Hi Natalie,
At 16:28 20/11/2010 -0800, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Despite the amazing abilities to broadcast to billions and to rally
millions to a cause, I suspect we will see a decline in brilliant ideas
from youth who are raised within the technologies culture.
Personal observations aside, I was watching the last half of a report on
the definite dumbing down of our society due to the obsession with
blackberry's, cell phones and internet/video games. Their knowledge is
growing increasingly limited to what little is offered on the net, where
googling passes for thorough research.
My own belief is that intelligence is so multifarious that we only tend to
see (in others) what we want to see. For example, as James Flynn's studies
have shown, African-American IQ test scores have improved at around 7% per
decade for the last 80 years or so and white-Americans' by about 2% per
decade. This is not because there's been a gain in "intelligence" but
because the culture-set of the testees has become increasingly similar to
the more scientific (classificatory) culture set of the testers (much more
similar between then and now).
One thing that was stressed was that multi-tasking does not prove to get
better results. Quite the opposite. The possibility of exploring an idea
fully or to other levels, as well as possibly stymieing the creative
process altogether was raised, as was the fact that switching back and
forth across the lobes actually stresses the brain out. Brain scans show
that the brain has to switch when faced with varying tasks. Full spread
becomes limited, cutting off some parts of the brain that may otherwise
become engaged.They also claimed, showing scans, that the brain can shrink
over long periods of chronic stress from tasks that don't challenge the
senses enough, like games, web-surfing, etc.
They dressed up a guy in a clown suit and had him wheel his unicycle round
an out door area where college kids take smoke, cell phone and texting
breaks. Only 25% even noticed anything unusual, they were so involved with
their own little toy worlds. Driving while using a cell phone is bad
enough, but texting, too? Raising kids, car repairs, rocket
science--everyone is limiting their attention span by focusing on the
energies to or from a certain device.
I suggest that the above describe two different phenomena: (a)
brain-switching from one task to another, (b) trying to cope with too many
channels of information simultaneously. As to (a), there's a high
correlation between different skills. Individuals who are very good at one
task are usually good at others also -- and vice versa. This argues against
switching itself being stressful. No doubt there'll be a lot more evidence
on this point as brain scans become more detailed. As to (b) there is
plenty of evidence already that narrow attention spans are normal in
everyday life. (Four-fifths of our brain cells are inhibitory, tending to
block and isolate most of the potential data coming in. while only
one-fifth are excitatory. Otherwise we would be having repeated epileptic
fits.)
Another point raised was the professionally observed fact that kids are
becoming very poor face-to-face communicators. They are so busy texting
that they don't become engaged often enough in real life situations, and
are losing out on social skills, psychological tools and signs, and even
chemical signals vital to a well-rounded education.
In modern life, adulthood (in terms of economic independence) is delayed
longer than ever before in history. We may have given up on 7-year
apprenticeships but have vastly extended the number of years of "education"
before young people are allowed into the adult world. The culture gap
between youth and adults has never been wider than today. I doubt whether
there's any loss of social skills between young people even though adults
may be finding it increasingly difficult to interpret their style.
One kid had to have his leg amputated because he stayed in a chair all the
day long and developed thrombosis. Dance has become regimented to the
offerings of media or Wii, pop music is all soupy today, and despite the
fact that most aspire to write a book, most people (according to a CBC
interview), youth included, haven't read a single book on any subject in
the last year.
So where did you come up with that statistic on brilliant ideas? I'd be
curious to see the entire context of the stats, and what is considered to
be brilliant.
Yes, that's the difficulty. Some brilliant ideas take years or even
generations to be recognized as such. A high proportion are initially
scorned and rejected. An historian is probably the best judge as to the
relative rankings of ideas -- and also give evidence of the age of the
creators. In my lifetime I've come across several (scientific) papers and
(biographical) books which pretty convincingly show that the best outputs
of artists and scientists occur at around, and usually below, 30 years of
age. As to the enormous growth of neurons in frontal lobes between puberty
and about 25-30 years of age this has not been scientifically proved in the
usual experimental way (hardly so!) but ask almost any neuroscientist
whether this is, or is not, a byproduct discovery of other research.
