Google isn’t making us stupid
It makes us rather different
“Kids aren’t learning anymore, they spend all the time playing with their iPhones and can’t read or write a whole paragraph properly.” I heard this mantra over and over with different versions and I always wonder if this is really the case. Some have gone to an extreme end suggesting that “the human brain [..] is under threat from the modern world.” BOOM!!! Others are more skeptical about whether the ubiquitous technology will fundamentally change our brain structures or cognitive processes. In research, the bafflement is no different. Although we lack hard data about the neural changes of those who are addicted to technologies, researchers are trying to extrapolate the impact of technology based on what we know from cognitive neuroscience merged with controlled psychological experiments and public surveys. According to research, the impact of technology on the developing brain is both vague and complicated, with its benefits and costs.
Going back all the way to the past, I’ve been using the computer since I was at the age of 7 or so as one of the “early adapters” in my town, and I’ve been connected to the internet since I was at the age of 13. I’m surely a good fit to belong to the so-called “technology natives” generation. I’ve always wondered if technology had any tremendous effects on my physical and mental development. But this question hasn’t been too serious for me until I began my graduate study of Cognition & Neuroscience.
Although I’ve spent only a semester in the school, I’ve been privileged to study the different structures and functions of the human brain. I don’t claim having any authority on this topic because of such little exposure, but I will claim that any scientifically based arguments about this topic, like the one I’m trying to put here, are worth the read, for they may open new horizons of insights.
Technology won’t hinder creativity
We all acknowledge that children are far more creative than adults. This is why they can adapt to new technology gadgets without being told how to use it. I can remember the first time I sat in front of a computer screen with my brothers, trying our best to click everywhere while we stare at the screen to see what may happen. After weeks of intensive “shooting in the dark” we were able to learn together how to use MS Word and manipulate the settings of our computer, without being told how to do it or understanding a single word as none of us was able to speak English.
So what kind of neural mechanism that may underlie such creative capacities ? The exact answer might not be clear yet (as the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience is still in its infancy) but I will speculate just to make the point that technology won’t be able to impede something that is more fundamental and biological like creativity. Creativity is a biological as well as mental phenomena. But due to the difficulty of investigating it, there’s still a lack of solid research. However, there are some clues from the field of developmental neuroscience that will get us somewhere to the end of this discussion. So, let’s repeat the question, what are those observations that present us with some clues to what is going behind the scenes of creativity ?
Two impressive biological processes that have always amazed me are neural pruning and synaptogenesis. During fetal development your brain makes more neurons than it actually needs. But a process called neural pruning takes place in a very controlled design to get rid of neurons that don’t wire up optimally. This wiring competition continues after birth as the child try to interact with her environment and makes sense of her surroundings. In contrast, synaptogenesis causes her brain to make billions of new connections with every bit of information learned in order to make sense of it, and this lasts until the age of 3.
How might this explain creativity in children ? many scientists speculate that creativity, as a neural process, is about associations. Being able to associate different things to come up with a novel outcome, and that is gained by connecting two different neural pathways that don’t usually connect. In neuroimaging studies, for example, it’s suggested that more creative individuals have more activity in association cortices (i.e. dedicated areas to integrate sensory inputs into more complex perceptions) when performing tasks that challenge them to make associations. This increased activity might hint that more pathways are being visited, and as a result more novel ideas are being generated.
So, my point here is simply that creativity is a built-in endowment and humans will always be creative. Technology will not override our genetic make-up which transcribed then to build our neural tissues (which remained unchanged for about quarter a million year, quite an old design.)
Technology has already been wired up in my brain somehow. Am I more or less creative as a result ? Not really, I think. Mechanisms of development (associations, plasticity, neural pruning, .. etc) aim to lean the neural circuitry for the most optimal outcomes in our lives. True that this design might be disrupted by brain injuries or mental disorders (which sometimes kick some creative skills off in a syndrome called “Savant Syndrome”), but for the most part it remains stable.
creativity is a built-in endowment and humans will always be creative.
Frightened by the negative effects of technology some read about in reliable research outlets, they might think that it’s reasonable to assume that technology will still somehow override the creative skills especially in the developing brain. I think those who worry about that are missing a point. Before putting my point forth, you may have in mind that, according to this research, the vulnerable mental functions to the impact of technology include: the attention span, social functions, memory and sensory skills, visuospatial skills, emotional skills and many others. The underestimated point here is that neuroplasticity, yet another astonishing biological mechanism, mediates these effects as well as our creative capabilities.
So, after having talked about creativity and how it’s mediated in our brains, what can be said about the “negative” effects of technology on the brain ? and should we be worried at all ? Let’s figure that out in the next segments.
Our ever-changing brains
Because a child’s brain is still developing and malleable, frequent use of technology will have an fundamental effect on how it wires and develop. It’s likely the case that the effects will last and change our brains forever the way literacy did to our brains.
So why is this ?
Neuroplasticity refers to the plastic property of our brains. The brain constantly changes itself in response to many factors, learning is among of them. It changes itself in both levels of structure and function to adapt and serve us the best way possible. But this isn’t free of costs. It does so in the expense of already present structures and functions due to limitations of space and energy. For example, when you learn playing guitar or typing, cortical representations of fingers will expand as a result of excessive training. However, this will make other neighbouring cortical representations shrink as well.
