# Social websites harm children's brains



## micropage7 (Oct 25, 2011)

Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist


Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned.

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred.

The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day.

But they will strike a chord with parents and teachers who complain that many youngsters lack the ability to communicate or concentrate away from their screens.

More than 150million use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts.

A further six million have signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets users circulate text messages about themselves.

But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good.





Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 25, 2011)

good post ,dont need to be a social scientist to figure that one out,haha,im sure it does damage to adults who use those services too,
it may be no accident that it "rewires the brain"  television does the same thing,in its own way too,

its the "i" generation, frankly,i dont use any of those "services",as apart from stealing everything about me and my choices and habits without asking, or burying it within eulas and terms of service more complicated than neurosurgery,and selling it for profit to anonymous sources that may be of dubious trust,the fascination to know everything about everyone just aint there ,privacy is invaluable and anyone who seeks to breach it is suspect by that motivation alone bar any other nefarious intentions,
and any child i know is steered well away from it all by me,exactly because of the reasoning within your excellent post.


----------



## qubit (Oct 25, 2011)

Sounds like yet someone else trying to make a name for themselves by publishing a sensationalist story.  Anyway, makes for good forum fodder.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 25, 2011)

qubit said:


> Sounds like yet someone else trying to make a name for themselves by publishing a sensationalist story.  Anyway, makes for good forum fodder.



you may consider it sensationalist,but that doesnt negate the validity of the results !
i see it more as common sense,and a logical translation of a larger evolving problem,
duping adults is one thing,but kids?


----------



## qubit (Oct 25, 2011)

I don't think that it actually is harmful to kids. That's the point of my post.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 25, 2011)

qubit said:


> Sounds like yet someone else trying to make a name for themselves by publishing a sensationalist story.  Anyway, makes for good forum fodder.



I would dissagree completely man, if you don't think socialising ina  different way doesn't affect development then you're not stepping back and looking at the situation.

( Or human development in general)

Go study child development  It's really interesting and will pretty much cause you to agree with this persons statements.

( Hell it's observable in for real, the amount of 16-18 year olds I see who behave like they're actually on the internet still is crazy)






Should note there is a LOT of studies regarding this sort of thing, pretty much all of them come up with similar conclusions.







Hell I done most of my socialising from 11-16 on the internet and I know for a fact it changed the way I would of developed.



(My mother is a paediatric nurse who specialises in mental health in children and as it's an interesting subject I talk to her a lot about it)


----------



## Mussels (Oct 25, 2011)

as much as i use this stuff daily, i'd be a total ass with my kids (if/when i have them) and make sure the real world comes first.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> as much as i use this stuff daily, i'd be a total ass with my kids (if/when i have them) and make sure the real world comes first.



Snap, going to try and get my kits to master themselves before they go about trying to master machines


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Oct 25, 2011)

Finally, it paid off to ignore most of this social bullsh*tting stuff. 
Facebook, the greatest Disease of them all, and the most annoying 
(do you have Facebook? Why dont you have Facebook? Please, sign up for Facebook, its soooo great!)

People seem to have forgotten, that you should socialize with others in your RL... and not virtually...


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 25, 2011)

Couldn't this same argument have been told by neuroscientists with the advent of the internet/PC?

Back to BF3...


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 25, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> Couldn't this same argument have been told by neuroscientists with the advent of the internet/PC?
> 
> Back to BF3...



Well yeah, that's the idea if you don't make sure you're kids are using it sparingly then it will affect their development.

Hell think of all the western women in the world who subconciously beleive a prince charming exists because of all the media that gets thrown at them as kids.


Every little thing effects how we end up so it would make sense to pay attention to what we're feeding the minds of our children.


I.E don't let them sit there all day on facebook letting that become the "norm" as it will effect how they behave away from it.





Where as it seems the current trend is for parents to think " it's only a game" "it's only tv" and let their children have free reign and wonder why their kids don't turn out as expected.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 25, 2011)

Damage?

I question anyone who would use that phrasing.  The reason is simple, a "damaged" child evokes a knee-jerk reaction from people.  Said reaction evokes changes, not by presenting facts but by relying upon an emotional response.


That said, this is sensationalist at best and slanderous at worst.  People grow and develop based upon their environment.  We understand this as a fact, otherwise our society would not accept psychiatry because we would not believe it could result in a cure.  By exposing people to different forms of communication you alter how they percieve interaction, which has also been proven by countless studies (Pavlov being the funniest).

