The Surprising Truth About ‘Brain Rot’ ⇥ theguardian.com

Amy Fleming, the Guardian:

The “study” that spearheaded this cascade of concern in 2005, and is still quoted in the press today, claimed that using email lowered IQ more than cannabis. But Shane O’Mara, a professor of experimental brain research at Trinity College Dublin, smelled a rat when he couldn’t find the original paper. It turns out there never was one – it was just a press release. That finding was the result of one day’s consultancy that a psychologist did for Hewlett Packard. He would later state that the exaggerated presentation of this work became the bane of his life.

Alongside a survey on email usage, the psychologist conducted a one-day lab experiment in which eight subjects were shown to have reduced problem-solving abilities when email alerts appeared on their screens and their phones were ringing. He later wrote: “This is a temporary distraction effect – not a permanent loss of IQ. The equivalences with smoking pot and losing sleep were made by others, against my counsel.”

A little detail I appreciate in online news is noticing where the links are pointed. Most often, publishers love to cite their own past work to establish their credibility, keep people within the same website, and for search optimization reasons. But what happens when they want to point out a previous error? One option is to also keep that link in-house — a bold move but one that, I think, also reinforces readers’ trust. A sassier option is to link to a competitor, as the Guardian did here linking to the BBC. But the Guardian also uncritically covered this 2005 survey, albeit referring to it not as a “study” but as a series of “clinical trials”. It carries no correction notice or update.

Fleming’s article is quite good, however. It is a necessary correction to several widespread myths about the effects of technology on our brains. I am reminded of Clive Thompson’s “Smarter Than You Think”, which I intend to revisit. That is not to say new technologies do not have any negative effects, but let us not repeat the same old moral panics.