Smart Phones And The Flynn Effect

[fresh_42]

Sources first:

Population intelligence quotients increased throughout the 20th century—a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect—although recent years have seen a slowdown or reversal of this trend in several countries. To distinguish between the large set of proposed explanations, we categorize hypothesized causal factors by whether they accommodate the existence of within-family Flynn effects. Using administrative register data and cognitive ability scores from military conscription data covering three decades of Norwegian birth cohorts (1962–1991), we show that the observed Flynn effect, its turning point, and subsequent decline can all be fully recovered from within-family variation. The analysis controls for all factors shared by siblings and finds no evidence for prominent causal hypotheses of the decline implicating genes and environmental factors that vary between, but not within, families.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/691462

I stumbled upon it here (emphasis mine):
https://science.howstuffworks.com/l...rch-confirms-it-really-are-getting-dumber.htm
and an interesting point is

... What's behind the loss of smarts? Scientists hypothesize changes in our education systems, nutrition, the current media environment, a decline in reading and an increase in online activity as possible culprits. Some blame the IQ test itself ...

so I do not want to discuss such test at all. Whatever one may think about them, I think they will definitely reflect a tendency, which is far more interesting as to what extend an IQ test measures what. I find it too easy to blame the measurement. In my opinion, this would merely distract from the observation. And this is what I think should be discussed.

I remember a dialogue I had about the layout of a modern IDE. The youngster had set it to a vast collection of icons and I said I couldn't handle this: "I want roll down menus, I can read! Do you expect me to learn three dozens of icons for each software I use?" I found that symptomatic.

Another observation of mine is, and I include myself, that since we get used to short video clips, or even shorter cuts within them like in music videos, our attention span has continuously decreased. This would have been somewhere since the early 80's which coincides with the time the authors above measured the reversal of the Flynn effect.

So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?

 

[phinds]

So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?

You might want to limit that to certain TYPES of technology. I think most technological improvements have nothing to do with making us smarter or dumber. Just think of simple but significant things such as electric motors and their multitudinous uses. Do washing machines make us dumber? I could go on and on.

 

[OCR]

Do washing machines make us dumber?

I'm not sure yet... ours quit working yesterday, so it needs to be fixed... by me!

I could go on and on.

I wish you had stopped before... "washing machines". . .
Lol... JK.

.

 

[fresh_42]

You might want to limit that to certain TYPES of technology. I think most technological improvements have nothing to do with making us smarter or dumber. Just think of simple but significant things such as electric motors and their multitudinous uses. Do washing machines make us dumber? I could go on and on.

Yes, that was of course a rhetoric reduction. As mentioned in the title and in my example of icon-usage I obviously meant our modern world of communication and how we display the interfaces of electronic screens nowadays.

 

[OCR]

Do washing machines make us dumber?

I'm not sure yet...

OMG... I'm sure now... they do, they do !

.

.

 

[fresh_42]

OMG... I'm sure now... they do, they do !

Born to be free!

 

[OCR]

"Ephraim! Our machine is walking!"
I can read no more... I can not continue! . . .

.

 

[hmmm27]

The machines that make life simpler, make... life ... do I have to say it ?

 

[Nik_2213]

"Do washing machines make us dumber?"
Ours makes me speechless with rage when it halts mid-cycle...
/
FWIW, after a decade out of CAD, I'm having ghastly problems trying to relearn stuff I knew. Currently clinging to lowest pitons on TurboCAD's training wall...

Um, I used M$ 'Office' suite at work, gradually came to loathe its bloat and knack of complicating my work-flow. I've devolved to the classic 'Notepad' for text-bashing, with 'Wordpad' and 'Libre' in reserve. Graphics handled by nimble 'Irfan View', via its 'just complex enough' interface...

OT: M$ have now quietly, quietly fixed Notepad's silly word-wrap bug they introduced along with all those wondrous features a few months ago...

 

[Klystron]

While appreciating the humor of 'washing machine' comparisons, appliance analogies are too limited compared to 'smart phones'.

Smart phones do not just perform a task (communication) and replace older tech (telephones), they represent an essential link and interface to vast stores of information and applications far beyond dedicated tasks such as washing and drying laundry. Other technology threads explore and attempt to list 'what smart phones do'; yet are still incomplete.

 

[russ_watters]

So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?

Probably, but I think it is a worthwhile trade-off that we seem smarter.

 

[russ_watters]

You might want to limit that to certain TYPES of technology. I think most technological improvements have nothing to do with making us smarter or dumber. Just think of simple but significant things such as electric motors and their multitudinous uses. Do washing machines make us dumber? I could go on and on.

I don't think the difference is as big as you are making it out to be. Physical devices make us physically weaker just as information devices make us dumber. In both cases the task we offload to the machine we get worse at as a result. It's the same issue.

 

[fresh_42]

Probably, but I think it is a worthwhile trade-off that we seem smarter.

I think we can look up things so easily nowadays, that the necessity and therewith the capability to remember them has been decreased. Examples like the multiplication table come to mind, maybe even orthography! Smileys are the new words, icons the new labels!

