She is only using ten per cent of her brain - Scarlett Johansen in the 2014 movie 'Lucy' (Source: here)
In a recent article (see here), the Financial Times hypothesises that the transition from browsing “finite web pages to [following] infinite, constantly refreshed feeds and a constant barrage of notifications” explains an observed decline in human capacity for mental focus and application since the early 2010s. The constant “torrent of content”, FT speculates, means we spend less time actively browsing and interacting with people; “self-directed behaviour” has been replaced with “passive consumption and constant context-switching”. And this, apparently, makes us less intelligent.
______
Teens read a lot less (Source: here)
No doubt FT is onto something. According to the surveys cited by the paper - results reproduced above and below - reading is collapsing among teens, a growing number of people find it difficult to process information, and a rising share young people struggle to think and learn new things. There is also evidence of a notable decline in performance in reasoning and problem-solving tests both among teenagers and adults.
It is getting tougher to think, to learn, to pass tests, and to process information (Source: here)
–––––
It is very unlikely, in my view, that these declines are due to waning human intelligence. After all, human intelligence is a function of the brain and the brain changes through evolution, which takes hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.
I also don’t think the volume of information per se is the problem. Human brains are amazing things capable of filtering and interpreting enormous volumes of data, especially when they are fresh and young, as in teen brains.
In fact, I would counter-hypothesise that the greater the exposure to information the more training our brains get, which, in turn, makes them work even better.
–––––
We therefore need to look for other explanations for the observed decline in mental capacity indicators. I can think of three alternative hypotheses around data issues, policy changes, and something in the information itself. Let me examine each hypothesis in turn.
Data issues
The studies cited by the FT are based on extremely limited data. For example, one of the studies only has three observations per group. Even the longest time series is too short to rule out that we are looking at the downward leg of a cyclical phenomenon, which could reverse over the next decade or so.
The sample subjects are also rather limited. For the most part, the studies focus on teenagers, which could be problematic, since teenage is when young people break away from their parents in order to discover their own identities. Perhaps today’s teens are experimenting with alternatives to conventional methods of learning, for better or worse?
Finally, the samples exclusively cover OECD countries, including rather prominently the United States. We cannot, based on this sample, determine if declines in mental capacity are OECD-specific or a global phenomenon. In fact, the results could even be driven by one or two countries within OECD, such as the United States.
More data is required. Too bad the Trump Administration is busy gutting American research, but maybe Europeans will fund some studies that cover more countries and longer time periods. Only once we have the result of such augmented studies can we conclude whether we are looking at a global structural change in mental capacity, or merely at a localised and/or temporary dip.
Policy issues
We cannot currently rule out that the drop in mental capacity is the result of some kind of policy change (or neglect of good policy). How has the erosion in the quality and quantity of education in OECD countries impacted the mental capacity and ability to learn among teens? Has the rise in income inequality and reduced funding for public services, including schooling, impacted some groups more adversely than others, say, kids in the lower end of the income spectrum? Is the education of immigrant children being neglected? Are adversely-impacted groups driving the overall result?
Issues with the information itself
I would also hypothesise that the quality of information is more likely to adversely impact mental capacity and particularly willingness to learn than the quantity of data per se. Isn't is plausible - and indeed rational - that people should become less willing to accept information as knowledge at face value if they are constantly having to assess if what they hear or see is the truth or a lie. If misnformation is having such a detrimental effect on mental capacity, we may have to get much more serious about how we regulate online content.
–––––
I believe we are not running out of brains, but something has clearly gone awry in our capacity to reason, calculate, absorb, and understand information. We need to get the bottom of the issue as soon as possible, because our species' largest (and possibly only) comparative advantage is our brains.
The End
Comments