Thread by @garwboy

Me, checking my mentions, and realising the Guardian have published another Johnan Harri article

NB: I tend to deliberately misspell his name on here, because I hear he's a notorious self-searcher. And I still occasionally get his acolytes sending me threats/wildly untrue accusations. Pretty tragic really, but who has the time to deal with that guff

https://twitter.com/garwboy/status/1477714767854850049

And if anyone's wondering how/why Harri is still readily published by the Guardian despite, you know, everything he's guilty of, then this old thread of mine may shine some light on that

https://mobile.twitter.com/garwboy/status/1352648404980162566

OK, for reasons of sanity, I've not read any of J Harri's latest Guardian piece. But because

A) Several have asked me to
B) Guardian have given it the official 'Psychology' label
C) The Guardian science page ACTIVELY ENDORSED it

...I feel I now have to😡

But...

#Thread

/1

...because I've tried to give it a wide berth until now, I've no idea what's in it. So, this thread is going to be me reading and reacting to it in real time.

I'm keeping an open mind; maybe he's learned? Maybe he's right this time?

If not... well, strap in

/2

First; the title

Not a big fan. When did our attention 'collapse', exactly? Never heard that before.
It also suggests some shady conspiracy of powerful types to actively make this happen, which seems unlikely. He used similar approach r.e. big Pharma and antidepressants.

/3

How-EV-er, I know headlines have to be attention grabbing (ironically, in this context), and I've done an overblown headline myself many a time (albeit usually more tongue-in-cheek, I'd say), so overall I'll give it a pass. It's just the nature of the beast.

/4

This subheading is... somewhat dubious?

"Destroying" our ability to concentrate is a bit overblown, in terms of language, at least. Ditto 'reclaim our minds'. Say what you will about Facebook, they haven't manged to ensnare our very consciousness (yet, I guess).

/5

Probably more a subjective evaluation than anything, but I get very suspicious when I see overblown language like this used to discuss something scientifically based. Your mileage may vary though, I guess

/6

Opening paragraph.

Personal anecdote. Can't really critique that.

Am a *bit* wary though, because invoking a personal story about a sweet child at the very start of a piece like this is a very 'manipulative' move. Again, can't argue it either way, I wasn't there.

/7

Although, if I'm being brutally honest, given the many things I've heard about JH, from multiple sources, he seems an unlikely person for the 'devoted and adored Godfather' role.

But we don't know how people really are behind the curtain, so won't question it.

/8

One sec; toilet break.

Also, I just scrolled down and this thing is loooooooong, man. Going to need some caffeine to get through it.

BRB

/9

OK, so colour me cynical, but this stuff is suspect.

Susan Greenfield used to use a very similar tactic regularly, i.e. describe one (or a few) worst-case-scenario examples in what's essentially a long-winded way of invoking the classic "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

/10

I'd also not put much stock in this as an accurate assessment. A 15yo teen being preoccupied with tech/novel stimulation and not engaging much with his parents, let alone his 40ish godfather, isn't exactly unexpected. It's just how our brains work at that age.

/11

The implication that a 15yo boy is essentially a mindless drone thanks to tech is also deeply insulting, a depressingly common stereotype, and feeds into JH's usual 'I'm the only one who knows how all this works, because I'm the best' stance. Again, it grates.

/12

Then there's... all this.

If your in your forties and have ever gathered with your similarly aged friends and 'lamented your lost capacity for concentration', can you let me know? Because that seems like a weird thing to do, particularly on a regular basis.

/13

I'll skip over the claim that everyone's ability to pay attention was 'cracking and breaking', which isn't something the process of attention can do, given how it's not a physical entity. I get 'poetic license', but this is supposedly an important scientific article

/14

So, apparently JH has the freedom and money to randomly decide to go to Graceland, on a whim? But still, I'm sure his experiences are very much representative of the rest of us.

I also bet he'd be right at home in one of those technophobic coffee shops

#ManOfThePeople

/15

Now, there's some merit to this.

Some studies have shown that when people use technology to interface with things like museum exhibits, they don't remember them as well. Because their limited attention is divided between the exhibit AND the device

researchgate.net/publication/25….

/16

Having said that, there are also many studies showing that people with autism/non-neurotypical types find interacting with screens much easier than with unfamiliar humans. It's also better for the visual/hearing impaired. Accessibility is important.

/17

I'll be charitable and say it's not intentional, but JH doesn't seem to be especially aware that other people may have needs and requirements that differ to that of the able-bodied white male. A lot of tech bashing falls under this umbrella, in my experience.