Does it not follow that new forms of communication will always create "damaged" individuals.  Previous archetypes are cast aside, resulting in a new type of communication and understanding.  People, prior to the printing press, passed knowledge through apprenticeships and only communicated locally.  Prior to radio, people got news days or months after it happened.  Prior to television people had to imagine happenings, with the rare exceptions of pictures in newspapers.  With the invention of the internet we get information and interact, without waiting for anything.

It stands to reason that the dynamic of social interactions changes with new technologies.  These new people are not "damaged," they are a paradigm shift.  To not acknowledge this is a crime against them.  Different is not damaged, and the author fails to make this critical link.  


My opinion, like the opinions of "damage" expressed by the author, is that the author is trying desperately to proove a point.  They walked into the study with an underlying preconception of damages, and "prooved" such to their own satisfaction.  Overlooking what is a unique development, in favor of a sensational conclusion, is science that has not been grounded in the scientific method.


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 25, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> People grow and develop based upon their environment.  We understand this as a fact, otherwise our society would not accept psychiatry because we would not believe it could result in a cure.



It many cases it can not provide a cure: take paedophilia for instance or repeat offenders of any crime who received psychiatric sessions. 

Change does not have to be positive and environments can have a detrimental effect on their inhabitants.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 25, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> It many cases it can not provide a cure: take paedophilia for instance or repeat offenders of any crime who received psychiatric sessions.
> 
> Change does not have to be positive and environments can have a detrimental effect on their inhabitants.



I failed to mention negatives, this was my oversight.  Additionally, the acceptance is societal, not on an individual basis.  Nothing is 100% accepted by everyone, because there is no universal idea that someone cannot dismiss using their own internal logics.

At the same time, you are prooving my sentiment is correct.  Environmental stimuli do influence people.  Enough said.


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 25, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I failed to mention negatives, this was my oversight.
> 
> At the same time, you are prooving my sentiment is correct.  Environmental stimuli do influence people.  Enough said.



For my part, enough has not been said. You are too eager to acknowledge that change occurs without evaluating such change. I fail to see how I have proved your sentiment to be correct when I largely disagree with what you said. Of course environmental stimuli affect people, but their effect can be negative. It is not simply a question of people adapting to whatever they encounter and getting on with things. There is nothing to guarantee that we are in constant social evolution, indeed, in may aspects we may be worse off as time goes by.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 25, 2011)

i guess anyone is welcome to allow there kids to "share" on facebook and twitter,
but dont go crying if or when somehow they get stuffed over by some creep or end up being bullied or harassed/stalked by the bazillion weirdos who frequent such sites,not to mention other effects that could be factored into it.
call it sensationalism if it behooves one,but i personally feel afeared to allow any kids i know near it, and way before this so called study was posted.
its a fact that some very harmful stuff has come from facebook to do with children,if one is going to let kids on it,it would be wise to carefully monitor such activities in my op.
kids are naturally trusting sometimes,and that spells a world of trouble on those sites.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 25, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I failed to mention negatives, this was my oversight.  Additionally, the acceptance is societal, not on an individual basis.  Nothing is 100% accepted by everyone, because there is no universal idea that someone cannot dismiss using their own internal logics.
> 
> At the same time, you are prooving my sentiment is correct.  Environmental stimuli do influence people.  Enough said.



True, but you have to admit ( certainly if you live in England)

That kids and teens are right little fuckers. ( no one wants more fuckers in the world)

I don't mean in the way that I used to be a right little fucker either.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 25, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> For my part, enough has not been said. You are too eager to acknowledge that change occurs without evaluating such change. I fail to see how I have proved your sentiment to be correct when I largely disagree with what you said. Of course environmental stimuli affect people, but their effect can be negative. It is not simply a question of people adapting to whatever they encounter and getting on with things. There is nothing to guarantee that we are in constant social evolution, indeed, in may aspects we may be worse off as time goes by.



1) I did not state that you prooved my conclusion was true.  I stated that you prooved that environmental stimuli change people, whether that be for the better or worse.
2) You assume that I so not think change is a concern.  I never stated this.  I attacked the author for sensationalism, and a lack of desire to see change as anything but damaging.
3) Language.  As anyone who took so much as psych 101 would know, the choice of wording is as important as the words themselves.  The author assumes change is damage, which I cannot abide.

4) *I never stated change is inherently good.*

5) You are on a forum.  Discussion is what happens here.  As I have learned in the past, discourse either steels ones resolve or removes it. If you take offense to what I say you have the same rights that I have.  Leave the thread and never come back.  There is not one thing stopping you from thinking "F*ck this stupid, ignorant, a$$.  I'm leaving."  I've done this with other threads, and will continue to do so.  
6) People finding scapegoats is not new.  Comics corrupted morality, television was the work of the devil, and now the internet gets its go on this merry-go-round.  Wake me whenever people realize that all revolutionary ideas change the fabric of what it is to be human.



pantherx12 said:


> True, but you have to admit ( certainly if you live in England)
> 
> That kids and teens are right little fuckers. ( no one wants more fuckers in the world)
> 
> I don't mean in the way that I used to be a right little fucker either.