The latest information I've read on brains is that they keep getting
better, actually continue to provide new cells, especially when well
exercised and challenged.
That is so. We are able to grow new neurons at almost any age if we set
about trying to learn a new skill. But the pre-30 year-old surge of frontal
lobe neurons is something that applies to everyone from puberty onwards,
whether they are taking on challenges or not. It is probably linked to the
equally surging sex hormones. It is reasonable to assume that the frontal
lobes (broadly involved with forward planning) are refining the basic
skills learned in pre-puberty for an adult world -- diplomacy, patience,
the acculturation of raw emotions, more specialization, etc.
-------------
If I have any particular interest at all in my retirement years it is
genetics. And here, the most astonishing discoveries are being made, one of
which has a bearing on the above subject. This is to do with epigenetics.
These are the agents which select alternative coalitions of our genes and
also their stops and starts. Also new agents can arise in an individual
according to particular environmental stimuli. For example, a pair of
identical twins (born with identical genes and epigenes) will gradually
differ from one another -- behaviourally and physiologically -- in the
course of their lifetimes according to the different environments which
they subsequently experience (also epigenes will enhance or subdue
predispositions to specific genetic diseases). Also, these epigenetic
agents are heritable. They are not so permanently enshrined as genes
themselves but can continue, intensify (or attenuate) for generations, even
for hundreds or thousands of years. In the modern world, where young people
have far more leisure than ever before (and have taken to the mobile phone
far more exuberantly than adults!) -- and many more pre-job years -- then
they are experiencing a far different set of cultural/environmental stimuli
than adults. The normal almost imperceptible culture changes which takes
place between generations are, I believe, taking place more rapidly than
ever before. If these have been, and will continue to be, carried forward
epigenetically (which some biologists already think is likely) then we can
expect an even wider gulf as time goes on. Just to choose one example,
there has been a distinct falling away of active support (and voting) for
political parties by the young for many decades -- and this is already
longer than one generation. It could be that this detachment is not only
intensifying contemporaneously but also epigenetically. It may be that the
modern practice of voting for politicians will become increasingly
irrelevant and that an entirely new system of governance may evolve. Just a
thought!
Keith
Natalia
On 11/20/2010 1:29 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Thanks, Arthur. A very useful article to consider!
In "Small change", Malcolm Gladwell writes an article introducing a
powerful social innovation (the revolutionary potential of the
Internet/Twitter, etc) and then argues against those such as Clay Shirky
by saying "the revolution will not be tweeted"! Gladwell concludes that
networking is only good for networking but, because it is a lateral
activity, then it's good for nothing else. A monumental non sequitur.
Let me start at another point which I've frequently mentioned on
FW. Ninety-five per cent of all new key ideas throughout history occur
to people under 30. We now know the reason why. The frontal lobes of
sub-30 year-olds are still growing millions of new neurons. Their brain
networks are not yet largely taken up with the conventional culture and
beliefs around them. If there are to be any solutions at all to the
problems of the Western industrial-consumerist age in which joblessness
(among the young particularly) and welfare dependency (among the over 50s
particularly) are not steadily growing, then it's going to be sub-30
year-old brains that are going to supply it. The odds are 95:5 against
the possibility that the post-30 year-old brains of economists,
politicians, civil servants or any other pundits are going to supply
them. And, of course, it is the young who are by far the most
enthusiastic users of mobile phones. It is they who will be networking
promising ideas and, it is to be hoped, the results of practical
experiments among them.
(Interestingly, the other theme on FW -- that of the CERN reactor -- for
which we currently have to thank the impressive contribution of Pete
Vincent -- is the product of young people. Questions about antimatter,
the "God particle" (Higgs boson) -- two of the principal items being
explored -- are due, respectively, to the 26 year-old frontal lobes of
Paul Dirac and those of Peter Higgs, also 26 years old when he first
suspected it.)
Keith
Read more
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz15o4SyQas>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz15o4SyQas
At 21:23 19/11/2010 -0500, you wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01CB8830.0D4F0000"
Content-Language: en-us
For those of you interested in 'networks' -- and their link to social
media and social activism -- enjoy this article!
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
