It's reminiscent of the scaremongering news stories that you still occasionally get, the ones which argue that [Insert latest technological thing] is bad, because it 'changes children's brains'.
Yes, that's true. But so do books, and playing outside, the 'healthy' stuff
/2
EVERYTHING brings about changes in our brain. If it were static, rigid, unchanging, it would be completely useless. Might as well lodge a coconut in our skulls and have done with it. The brain changing in response to our experiences is the default norm.
/3
In fairness, I'm sure the real concern is that [new technical thing] causes harmful and lasting changes in children's brains.
It's odd how they know that within weeks of [new technical thing] becoming commonplace, when such things take years to manifest. Very strange
/4
Similarly, 'Chess players don't play as well remotely as they do in person' is probably a valid observation, for many reasons. But to conclude that this definitively means "Working from home is harmful to the brain" is a RIDICULOUS level of extrapolation and tortured logic
/5
There are so many factors that could hinder a chess player's performance online
- Lack of social cues
- Not enough sensory stimulus
- Different context to usual play environment
And so on. All these can affect play, and all regularly occur in a fully functional normal brain
/6
Personally, I think it's deeply cynical to say something's 'affecting your brain' when 'makes you feel slightly different about how you approach a task' would work just fine, and is more accurate. The former sounds way more serious, more alarming.
/7
In any case, I'd like to know how someone at the Telegraph figured out changes in brain function and activity from some chess scores. That isn't a scientifically approved method that I've come across in the literature. And I've been looking, believe me.
/8
Changes in brain function are usually determined by MRI scans or other complex and high-tech interventions. So I've no idea how you're going to use such things to figure out brain changes induced by working from home.
/9
To work out how the brain functions while working from home, we'd have to study it in that situation, and what it normally involves them doing.
I'm guessing most people's experience of working from home doesn't involve getting an fMRI scan in the process.
/10
In fairness, if you did do an fMRI scan of someone while their working from home, you probably would see some odd activity.
But that'll probably be due to the whole 'a bunch of scientists turned up in my house and inserted me into a 5 ton screaming magnet' thing.
/11
Yes, the experience of working from home is different to that in the workplace. And those differences may be negative. But they could easily be positive
- No toxic co-workers
- No commuting
- Fewer disruptions, greater personal comfort etc.
/12
Ultimately, the subjective experience of both working from home and in the workplace will differ so wildly for so many people, even if you did somehow manage to study their brains in detail and found changes, it would be impossible to work out the ultimate cause of them
/13
'Working', be it from home or in the office etc., is both such a vague concept and a multifaceted, subjective experience, that you'd be hard pushed to clearly establish how it affects our brains with any certainty.
/14
So, any claims you see in the news about how working from home 'affects our brains', you can be reasonably sure that it's not based on anything scientifically robust.
Which is my diplomatic way of saying 'disingenuous manipulative bullshit'. I'm nice like that.
/15
So yeah, all that.
I go into more detail about the effects of work and stress, and the dubious application of neuroscience, in my books, available now
There's something about the #DowningStreetParty furore that's been bugging me since it kicked off, and I finally figured out what it is
All the media types/platforms condemning Johnson for disrespecting grieving relatives? In my experience, they've not treated us much better
/1
I lost Dad to Covid very early in the pandemic, so I've been part of the 'grieving relative' demographic for nearly 2 years. This government has essentially spat in our faces on a weekly basis since then.
Much the media now going all fire-and-brimstone didn't bat an eyelid
/2
It might be just my subjective experience, but as someone from the grieving relative community with a pre-existing media profile, I figured mainstream media types would be interested in my perspective.
Ok, the legendary @elisjames asked why he struggles to remember new info in his forties but can still readily recall countless minor details from childhood
I could only really answer this if I'd done a PhD in memory retrieval mechanisms. And I did. So here we go
As a rule, the memories we acquire during childhood are more impactful, more enduring, than those we acquire later in life. For various reasons.
First and foremost, things are just 'newer' then. The experiences we have, the info we take in, makes a bigger impression
/2
After all, childhood is the part of our life where we're figuring out how... 'everything' works, in the world around us. So anything we take in then will form the basis of everything we acquire later on. First impressions, and all that.
/3
OK, seen this Tweet shared a lot lately. I get why; it implies some scary, but cool, stuff. But it's misleading by omission, and a good example of why Evolutionary psychology is regularly co-opted by those with ideological agendas.
I'll say up front; as far as I'm aware, nobody knows with 100% certainty why the Uncanny valley effect exists.
BUT, it doesn't automatically follow that there were shapeshifting human-resembling predators in our deep past. There are far more logical, and likely, explanations
/2
For instance, the uncanny valley effect may be the result of corpses.
A dead human looks just like a live one, but without all the subtle cues and animations that living humans give off constantly. Much like 'realistic' androids, animations etc.
/3
This Sunday is #WorldMentalHealthDay2021, so here is a #BrainStuff thread about one of the less often discussed, and more readily stigmatised, disorders; addiction.
What happens in the brain to make addiction so harmful? Suffice to say, it's not 'just a matter of willpower'
/1
At present, practically all 'recognised' forms of addiction concern a type of psychoactive chemical substance. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, heroin, cocaine, etc.
The only 'official' non-chemical type of addiction so far is gambling.
As landlord of a valley pub, Dad, a gregarious larger-than-life sort, was always putting on community fundraising events with the guys from the bar. They were often sporting events, usually rugby, but one time it was a charity tug of war match.
/2
It took place by the nearby river, next to the (now disused) railway track. Dad and all his mates from the bar on one team, a load of guys from a 'rival' pub on the other. The river between the two teams, so whoever loses gets dragged into the river and soaked. What larks.
/3