I spent three weeks in England two years ago.  Nobody seemed any more of an ass than their American equivalent.  The reality is that the fabric of social develpment has changed from one generation to the next.  Those children that once feared repercussions no longer do, so they act out for the attention they desire.  I can say, as a product of the US public school system (until college), that a little bit of negative reinforcement would do wonders.

Additionally, social media is a unique new frontier.  Even if there was more than a tenuous link between being a "right little fucker" and social media, there is no clear correlation between social media consumption levels and a$$ hole level.


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Oct 25, 2011)

Isn't there an age limit on Facebook anyways?  If there isn't, then there should be.  "If you are a adult and are still stupid enough to join this website, then Welcome!"


----------



## ChewyBrownSuga (Oct 25, 2011)

There are a plethora of studies saying the same exact thing. In my opinion the human brain isn't being damaged, it's just adapting to be better at using the internet.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 25, 2011)

ChewyBrownSuga said:


> There are a plethora of studies saying the same exact thing. In my opinion the human brain isn't being damaged, it's just adapting to be better at using the internet.



Sort of...Ill take it a step further. In our society we our taught that murder is bad. Having young kids in this online society teaches them to be self centered and want instant gratification. Its not "Damaging" them but molding them into an unacceptable member of the real world. Since they are trained at a very young age on these social sites, they think this is how the world is when its far from it. A swift kick in the ass from the parents should put an end to the "Damage".


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 25, 2011)

Captain.Abrecan said:


> Isn't there an age limit on Facebook anyways?  If there isn't, then there should be.  "If you are a adult and are still stupid enough to join this website, then Welcome!"




You're supposed to be at-least 14 and you're supposed to have a parent agree to the terms and conditions up to 16 I beleive.

( After all you're pretty much giving up all your personal data in exchange for the social networking so it's an important document to read)


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Oct 25, 2011)

Why, o why doesnt the feeling vanish, that our whole Species might have been intentionally "damaged"? 

Most of us make great Slaves, and dont even know it.... just because they were indoctrinated that way, as children. 

In my opinion, the psychology of children is much too soft in most cases, to be able to properly cope with psychological manipulation, even if it is unknowingly selfinduced. 
You can even teach a child to be a Serial Killer, if youre amoral enough, and tell it, that its normal from the beginning of its life.
And the same counts for this case here... you can teach a child, that the real world,and real friends are in this Box,called Monitor, and that it is able to communicate with it, not thru his mouth and tongue, but only thru his fingertips.

In what kind of world shall we live in a few hundred years? One where we spend our life suspended in stasis pods, in a virtual reality, just because its technologically more advanced?
There are a myriad of fictive stories that give a pretty accurate outcome, on what would happen, if we continue in our current pace, and integrate new technology in our lives in that way.  
(evolving technology, but not evolving ourselfs, our mind, our soul... whatever makes us good humans)


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 25, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> 1) I did not state that you prooved my conclusion was true.  I stated that you prooved that environmental stimuli change people, whether that be for the better or worse.



 I don't think I proved it, but we can agree on this. 



lilhasselhoffer said:


> 2) You assume that I so not think change is a concern.  I never stated this.  I attacked the author for sensationalism, and a lack of desire to see change as anything but damaging.



You stated, amongst other things, that "Previous archetypes are cast aside, resulting in a new type of communication and understanding", thereby implying that people simply adapt to stimuli and that such change is largely positive.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> 3) Language.  As anyone who took so much as psych 101 would know, the choice of wording is as important as the words themselves.  The author assumes change is damage, which I cannot abide.



Could it not simply be the case that the author's findings indicated that "damage" occurrs rather than a case of setting out to "prove" a theory?




lilhasselhoffer said:


> 4) *I never stated change is inherently good.*



See above 




lilhasselhoffer said:


> 5) You are on a forum.  Discussion is what happens here.



I am aware of this.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> As I have learned in the past, discourse either steels ones resolve or removes it. If you take offense to what I say you have the same rights that I have.  Leave the thread and never come back.  There is not one thing stopping you from thinking "F*ck this stupid, ignorant, a$$.  I'm leaving."  I've done this with other threads, and will continue to do so.



