3 ms·

I'm a neuroscientist. Here's the surprising truth about TikTok 'brain rot'

18 points by nabla9 2y ago

deadbabe 2y ago
Someday we’ll look at short form content bingeing as the equivalent of the Roman empire’s lead water pipes, if we survive.
- davidt84 2y ago
  Did you actually read the article?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hoppyhoppy2 2y ago
    >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - davidt84 2y ago
      Thank you for your insightful comment that adds great depth to the debate.
- tokai 2y ago
  So you mean that we'll realize that the danger was actually not that huge?
- alt227 2y ago
  Evidence suggests that Roman lead water pipes were not very harmful: https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-did-lead-poisoning-bring-down-ancient-rome https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-did-lead...
voisin 2y ago
> I asked Prof Peter Etchells, an expert on the psychological effects of digital technology at Bath Spa University if this could be plausible. "To the best of my knowledge," he says, "There isn't any good science to support the idea that short videos are specifically or uniquely bad in terms of effects on the brain."
- GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
  That's an awfully careful definition, though ("specifically or uniquely bad".) The article does report how researchers found brain differences in those most "addicted" to short-form content. Correlation vs. Causation of course. Gambling addicts also show brain structure correlations (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/07/how-gambling-affects-the-brain https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/07/how-gambling-affects-the...), so I don't think this is a surprising result.
tarr11 2y ago
I appreciate that the article spent a significant amount of time explaining the flaws of this research. This headline is clickbait, though.
EarlKing 2y ago
I hate cookie pop-ups. Enjoy. https://archive.is/nhCC9 https://archive.is/nhCC9
01100011 2y ago
I don't care if short-form video causes brain rot because I'm convinced it causes mind-rot. 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.
- monkmartinez 2y ago
  Who determines "excess" consumption? Who holds the cards for accountability? I don't know about you, but I am not capable of critically thinking 24/7. Do you critically think, like always?
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  Of course you don't care, you made up a story that works for you.
monkmartinez 2y ago
We have tried to limit screen time for my teenagers. We have tried to directly limit app time and categories of apps. We have tried to get them involved in sports and other activities to consume some idle time. We demand "best effort" for school and good manners. 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.
- vrosas 2y ago
  Did you think it’s possible they spent a few days “cleaning” their feed with content you’d approve of? That’s the first thing I would do if someone was criticizing my browsing habits.
xnx 2y ago
The meaning of brainrot keeps changing. Originally(?), it refered to a particular extreme/ADHD content understood only by the perpetually online. Remixes of the spinning oiia cat are pretty good examples: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M 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.
- mech422 2y ago
  >>The meaning of brainrot keeps changing. Originally(?), it refered to a particular extreme/ADHD content understood only by the perpetually online. Remixes of the spinning oiia cat are pretty good examples: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M 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' ?
tayo42 2y ago
> It's nearly 20 years since The Atlantic magazine ran a cover feature that asked "Is Google making us stupid?" I'll have to dig that up now lol
glimshe 2y ago
Let's not encourage click bait headlines on HN, please.
johnea 2y ago
I don't see how anyone could doubt the general conclusions. 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.

18 points by nabla9 2y ago

Someday we’ll look at short form content bingeing as the equivalent of the Roman empire’s lead water pipes, if we survive.

davidt84 2y ago
Did you actually read the article?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hoppyhoppy2 2y ago
  >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - davidt84 2y ago
    Thank you for your insightful comment that adds great depth to the debate.
tokai 2y ago
So you mean that we'll realize that the danger was actually not that huge?
alt227 2y ago
Evidence suggests that Roman lead water pipes were not very harmful: https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-did-lead-poisoning-bring-down-ancient-rome https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-did-lead...

voisin 2y ago

> I asked Prof Peter Etchells, an expert on the psychological effects of digital technology at Bath Spa University if this could be plausible. "To the best of my knowledge," he says, "There isn't any good science to support the idea that short videos are specifically or uniquely bad in terms of effects on the brain."

GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
That's an awfully careful definition, though ("specifically or uniquely bad".) The article does report how researchers found brain differences in those most "addicted" to short-form content. Correlation vs. Causation of course. Gambling addicts also show brain structure correlations (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/07/how-gambling-affects-the-brain https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/07/how-gambling-affects-the...), so I don't think this is a surprising result.

tarr11 2y ago

I appreciate that the article spent a significant amount of time explaining the flaws of this research. This headline is clickbait, though.

EarlKing 2y ago

I hate cookie pop-ups. Enjoy. https://archive.is/nhCC9 https://archive.is/nhCC9

01100011 2y ago

I don't care if short-form video causes brain rot because I'm convinced it causes mind-rot. 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.

monkmartinez 2y ago
Who determines "excess" consumption? Who holds the cards for accountability? I don't know about you, but I am not capable of critically thinking 24/7. Do you critically think, like always?
nh23423fefe 2y ago
Of course you don't care, you made up a story that works for you.

monkmartinez 2y ago

We have tried to limit screen time for my teenagers. We have tried to directly limit app time and categories of apps. We have tried to get them involved in sports and other activities to consume some idle time. We demand "best effort" for school and good manners. 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.

vrosas 2y ago
Did you think it’s possible they spent a few days “cleaning” their feed with content you’d approve of? That’s the first thing I would do if someone was criticizing my browsing habits.

xnx 2y ago

The meaning of brainrot keeps changing. Originally(?), it refered to a particular extreme/ADHD content understood only by the perpetually online. Remixes of the spinning oiia cat are pretty good examples: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M 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.

mech422 2y ago
>>The meaning of brainrot keeps changing. Originally(?), it refered to a particular extreme/ADHD content understood only by the perpetually online. Remixes of the spinning oiia cat are pretty good examples: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX_QHay02M 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' ?

tayo42 2y ago

> It's nearly 20 years since The Atlantic magazine ran a cover feature that asked "Is Google making us stupid?" I'll have to dig that up now lol

glimshe 2y ago

Let's not encourage click bait headlines on HN, please.

johnea 2y ago

I don't see how anyone could doubt the general conclusions. 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.