Neuroscientist Dismisses Dementia Claims as "Junk Science"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Considering how the original article was published by a fucking TABLOID I didn't really need proof that the claim was bullshit.
Still, it's nice to see this stuff debunked by actual science.
Still, it's nice to see this stuff debunked by actual science.
This is the problem of where science meets journalism meets joe public. The scientific community can tell if something is junk science or not, by whether it has been published and has been peer reviewed, confirmed via experimentation.
Journalists are not as through about reporting science conjecture as science fact. They chase the sensational rather than what has been checked through the rigour of the scientific community.
Joe Public stands no chance. They don't get properly taught how the scientific process works properly and take science reporting as being completely factual. I studied science to degree level and there was hardly any coverage of how scientific studies are published and reviewed, etc.
Something really needs to be done to clue Joe Public up so they take science reporting with a pinch more salt. And question the reporting. 'Yes media, you are reporting about this research, but has it been published and has it been peer reviewed or tested experimentally?' Until this happens anyone with a few letters before or after their name can get away with spouting all sorts of rubbish and be believed because it's science right.....
Journalists are not as through about reporting science conjecture as science fact. They chase the sensational rather than what has been checked through the rigour of the scientific community.
Joe Public stands no chance. They don't get properly taught how the scientific process works properly and take science reporting as being completely factual. I studied science to degree level and there was hardly any coverage of how scientific studies are published and reviewed, etc.
Something really needs to be done to clue Joe Public up so they take science reporting with a pinch more salt. And question the reporting. 'Yes media, you are reporting about this research, but has it been published and has it been peer reviewed or tested experimentally?' Until this happens anyone with a few letters before or after their name can get away with spouting all sorts of rubbish and be believed because it's science right.....
So if a Neurosurgeon at a top-rated hospital recommended trepanning, you would go for it, since title>the need to provide actual evidence?albino boo said:
There's a lot of red flags in Greenfield's statements, but most notable to me is the reliance on weasel words like "several studies." This is a common way for a disingenuous argument to be presented. As a professor, she should probably have the base level of sense to actually cite them.
"most people" know that.
I personally can't wait until the generation of people who still see videogames as "a new threat to society" finally sod off and move on to the next thing. In the next few decades we're probably going to have a new form of ground breaking media entertainment that will come under the exact same attack and scrutiny. I mean, if holodecks were created tomorrow, there'd be thousands of "scientists" and "experts" denouncing it as "the fall of society"
Everything in moderation people.
Everything in moderation people.
There is a strange little thing is science called peer review. Also because someone is not head of department why does that suggest some sort of inferiority? My supervisor is not head of his department but he knows a hell of a lot more than the head in his specific field.albino boo said:
Also nice try with your evidence but
That is for teaching NOT research. They have separate scores and tables for this. It is also not subject specific.your link said:
This is research score.http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/biosi/research/index.html said:
Why are all the Baronesses evil? Greenfield... Thatcher... She Who Does Not Appear On This Thread... I expect David Cameron to be made a baron, but still.Seventh Actuality said:
Not just does Greenfield say it makes your brain mush, but she flips up the very definition of dementia, from what I can see. Dementia is slow, gradual, long term loss of all brain function of any type. She appears to be making it out as a sudden loss of brain use, confusing the public (pseudoscience in my eyes) and giving The Sun a field day.
So, I'm guessing that Ms. Greenfield never felt joy in her life? How else could you confuse, "Extended exposure to video games leads to dementia," with, "Simply having fun?"
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
Well, I have mixed opinions about both of the articles (original and rebuttal) and the responses they have received. For one "peer review" is garbage by it's very nature and exists to maintain an existing status quo. Scientists and academics have vested interests in maintaining their own work and that it's grown from as being "correct" and "the standard" for their own livelyhoods and careers, "peer review" is a way of trying to shoot down or discredit anything that challenges that, and maintain the status quo. I find it ironic to see people saying "thank god for this" when it's in defense of something they agree with, where they would otherwise generally be against it. If anything I think academia is a lot more closed than it should be in a general sense.... which has little to do with the subject being discussed here.
That said, the bottom line is that The Baroness is setting out a theory people don't like in a very dramatic way, she's being shot down by equally dramatic people opposing that theory, and honestly while I'm a supporter of video games I think everyone here sounds like a moron. The Baroness being an alarmist, and the guy writing the response coming accross as a giant wanker (to use a properly european term) himself with his own equally ridiculous bus analogy. What I think about the subject as a whole aside, both sides of this one would generally have be rallying to oppose whatever they were saying on general principle based on attitude and presentation.
That said all of the science babble aside, I am beginning to wonder if perhaps we are bombarding children with the media too early, and that goes beyond the issue of video games themselves. All of the techniques for psychological and sociological manipulation put into products which can range from the way things are phrased in adds, to the way light and color are used are becoming more intense and ridiculous as adults build up greater degrees of resistance. There are entire classes on advertising and using images, sound, lights, and inherant instincts to manipulate people. You aim this crap at kids from an early age and I'm not surprised if stuff that borders on low-end hypnosis (without actualy being hypnosis) starts to fry connections in there. Trust me, if you really look into some of the stuff behind modern advertising it's scarier than the science fiction warning us about it from decades ago surprisingly enough.