I take absolutely no offence at anything you have said, nor do I have any intention of leaving the thread as a result of your posts. I do not understand what led you to post this.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> 6) People finding scapegoats is not new.  Comics corrupted morality, television was the work of the devil, and now the internet gets its go on this merry-go-round.  Wake me whenever people realize that all revolutionary ideas change the fabric of what it is to be human.



That is undoubtedly true, although, based on my own experience of Facebook, I find myself leaning more towards the author's conclusion in this specific case.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 25, 2011)

Mr McC, we seem to have fundamentally different views, and be reading into each others responses for meanings that aren't there.  I've found this, more often than not, leads to anger rather than discussion.  As such, this will be my last post on this thread.  While somewhat cowardly, it is far better than rehashing our points, to the disservice of other people reading this thread.


The shark is a perfect form of evolution.  It has adapted to its environment, and has remained unchanged for milennia.  The Platypus and dodo are nature's WTF.  Both of these animals reached an evolutionary plateau, then stopped.  All of these animals have reached the limit of their mutability, which means that they are unlikely to survive (or did not in the case of the dodo) if their environment were to change.

In comparison to the three, humanity is the bacterium.  Our environment changes, and it changes us.  We, as a whole, evolve to meet the new environment, or are cleansed by those that did evolve.  


While this mentality produces some of the most vile and wretched things I could imagine (I'm looking at you Jersey Shore), it also redefines us.  I speak with those people I met in Germany often, while a century ago the very idea of doing such would be insane.  I play games on my computer, because board games have largely been relegated to the attic.  At the exact same time, I purchase goods that sweat labor shops in China produced.  These things are debatably good, but they are always evolution.  For better or worse we are changing.  

Those who recognize the change are welcome to oppose it, but those who vehemently oppose change are miopic.  Developmentally "damaged" people like Edison, Einstein, and Van Gogh drive humanity forward because they look at things differently.  


No matter what you may conjecture regarding my motivations, there is a truth we can both agree upon.  Change is coming.  Whether you believe this change is social "damage," or whether you look at change as a way to explore what we are, it is undeniable.  Stopping social media will take more than either you or I could ever muster...


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 25, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned Facebook and other social network serve no other purpose than providing a means of quickly making arrangements on where to meet or keeping in contact with people who would otherwise be difficult to see. 

However, as I have an account, I can testify that a large number of people that I know employ the platform to post the most banal drivel I have ever read, which they seemingly feel to be of interest and fit for wider consumption. Moreover, the platform itself seems to encourage such practices, asking us to comment on various issues via applications and prompts, often emanating from our friends, to encourage us to particpate. 

I have no difficulty accepting that social networks are adversely affecting children, or rather, the manner in which we are employing them and being encouraged to employ them. 

I do not feel defenceless in the face of change, on the contrary, I feel that change should come to social networks and that we should actively embrace this - kids spend too much time "socialising" in front of a screen, even where there is no need.


----------



## DannibusX (Oct 25, 2011)

I went to dinner a few weeks back with a few friends and my phone vibrated in my pocket.  I pulled it out and saw that my friends girlfriend had tagged me on a check-in or whatever.  I told her never to do that again and she got kind of butthurt about it.

She told me it was one of the neat features of Facebook and I told her that I had no desire to let everyone on my friends list know exactly where I was located at any point in time.

Facebook is alright for catching up with old friends and acquintances, but soooooo many people post worthless crap, bitch about things they don't want to discuss any further than "FML" and the ilk.


----------



## ChewyBrownSuga (Oct 25, 2011)

dir_d said:


> Sort of...Ill take it a step further. In our society we our taught that murder is bad. Having young kids in this online society teaches them to be self centered and want instant gratification. Its not "Damaging" them but molding them into an unacceptable member of the real world. Since they are trained at a very young age on these social sites, they think this is how the world is when its far from it. A swift kick in the ass from the parents should put an end to the "Damage".



I don't really understand how using social networking sites and the internet can lead someone to be self centered. What I do understand is that we're all guilty of using the internet for the instant gratification, when was the last time you had a question and instead of thinking about the answer to that question you just googled it.

I do agree that any "Damage" that using the internet caused can easily be fixed with some good ol' discipline.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 25, 2011)

I completely agree with the article.
Remember that when they use the term "Social Website" they are also referring to things exaclty like TPU.
I think that most of the members here have some kind of brain damage from using this site.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 25, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I completely agree with the article.
> Remember that when they use the term "Social Website" they are also referring to things exaclty like TPU.
> I think that most of the members here have some kind of brain damage from using this site.



I see what you did there.