/18

Colour me incredibly sceptical about the validity of this. It's always hard to swallow when writers report an incident that proves their point so conveniently. Like those parents who tweet that their small child just said something profound that backs up their ideology

/19

Just a casual admission of initiating physical altercation with a 15 year old boy in your care because of your personal prejudices? Cool. All the best people do that.

/20

Not really a JH criticism, but I've never really been on board with the whole 'and that's when I had the epiphany that set me on my narratively-convenient journey' cliche in non-fiction writing. I've always tried to spoof it in my efforts, at best.

/21

Clarification; JH's Godson should have been 19 at the time of the Graceland trip, according to his claims.

Makes it weirder if anything, though. Why does he think he can dictate to (and attempt to wrestle valuable devices from) an actual adult?

https://twitter.com/hannanator2/status/1478022401325678593

/22

A lot going on here

- JH's anti-tech agenda seemingly he can't use email/skype, so has to fly places to speak to people. Techphobia > Climate crisis, I guess

- Asking someone how he'd 'destroy people's attention'. What a perfectly neutral and not-at-all-leading question

/23

I don't have the right, nor the background knowledge, to argue that the scientists he spoke to are anything but legit.

But, a quick background search suggests they're not what I'd consider the immediately obvious ones to go to for this subject matter

/24

Also, someone who isn't a dedicated neuro/psychologist, saying, on the record, something as sweeping but casually insensitive as “There is no way we can have a normal brain today”?

I'd argue that screams 'ideological axe to grind' more than 'professional assessment'

/25

A (very) small unspecified study, you say? And college students spend less time focussing on things than office workers, you say? I'm sure that's nothing to do with the latter being actually paid to do their tasks and being punished/reprimanded if they don't.

/26

You could say I'm being facetious here, and yeah, of course I am a bit. But then pointing at one small poorly-described and non-linked study then saying "This proves my theory about how the brains of everyone on Earth are being ruined" deserves it, I'd say.

/27

OK, so JH goes on holiday again. Would that we all had that option (although he does flag this up, in fairness)

When was he doing all this though? He said it was after he turned 40. Internet said that was 2019. It's starting to read like he was jetting around mid-pandemic

/28

Publicly declaring you're going to go offline on holiday for a few months, in order to fix the human race?

I would argue that this is not normal behaviour. Ironically, it's akin to those people who declare they're leaving Facebook/Twitter and expect congratulations for it

/28

To the list 'Things that have been well established for a very long time that Johann Harri has decided he personally invented or discovered', we can now apparently add 'having a relaxing holiday'.

/29

Now this bit basically checks out. Our working memory capacity *is* surprisingly small, and research suggests we do have one attention stream, albeit one that can dance about on multiple things, like a hyperactive spotlight. So, this is fine overall.

/30

This next bit? I'd say it's less clear-cut than this alleges, but it's basically fine. When you quickly switch from one task to another, the contents of your (small) working memory will be changed, so will need to be replenished when you resume the task again.

/31

" It seems to me that almost all of us are currently losing that 20% of our brainpower, almost all the time.

This is a WILD conclusion to leap to based on this experiment, which basically tells us 'If you constantly try to distract people, they get distracted'

/32

We haven't 'lost' any brain power. We're just directing some of it to the thing that's actively distracting us.

And it's not even a tech thing! If you put a chimp in the room with them, they'd be *at least* as distracted. But we don't say 'chimps deplete our brain power'.

/33

And if that point sounds familiar to my longer-term readers, it's because I made that exact point, IN MY OWN BOOK, written for children, and published 2.5 years before JH's effort.

amazon.co.uk/Your-Parents-D…

/34

This made me go from 'Give it a rest grandad' to 'This reads like something written by a recovering addict who's not 100% aware of the lasting effects of that'.

I'd never diminish JH's experiences, but he seems incapable of recognising that not everyone thinks just like him

/35

I can't get on with this sentence. It feels like it's something that was meant to be clever/profound, but is actually entirely meaningless.

/36

"I realised I had to fill the vacuum."

Be careful, mate. Many a teenage boy has ended up in hospital after trying that.

/37

Ah, the meaty stuff. The science of flow states

Most recognise 'flow' as being 'in the zone'. I think it's where all the usually-competing bits of your brain actually synch up and become dedicated to the same task for once.

I'm v dubious about JH's invoking it here, though

/38

Firstly, many people, and many scientists, spend a great deal of time working out how to invoke a 'flow' state. It would be great for productivity, athletic performance, etc.

