it actually changes IQ, I'm not sure that the distinction between potential and effective stupidity is of interest to anyone other than clinicians.

And on top of all that, you're a weenie-head.







 

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
412
0
18,930
[citation][nom]tmike[/nom](...misc blather deleted for brevity...) I'm not sure that the distinction between potential and effective stupidity is of interest to anyone other than clinicians.[/citation]

I agree, which is why I posited that she's trying to gain recognition by making an association with certain facets of pop-culture. I fail to see why you are taking exception to what I posted when you are, fundamentally, saying the same thing (except with a focus on maximizing or minimizing potential). Or did you just want the opportunity to parade around a few terms that you learned in your clinical psychology class?

[citation][nom]tmike[/nom]And on top of all that, you're a weenie-head.[/citation]
Takes one to know one. :p
 

tmike

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
64
0
18,580
[citation][nom]jellico[/nom] Or did you just want the opportunity to parade around a few terms that you learned in your clinical psychology class[/citation]

I'm neither a clinical psychologist nor have I ever taken classes in that field; I read, and avoid Twitter and So You Think You Can Dance.

However, significant evidence contradicts your claim that television is not harmful. The link between television and delayed language development in children appears to be strong, as are negative effects on dementia patients. Persons who are not in one of those two groups might be more resilient, but resilience is not immunity.

 

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
412
0
18,930
[citation][nom]tmike[/nom]However, significant evidence contradicts your claim that television is not harmful. The link between television and delayed language development in children appears to be strong, as are negative effects on dementia patients. Persons who are not in one of those two groups might be more resilient, but resilience is not immunity.[/citation]
The results of correlation studies are all too often overrated and misinterpreted. For example, is language development in a group of children delayed because of television, or is it because of aspect of delayed development that it became easier to just plant them in front of a TV? What were they watching? How long were they watching? What other environmental interactions were present?

The bottom line is this: there isn't a single, comprehensive, double-blind study conducted on a statistically significant group that has ever conclusively demonstrated negative effects of television watching. That one is right up there with the illconceived premise that violent video games cause violent behavior where none was present before. Both premises are pure sophistry.
 

tmike

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
64
0
18,580
I have long agreed that correlation studies often omit (sometimes very obvious) alternative explanations - most frequently in the people-who-eat-X-have-better-Y genre. Bugs the shit out of me.

Pragmatic acceptance of a preponderance of evidence without double-blind studies is not unreasonable, and does not necessarily lead to incorrect conclusions, to-wit: I have conducted no double-blind test to prove that my dog bites only men (well, men and some confusing-looking lesbians and redneck chicks), but I still say that if you plan on giving him a snausage, your wife should be the one to hand it to him.

As for fictional violence, a child tends to model behaviors with which he is familiar, and violence in media results in familiarity with the vernacular and behaviors of violent people - violence comes to be perceived as a reasonable and normal way to solve problems. If people were unaffected by exposure, it could be argued that violent crime would be much more uniform throughout a city, and I refuse to accept that its concentration in discrete areas is due to intentional congregation, as that does not take into account the enormous "contribution" of street violence by children (who did not choose where they live). Of course, poverty is often cited as THE cause in such cases, but I don't buy that - there are simply too many examples of impoverished nonviolent communities.
 

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
412
0
18,930
Well, like I said, I think fundamentally, we are on the same page. Ultimately, I was voicing opposition to, yet another, professional who has come out with a study to controversially model something in popular culture. My interpretation is that such actions are taken for express purpose of instant and broad exposure and name recognition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.