I'm a neuroscientist. Here's the surprising truth about TikTok 'brain rot'
sciencefocus.com
sciencefocus.com
It is a force that could be used for good but often isn't. Entertainment, like calories, has its place yet is harmful when consumed in excess. It crowds out productive tasks, encourages physical and mental idleness, and is a mostly passive mental activity not requiring or promoting critical thinking.
I don't know about you, but I am not capable of critically thinking 24/7. Do you critically think, like always?
My teenagers are, by all accounts of my research, "addicted" to reels, tiktok and youtube shorts. Given the lack of understanding, guidance and real research that proves or disproves harm was the impetus to try limiting these apps. It was not well received by my adolescents to put it mildly.
Being that I hold open-mindedness as a virtue for myself, I asked them to construct arguments that would help me understand their point of view and would reconsider if those arguments were compelling. They were.
Both of them put together slide shows with their school supplied chromebooks. They started off telling my wife and I about their grades, which are excellent. They showed that they don't miss assignments and don't have "too many" infractions for misbehaving in class. They showed us their training schedules for soccer and clubs.
My daughter, the ridiculously organized perfectionist, showed use how much time she spends cleaning her room and doing her laundry every month. She is also the biggest consumer of tiktok in the house by a wide margin. She then showed us an example of her feed.
Both had arguments that basically said; "we are responsible teens that get 93% of what you ask done without you asking more than once. We should be allowed to use these apps when we have down time and just want to veg out." I am inclined to agree.
I came away from this thinking about a lot of things. Namely, I am not sure any of the "social media" is bad research can be generalized across a population. The two teenagers in my house have enviable feeds. They watch content that is directly applicable to the activities they do in real life.
Obviously there are stupid videos and funny videos, but the bulk was tutorials and discussions regarding real stuff like nail design, hair styles, clothing, soccer skill drills, math tutorials, weird science stuff, fishing, Golf, and TONS of music dances. I have considered that perhaps we are now the "old people" that just don't get it and because of that have labeled it "bad for you".
I am biased, but damn proud of my teens. We have relinquished a fair amount of control on the "time" aspect. However, we still have boundaries as to when and where they use their phones as a matter of manners and they hold us accountable to them as well. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think "brain rot" is real for everyone.
Sadly, I don't think most of the teens being discussed would fit into the performance categories your children are achieving.
Would your own children even have those "real life" activities if you hadn't insisted they do so, and facilitated the activity?
Sadly, many parents use a screen to distract the child so that they themselves can participate in vacuous internet prattle.
I think you're right in your conclusion: it's not a matter of to have it, or not to have it. It's a matter of how much, and to what effect.
With your children's reported life performance, it doesn't seem like they're being unnecessarily harmed, but many others are. This is also in line with your statement that these are not conclusions that can be applied universally. Each child, each person, has to look at how the behaviour is affecting their lives (this also, for instance, applies to any intoxicating substance use, such as alcohol). A responsible person will limit their use to minimize the negative effects, but this self discipline is also a taught behaviour, and probably why your own children are doing well in this regard.
Once again, Congratulations on your parenting efforts and the payoff!
This headline is clickbait, though.
This neuroscientist seema to be throwing the label on all of TikTok or all short form video. This seems barely more sophisticated with grouping together Lawrence of Arabia and Transformers 4 as movies.
I'm old and not with it ... to me that just looked like a low budget music video (flashey 'club' lighting, stock photo of a cat with simple CGI effect applied). How is this 'extreme/ADHD content' ?
For instance: if you used a motorized scooter for all pedestrian activity for 5 years, do you think you'd have increased or decreased ability to get around without it?
Obviously goggle is making us dumber, and goggle maps are reducing people's ability to navigate physical reality autonomously.
Is this bad? For goggle shareholders, this isn't a side effect, it's the point. Of course someone who profits from the phenomenon wants people to be more dependent, not less.
I'll have to dig that up now lol
https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-did-lead...