Now, if we think about how technology is affecting our brains, it may does affect partial areas or functions (suppose it shrinks certain structures) but it will set other resources free and await to be recruited to serve in other newer functions. This means that we might get better at the newer capabilities that will mark the fingerprints of our future lifestyles. I know the picture is way more complicated than that, but I see too many of those who complain about technology fail to recognize our biological constraints which may convert those to benefits and change our lives on the long run.
We might get better at the newer capabilities that will mark the fingerprints of our future lifestyles
Future generations might not need to actually know something rather than knowing where to look. Not having to hold information in their brains may allow them engage in more abstract processing of information such as critical thinking and problem solving. This alone might result in a whole unforeseeable horizons of thinking, knowledge, tools and problems as well.
Brain and environment
Technology is not bad. We all might acknowledge the fact that the pace of change in our modern world has increased dramatically. And we know as well that the brain isn’t in a vacuum where it’s purely isolated from environment. Neural plasticity, as we’ve seen, suggests that the brain is interacting with the environment in significant levels that may alter some neural structures. Research in neuroanthropology aims to uncover such differences and explain how different cultural settings result in different brain structures and how different brain structures may also result in different cultures.
Take the effect of literacy on the human brain as example, we know that the illiterate brain is structurally different from the literate brain. How the literate brain is different ? Maryanne Wolf, cognitive neuroscientist explains:
… we human beings were never born to read. Depending on several factors, the brain rearranges critical areas in vision, language and cognition in order to read. Which circuit parts are used depends on factors like the writing system (eg English v Chinese); the formation (eg how well the child is taught); and the medium (eg a sign, a book, the internet). For example, the Chinese reading brain requires more cortical areas involved in visual memory than the English reader because of the thousands of characters. In its formation, the circuit utilises fairly basic processes to decode and, with time and cognitive effort, learns to incorporate “deep reading processes” into the expert reading circuit.
Although our brains are so plastic and have been responsive to all of the revolutionary advances (writing, logic, science, machinery, ..etc), the hard code of our biology remained unchanged, as I’ve hinted earlier. So think of all of these changes as occurring at the level of the organs not to our genetic makeup.
It shouldn’t be surprising that humans, more than any creature, exploit nonbiological aids to supplement their basic thinking which creates an extended cognitive systems, not bounded by our bony skulls.
We’ve learned now how our brains are ever-changing and paradoxically stable organs as well. There are many levels in which we can view our brains, and surely way more unknowns and unknown unknowns about our brains. The beauty is that it’s very hard to claim that a single thing, like technology, would fundamentally change our thinking process, though it may influence brain structures. But Plato didn’t figure that out, like many of those who worry that our brains will no longer be the same. In a classical text from Plato talking about the invention of writing and its impact on “the art of remembering” or memory, he writes:
The fact is that this invention [of writing] will produce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it. They will not need to exercise their memories, being able to rely on what is written, calling things to mind no longer from within themselves by their own unaided powers, but under the stimulus of external marks that are alien to themselves. So it’s not a recipe for memory, but for reminding, that you have discovered. And as for wisdom, you’re equipping your pupils with only a semblance of it, not with truth. Thanks to you and your invention, your pupils will be widely read without benefit of a teacher’s instruction; in consequence, they’ll entertain the delusion that they have wide knowledge, while they are, in fact, for the most part incapable of real judgment. (Phaedrus 67–71)
If Plato were to be still alive today, he might’ve already gone mad. I suspect if we’ll be able to figure out for what reason, but I venture to say that one of them is the never-decreasing physical and mental laziness, associated often with technology. Actually for this one you don’t need Plato, you might’ve heard your grandfather, or old-fashioned teachers, complaining about the newer generations.
But are we really indolent and lazy with all of the tools and gadgets we utilise ? I don’t think so. Then how should we look at the ubiquitous technology and our continuing adaptations ?
Well, a helpful and informative perspective is to look at these technologies and its gadgets as “liberating extensions.” They help us in thinking, memorising, learning and doing. They are our extended hands, eyes, ears, and mental tools. Look at the way you sketch when you deeply think about something. You extend your thinking to an external aid that will help you to arrange, recognize, and pronounce your ideas. It shouldn’t be surprising that humans, more than any creature, exploit nonbiological aids to supplement their basic thinking which creates an extended cognitive systems, not bounded by our bony skulls.
So it’s yet to be scientifically determined if technology and the sedentary lifestyle encouraged by it will render our brains more stupid, less functional and prove their imminent threat to our brains as some claim, or that our brains will enhance their plastic potentials to reinvent themselves to adapt and solve the kind of problems they are designed to face.
For me, I am a firm believer that our naturally creative brains with the underlying and unchanged “blind biology” will always win. They don’t care much about our ideas of whether Google is making us stupid or genius. It’s no question that we will be able to adapt, and it’s likely that those new adaptations are the ones that will pave the way out to the neural substrates for the living in the 21 century and centuries yet to come.
The bottom line, especially for those who’ve scrolled all the way down just to read the conclusion: sleep tight and forget about the impact of technology on your brain, you’ll be fine.
Further Readings:
How is the internet changing the way you think ? — Edge.com
The Impact of Technology on Human Wellbeing — Special Review