JH can apparently induce it, on command, after a few days of trying. Colour me sceptical, sorry

/39

[Also, that whole passage does read as "I am just such a good writer, and when I work at it I'm even better", which, given JH's previous record, is a bit much to swallow]

/40

But more importantly; JH's claim seems to be that removing himself from tech allowed him to achieve a state of flow, which repaired his concentration and attention abilities. Thus, fixing the terrible damage tech inflicts on our poor brains.

Just one problem with this...

/41

...there's a lot of evidence to suggest that one of the reasons social media is so influential and compelling, is that it... often induces a state of cognitive flow in those who use it.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21879884/

Which... undermines JH's point somewhat.

/42

It's not a default 'good' thing. Software stimulating various different brain processes to an extent that we're compelled to use it has many issues. But it does mean that "Tech is bad because it means we can't do flow!" is a hard stance to maintain.

/43

Logically, you'd assume someone doing proper research into tech and concentration might have stumbled upon this data. But if you'd arrived at the conclusion you wanted before you'd started, I guess that's less likely.

/44

The next paragraph, in which our hero discovers that our brains adapt to deal with the environment around us and the things within it, just like it has for the past 2+million years or so.

Lucky he was here to tell us about this.

/45

...is that really how James Williams is regarded? Not saying he's not genuine, but that's *quite* a title to claim

In my experience, JH does this often; find someone who says what he wants to hear, then insists they're the best possible person to say it. 'Interesting' tactic
/46

Fair enough. A tech-infused distraction-riddled society is always going to demand more of our attention than we have to give.

/47

I get where they're going with this, but honestly, I'd have come up with a completely different comparison. Strong 'fat shaming' vibes coming through, even if not intended

/48

So, JH suddenly branches out drastically to encompass every part of society, makes incredibly sweeping and dubious assumptions, and come up with methods to fix everything

Rules, you might say

Ones for life

And didn't he say earlier there were 12 of them? Inspired!

/49

JH's uses this to reinforce his 'tech is bad' theme, when it's quite clearly shows that modern employers and unfettered capitalism are a shit show. The tech is just the conduit for the stress. The same bosses would be ringing the landline 24/7 if that's all they had

/50

Right, this can piss right off. Hard to keep track of the false dichotomies/comparisons/flat out BS.

Will try to cover them all, but don't rely on me.

/51

"we can’t wait for perfect evidence. We have to act based on a reasonable assessment of risk"

Contrast this attitude with JH's last book, which basically condemned antidepressants wholesale on V flimsy 'evidence', with zero care for the risk this would have for MH patients

/52

"what will be the cost?"

Well, countless people could lose their support networks, vulnerable people will have zero access to info/resources. Neuro-atypical people will find life considerably harder...

Oh, you mean the cost *to you*? Right. That's what's important

/53

Apparently our only options are 'utopia' if we do what JH wants, or damnation of the species if we don't

Greenfield used to do this all the time. "We can either have zero access to porn, or all children ruined forever".

False dichotomies like this are deeply cynical IMHO

/54

JH genuinely presenting himself as a modern day equivalent of the founders of the feminist movement is... an interesting flex, I'll say that much.

😧

/55

In conclusion; JH honestly wants us all to put as much time and effort into tackling a problem that, as far as I can tell, exists primarily in his imagination, as we do into the climate crisis.

Points for thinking big, I guess? But good god, the *arrogance* of it...

/56

So, read all that now. Did NOT enjoy it. But I spent nearly 3 hours doing it, online, so I guess my attention and focus of my nearly-40yo brain aren't *that* degraded, which counts against the whole premise, I suppose.

/57

My ultimate conclusion; there are a few nuggets of actual (long-established) science, buried in a mountain of misleading, self-aggrandising, morally dubious, possibly fictitious, potentially harmful bullsh*t.

Classic JH, basically.

/58

Now I'm going to disengage and have something to eat. Because in my experience, if there's one thing that's more likely than anything to make a mess of your ability to concentrate and focus, it's reading the modern day output of one Johann Harri.

/end

This from yesterday may be useful if you, like many, have had *that* Johhan Harri article inserted into your timeline

Ironically, it's probably more detailed than the rebuttal I'd have done in the Guardian if that was still an option

#BadScience

https://twitter.com/garwboy/status/1478001569094324228

Addendum: thanks to all who've read this latest lengthy thread.

If anyone is interested in learning more, my latest book Psycho-Logical is an in-depth and scientifically rigorous exploration of mental health, and how it goes wrong

amazon.co.uk/Psycho-Logical…

#ShamelessPlug