----------



## NinkobEi (Oct 25, 2011)

Why dont they just cut to the chase and say "All internet causes brain damage" - Us at TPU certainly know thats true. what more evidence is needed


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 26, 2011)

Well its been great to read all the folks responses here in this thread,and its a discussion i feel is well worth having,as it involves something we are all familiar with ,and sometimes take for granted in our own ways,namely technology,
everything has ups and downsides i feel,
and it is pertinent to address these topics without being afraid to confront the possibilities either,
of course there will be differeing ideas,and all points are valid in the main.
thanx for the good read and interesting points made people,
btw,tpu is not exactly like facebook i dont think,i dont feel compelled to "share" all my beliefs and personal ops here,or post pics other than my half arsed attempt at creating computer mods etc.
and there is a unifying point to our participation,


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 26, 2011)

mediasorcerer said:


> Well its been great to read all the folks responses here in this thread,and its a discussion i feel is well worth having,as it involves something we are all familiar with ,and sometimes take for granted in our own ways,namely technology,
> everything has ups and downsides i feel,
> and it is pertinent to address these topics without being afraid to confront the possibilities either,
> of course there will be differeing ideas,and all points are valid in the main.
> ...



That's all fine and well, but how's the farm coming along?


----------



## v12dock (Oct 26, 2011)

Anything that threaten someone's livelihood is bound to receive negative feedback, ie. Wikipedia, Social Media, The Internet?

Education hates free source information, but who wouldn't hate something that puts you out of business


----------



## micropage7 (Oct 26, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I completely agree with the article.
> Remember that when they use the term "Social Website" they are also referring to things exaclty like TPU.
> I think that most of the members here have some kind of brain damage from using this site.



ive seen that many students about from elementary to junior high school got so addicted of social networking like FB, twitter more than friendster era.
and it affect their life, their study, their family and  they lose so much time just writing status, uploading photo, gaming and write comments
.
yeah sad story about our young generation


----------



## heky (Oct 26, 2011)

I even got infracted on TPU becouse of my avatar(it didnt have the dots), some admin telling me it is insulting other members. Just becouse it says i am not on fu*king facebook. I mean seriously, whats up with that? I mean, will all people get infracted becouse they hate something i like, and i report them to the admin? NO! But i got infracted becouse it was facebook. /rant over


----------



## Mussels (Oct 26, 2011)

heky said:


> I even got infracted on TPU becouse of my avatar(it didnt have the dots), some admin telling me it is insulting other members. Just becouse it says i am not on fu*king facebook. I mean seriously, whats up with that? I mean, will all people get infracted becouse they hate something i like, and i report them to the admin? NO! But i got infracted becouse it was facebook. /rant over



Umm... swearing isnt allowed on TPU. what you did put swearing in every single post you've ever had on the forum.


----------



## heky (Oct 26, 2011)

No, no, the reasoning was it allegedly insulted other forum members. And ok i understand the swearing thing, even though i still see swearing daily on the forums, and i also dont think the f-word should be such a tabu. But it doesnt matter. Its off-topic anyway.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 26, 2011)

heky said:


> No, no, the reasoning was it allegedly insulted other forum members. And ok i understand the swearing thing, even though i still see swearing daily on the forums, and i also dont think the f-word should be such a tabu. But it doesnt matter. Its off-topic anyway.



The F word being taboo is irrelevant, the reason the infraction was worded that way is because that is a default infraction setup by w1zzard. swearing = insult, so thats why that one was used.

you do see swearing on the forums, and we discourage it - but one random post is a lot different to every post, as explained before.

and yes it is off topic, so i'm happy to move the discussion to PM if you wish.


----------



## heky (Oct 26, 2011)

No need, thanks for the clarification though. I do try to respect the forum rules. Most of the time anyways, hehe.


----------



## TIGR (Oct 26, 2011)

The oft-spoken advice of my 94-year old grandmother, who knows nothing about computers, nonetheless applies: "moderation in all things" says she. Technology changes us, whether it's the phone, the television, portable music player, computer, or Internet. All these inventions had a profound impact on the people who brought them into their homes and made them parts of their daily lives. Such profound change has consequences, good and bad. We are beginning to understand the power of computer-aided learning, especially when it involves games; on the other hand we see adverse effects on real-world social interaction in some cases.

We can't afford to be ignorant of the bad or the good effects of these technologies if we want what's best for our youth—and for ourselves.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 26, 2011)

Well said TIGR. I would just change it a little ...



TIGR said:


> We can't afford to be ignorant of the bad or the good effects of these technologies *anything in our lives* if we want what's best for our youth and for ourselves.


----------

