Skip to main content

Diigo Home

Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top n... - The Diigo Meta page

www.dailymail.co.uk/...ng-parents-neuroscientist.html - Cached - Annotated View

Public Stiky Notes

  • sharonbetts
    Sharon Betts on 2009-02-26
    Fears - but proof?
  • sharonbetts
    Sharon Betts on 2009-02-26
    Yet again - "could". I would like to read more research based facts.
  • jaronflick
    Jaron Flickinger on 2009-02-24
    The issues are that screen conversations lack body language and they tend to be anonymous. Now, those who are shy can benefit from an anonymous presence, but the irresponsible can too.
  • lblanken
    Laura Blankenship on 2009-02-24
    I don't think screen conversations are sanitised or easier.
  • dallasm12
    Dallas McPheeters on 2009-09-26
    Maybe attention spans are not becoming poor, just concentrated. Maybe the future doesn't require long attention spans. Maybe we are learning to be more concise, precise, succinct. ??
  • sueblimely
    Sue Blimely on 2009-02-25
    Imagining babies using Twitter, Facebook and playing computer games!
  • davidjordanjr47
    David Jordan on 2009-06-07
    Thus far the evolution, or change, in humans mind has proven to be fruitful for society. Of course, regretful outcomes occassionally occur, but humans are naturally reflective, and the history supports the notion that things are corrected and improved upon.
  • lblanken
    Laura Blankenship on 2009-02-24
    I was wondering the same thing as will--didn't we have to rewire throughout our evolution.
  • willrich
    Will Richardson on 2009-02-24
    Different as in worse, or maybe better? Not saying that we can't assess new technologies through old lenses, but I just wonder why different is always taken as worse.
  • sueblimely
    Sue Blimely on 2009-02-25
    Ever heard of a baby who has developed autism after spending too much time socializing online!!
  • budtheteacher
    Bud Hunt on 2009-02-24
    Having a little trouble with the cause/effect here.
  • budtheteacher
    Bud Hunt on 2009-02-24
    What a stupid thing to say. Because we *can* write without planning, doesn't mean that we always *should*.
  • jaronflick
    Jaron Flickinger on 2009-02-24
    It adds up so quickly. An hour each way on the bus playing a handheld device. Two hours at school (at least) in labs or on laptops. Two hours of research and homework. An hour of television. (Actually, my son gave up the TV to chat online for that last hour.) That adds up to about 7 hours depending on the bus ride.
  • vanmetea
    Anne Van Meter on 2009-02-24
    This may be what drives me nuts about these blanket statements. What on earth are any parents/teachers thinking when they allow kids to stay still in front of a screen for this long??

    Moderation in all things!
  • dallasm12
    Dallas McPheeters on 2009-09-26
    Do sports bars count as real life socializing? The barriers between virtual and so-called "real" are being blurred.
  • calmansi
    Claude Almansi on 2009-02-26
    Considering that you have to be 13 to participate in most social networking sites, it should be hoped indeed that children do have a chance to engage in real life socializing before that

Page Comments

  • nogbad
    Nigel Gibson on 2009-02-24
    And some schools are advocating using "Brain Training" on the Ninetendo DS in primary schools - http://snipr.com/ckt2m - can both be right (can both be wrong?)
  • msbehaviour
    Ms Behaviour on 2009-02-25
    This is from the Daily Mail which is not known for high quality journalism.
  • filsalustri
    Fil Salustri on 2009-06-10
    The article in the Mail is full of opinion, not very well disguised as a scientific outcome. It reports Dr. Greenfield's "beliefs" and "fears" - not the facts. It may be that twitter is rotting your brain, but I just won't accept it till there's real scientific information.
    I also found the Mail's use of Greenfield's title (Baroness) as extremely unscientific and, probably, manipulative.
    Also, having read the full Mail article, I see a distinct slant being put on the matter by people like Greenfield. A slant in favour of the status quo. Just because we were raised to believe that only certain kinds of social interactions were "good" doesn't mean that other types of social interactions are bad. Heck, it may be that twitter will actually create a better society (in 50 or 100 yrs). There is no scientific consensus (yet) on this, either way. Until there is, many people - including the editor of the Mail who allowed this tripe to be printed - should shut up and bugger off.
  • nsmith24
    Nadia Smith on 2009-06-10
    This article is very one-sided. The title is written to scare readers, and just reading that alone would cause some people to assume the worst without even looking into the research. However, the article does not provide good research to back these claims up. What about the beneficial uses of social networking?

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.