That said, and while it might not be classic dementia, we are seeing kids wind up in the same place, being similarly detached from reality. One "cute" video going around right now has a toddler who upon being given a magazine tries to manipulate it like an Ipad and freaks out when it doesn't work "because it's broken", and then is shown to have a reasonable degree of proficiency when it comes to using an actual Ipad.
The thing is that most toddlers should be able to tell the differance between one of their electronic toys, and a book. Babies in cribs having their noise makers with the buttons, and their big colorful alphabet books and such traditionally, and they CAN distinguish between objects and figure out how to use things. To not be able to tell the differance between a book and a block in their hands represents a problem. While people are laughing about this "because it's cute" I think we're looking at a degree of detachment and developmental impairment that could be considered fairly scary.
Now I am not one who supports that ridiculous "no TV before the age of 2" garbage or any of that stuff, but I do think certain things need to be looked at with an eye towards solving problems without banning things outright. Rather than say attacking all TV, I think rather advertisers should have a lot more limitations on what they can do in promoting their products. Making someone aware of a product is one thing, but trying to intentionally burn a meme into their brain using subtle manipulations of light, color, and psychology and so on goes a bit beyond that. While I have no problem with toddlers with their own early-childhood games, media, and electronic products, I do think care needs to be taken to ensure kids learn the basics. Even if print media is diminishing in it's important I still think it's something kids should be made instinctively aware of from the very beginning, nobody, at any age, should be trying to manipulate a bloody magazine like an Ipad.
In short while I'm on a slightly differant track than the Baroness, I think she's ultimatly coming down to very similar things, and in there are some very valid points. She's just being a jerk about it, and trying to pick the popular "video game boogieman" as her target to get some free press for what is otherwise in of itself a very bland point.
That said, the bottom line is that The Baroness is setting out a theory people don't like in a very dramatic way, she's being shot down by equally dramatic people opposing that theory, and honestly while I'm a supporter of video games I think everyone here sounds like a moron. The Baroness being an alarmist, and the guy writing the response coming accross as a giant wanker (to use a properly european term) himself with his own equally ridiculous bus analogy. What I think about the subject as a whole aside, both sides of this one would generally have be rallying to oppose whatever they were saying on general principle based on attitude and presentation.
That said all of the science babble aside, I am beginning to wonder if perhaps we are bombarding children with the media too early, and that goes beyond the issue of video games themselves. All of the techniques for psychological and sociological manipulation put into products which can range from the way things are phrased in adds, to the way light and color are used are becoming more intense and ridiculous as adults build up greater degrees of resistance. There are entire classes on advertising and using images, sound, lights, and inherant instincts to manipulate people. You aim this crap at kids from an early age and I'm not surprised if stuff that borders on low-end hypnosis (without actualy being hypnosis) starts to fry connections in there. Trust me, if you really look into some of the stuff behind modern advertising it's scarier than the science fiction warning us about it from decades ago surprisingly enough.
That said, and while it might not be classic dementia, we are seeing kids wind up in the same place, being similarly detached from reality. One "cute" video going around right now has a toddler who upon being given a magazine tries to manipulate it like an Ipad and freaks out when it doesn't work "because it's broken", and then is shown to have a reasonable degree of proficiency when it comes to using an actual Ipad.
The thing is that most toddlers should be able to tell the differance between one of their electronic toys, and a book. Babies in cribs having their noise makers with the buttons, and their big colorful alphabet books and such traditionally, and they CAN distinguish between objects and figure out how to use things. To not be able to tell the differance between a book and a block in their hands represents a problem. While people are laughing about this "because it's cute" I think we're looking at a degree of detachment and developmental impairment that could be considered fairly scary.
Now I am not one who supports that ridiculous "no TV before the age of 2" garbage or any of that stuff, but I do think certain things need to be looked at with an eye towards solving problems without banning things outright. Rather than say attacking all TV, I think rather advertisers should have a lot more limitations on what they can do in promoting their products. Making someone aware of a product is one thing, but trying to intentionally burn a meme into their brain using subtle manipulations of light, color, and psychology and so on goes a bit beyond that. While I have no problem with toddlers with their own early-childhood games, media, and electronic products, I do think care needs to be taken to ensure kids learn the basics. Even if print media is diminishing in it's important I still think it's something kids should be made instinctively aware of from the very beginning, nobody, at any age, should be trying to manipulate a bloody magazine like an Ipad.
In short while I'm on a slightly differant track than the Baroness, I think she's ultimatly coming down to very similar things, and in there are some very valid points. She's just being a jerk about it, and trying to pick the popular "video game boogieman" as her target to get some free press for what is otherwise in of itself a very bland point.
Yay on showing that videogames do not cause Dementia but that icon next to the story scares the pants off me, but I just can't look away....
the eyes...
the grin....
woah...
O_O
I'm scared now
o_o
the eyes...
the grin....
woah...
O_O
I'm scared now
o_o
Time to roll it out again.
Not that I have too much of a problem with someone taking down Greenfield's research but, for those who are crying "peer review", why not apply that to Burnett's statement as well?
Not that I have too much of a problem with someone taking down Greenfield's research but, for those who are crying "peer review", why not apply that to Burnett's statement as well?