3 ms·

Now I'm curious if it matters what you watch.

by relium 3mo ago

dd8601fn 3mo ago
Yeah... like, does watching an Attenborough documentary or two offset many hours of marvel movies? Asking for a friend.
- moscoe 3mo ago
  I doubt it. It’s about consumption vs creation. Active vs passive.
- nephihaha 3mo ago
  I don't think these are a good comparison. The nature documentaries are primarily visual (and since it's Attenborough involve a lot of Foley work). His docs are extremely well made, but you could still use them as wallpaper as I have seen some do. Maybe the same could be said about the Marvel films. You don't have to concentrate much, but you are guessing some of what is going on. Some programmes do require some more imagination or interaction. A murder mystery, if it's any good will get you wondering whodunnit. If you are watching a better quality gameshow, you may be at least attempting to answer the questions. Or both may be wall paper.
tejtm 3mo ago
probably not as much as doing anything non sedentary
- haunter 3mo ago
  >Strikingly, the sedentary element of TV watching didn’t appear to be the main driver for these changes. >Those who reported high amounts of sitting at work actually had larger frontal and occipital lobes, as well as reduced white matter hyperintensity volumes, indicating better brain health than among those who sit to watch TV. This could be due to the intellectually stimulating nature of many sit-down jobs, say the study authors.
  - tejtm 3mo ago
    I stand corrected and will now go RTFM edit: thats great... addressed in the first paragraph.
mashally 3mo ago
I think our brain's power lose its functionality,"thinking", when we forced to something.
dredmorbius 3mo ago
Given the difficulties of random blinding, and the long-term (decades-long) duration of the research, studying that aspect (with the same post hoc brain morphology analysis) might help assess causality. There was some exclusion of other factors in the study per TFA.
- nephihaha 3mo ago
  The island of Saint Helena only started getting TV relatively recently, so some studies have been done on children there to compare effects.
  - dredmorbius 3mo ago
    Since 1995, per Wikipedia, citing Wireless South Atlantic press release and St. Helena Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. sources: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha#Television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Saint_Helena...> Total population (2021): 4,439. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena> Additional areas: South Africa and Tanzania saw television introduced relatively recently, 1975 and 1994 respectively. Those would be larger populations, though confounded by other factors (poverty, racism, higher early-adult mortality due to HIV/AIDS). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_usage_of_television#African_networks_and_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_usage_of_televisi...> That could be interesting.
    - nephihaha 2mo ago
      A lot of these places have gradual introduction as well. There were parts of the UK without a proper TV signal well into the 1980s. Mid 1990s is earlier than I thought. Places like Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn Island may be even later.
      - dredmorbius 2mo ago
        I'd thought of some other remote island locations as well, though most have quite small populations. That would make large-scale studies challenging. Slightly orthogonal: Simon Winchester's book Outposts details many of these, including aspects of their cultures, though I don't recall if he dwelt long on the specifics of television or its lack. <https://bioeconometrician.github.io/outposts/ https://bioeconometrician.github.io/outposts/> (Review) Several of those islands have significant military and/or communications roles for the UK, and as such may have better-than-expected comms links.

Now I'm curious if it matters what you watch.

by relium 3mo ago

Now I'm curious if it matters what you watch.

dd8601fn 3mo ago

Yeah... like, does watching an Attenborough documentary or two offset many hours of marvel movies? Asking for a friend.

moscoe 3mo ago
I doubt it. It’s about consumption vs creation. Active vs passive.
nephihaha 3mo ago
I don't think these are a good comparison. The nature documentaries are primarily visual (and since it's Attenborough involve a lot of Foley work). His docs are extremely well made, but you could still use them as wallpaper as I have seen some do. Maybe the same could be said about the Marvel films. You don't have to concentrate much, but you are guessing some of what is going on. Some programmes do require some more imagination or interaction. A murder mystery, if it's any good will get you wondering whodunnit. If you are watching a better quality gameshow, you may be at least attempting to answer the questions. Or both may be wall paper.

tejtm 3mo ago

probably not as much as doing anything non sedentary

haunter 3mo ago
>Strikingly, the sedentary element of TV watching didn’t appear to be the main driver for these changes. >Those who reported high amounts of sitting at work actually had larger frontal and occipital lobes, as well as reduced white matter hyperintensity volumes, indicating better brain health than among those who sit to watch TV. This could be due to the intellectually stimulating nature of many sit-down jobs, say the study authors.
- tejtm 3mo ago
  I stand corrected and will now go RTFM edit: thats great... addressed in the first paragraph.

mashally 3mo ago

I think our brain's power lose its functionality,"thinking", when we forced to something.

dredmorbius 3mo ago

Given the difficulties of random blinding, and the long-term (decades-long) duration of the research, studying that aspect (with the same post hoc brain morphology analysis) might help assess causality. There was some exclusion of other factors in the study per TFA.

nephihaha 3mo ago
The island of Saint Helena only started getting TV relatively recently, so some studies have been done on children there to compare effects.
- dredmorbius 3mo ago
  Since 1995, per Wikipedia, citing Wireless South Atlantic press release and St. Helena Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. sources: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha#Television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Saint_Helena...> Total population (2021): 4,439. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena> Additional areas: South Africa and Tanzania saw television introduced relatively recently, 1975 and 1994 respectively. Those would be larger populations, though confounded by other factors (poverty, racism, higher early-adult mortality due to HIV/AIDS). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_usage_of_television#African_networks_and_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_usage_of_televisi...> That could be interesting.
  - nephihaha 2mo ago
    A lot of these places have gradual introduction as well. There were parts of the UK without a proper TV signal well into the 1980s. Mid 1990s is earlier than I thought. Places like Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn Island may be even later.
    - dredmorbius 2mo ago
      I'd thought of some other remote island locations as well, though most have quite small populations. That would make large-scale studies challenging. Slightly orthogonal: Simon Winchester's book Outposts details many of these, including aspects of their cultures, though I don't recall if he dwelt long on the specifics of television or its lack. <https://bioeconometrician.github.io/outposts/ https://bioeconometrician.github.io/outposts/> (Review) Several of those islands have significant military and/or communications roles for the UK, and as such may have better-than-expected comms links.