 

[russ_watters]

I think we can look up things so easily nowadays, that the necessity and therewith the capability to remember them has been decreased. Examples like the multiplication table come to mind, maybe even orthography!

Agreed, but it's more than just memory. A couple of other examples;

-My dad can do math in his head far faster and more accurately than I can.

-language processing is more than just memory. It's understanding and applying grammar rules properly, for example, is a growing problem in my perception.

But I was serious when I said I think it is worth the tradeoff and it was a partial joke to say we "seem" smarter. The engineering output I or my company can do today far exceeds what we did in the past, despite our reduced skills. So with lower skills we turn out a superior product and that's a net win in my book.

 

[phinds]

... understanding and applying grammar rules properly, for example, is a growing problem in my perception.

Boy howdy do I ever agree w/ that. The proper use of pronouns is almost a totally lost ability. I constantly hear public figures and TV personalities (supposedly "journalists" whose TOOL is language) and seemingly educated guests using pronouns in ways that would have been considered shamefully ignorant 50 years ago.

 

[berkeman]

I think we can look up things so easily nowadays

orthography

(I had to look up that word...)

 

[fresh_42]

(I had to look up that word...)

"ortho" is right as the right angles ("gon") in orthogonal bases, and "graphy" is carving the stones! Guess we already lost this ability when we stopped writing messages in stones. Imagine the trouble they must have had correcting a spell error!

 

[berkeman]

Imagine the trouble they must have had correcting a spell error!

I believe this was the first documented case of that happening...

https://d2ciprw05cjhos.cloudfront.n...4/03/shutterstock_132176021.jpg?itok=QfSWHtKR

 

[ZeGato]

What exactly is "familial intelligence"? Couldn't families be changing and people choosing lower IQ partners? With the Norwegian welfare system there's virtually no chance of ending up homeless or without food anymore, and choosing a partner from "good families" to guarantee survival isn't prioritary like it used to be a few decades ago.
Uneducated people also tend to have more children even within the same "family", however they define it, and a developed economy pretty much guarantees the same survival rate independently of the socioeconomic background. This also didn't use to be the case until recently.

 

[phinds]

I believe this was the first documented case of that happening...

Thanks. I REALLY got a chuckle out of that.

 

[fresh_42]

What exactly is "familial intelligence"? Couldn't families be changing and people choosing lower IQ partners? With the Norwegian welfare system there's virtually no chance of ending up homeless or without food anymore, and choosing a partner from "good families" to guarantee survival isn't prioritary like it used to be a few decades ago. Uneducated people also tend to have more children even within the same "family", however they define it.

A few decades? That must have been more than just a few.

• You implicitly claim that IQ and income are positively related: Can you support this, or is it just a wild guess?
• You also equal education and intelligence, which is also a wild guess. Moreover the paper explains, how they eliminated family effects.
• Your third implicit assumption is, that matching marriages had been and is no more driven by economical goals. I doubt this. My antithesis is, that it was and is far more driven by sociological reasons. So again, can you support this claim?

I got the impression that prejudices are the motivator of your statements rather than facts.

 

[ZeGato]

A few decades? That must have been more than just a few.

• You implicitly claim that IQ and income are positively related: Can you support this, or is it just a wild guess?
• You also equal education and intelligence, which is also a wild guess. Moreover the paper explains, how they eliminated family effects.
• Your third implicit assumption is, that matching marriages had been and is no more driven by economical goals. I doubt this. My antithesis is, that it was and is far more driven by sociological reasons. So again, can you support this claim?

I got the impression that prejudices are the motivator of your statements rather than facts.

1. Many studies were done on the subject, and yes, there is a positive relationship between the two.
This https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/ is very informative on this, and it uses this study as the source, among others that it links.
2. That study you cited states: "Polygenic scores that predict education are correlated with IQ"
3. It's fair to assume that with a welfare state guaranteeing your and your children's survival, economic goals are no longer as important as they were 50 years ago when this wasn't the case. Any exploration of the causes for lower IQ over the decades should start with the parents' IQ, which is the best predictor for children's IQ, instead of delving into more exotic and unproven explanations like technology lowering our IQ IMO.

This study relies on families with two or more male siblings for their model, that they then use to generalize for the whole population. There are far simpler explanations for the IQ lowering cited in this same study, even though environmental factors may also play a role.

 

[DennisN]

So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?

Interesting question. And as with most technology, I think important questions also are how we use technology and how much we use it.

I think it is good that the use of quite new technology like internet, smart phones and social media is studied and discussed, and that also social and health aspects are considered; here's another recent study which I personally found very interesting:

Paper: Hunt, Marx et al, No More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression (Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology)
Article about the research: Social media use increases depression and loneliness (Penn Today)

Edit: The study is not about intelligence, but I wanted to share it since others may find it interesting. My intention is not to change the topic .

 

[lpetrich]

Could a lot of the problem with smartphones be feeling that one has to respond every time one gets an alert -- and respond right away? It ought to be a simple matter to have one's phone collect one's alerts, so one can respond to them at one's leisure.

ETA: about loneliness and depression, correlation need not mean causation in one direction. It could be a case of the most lonely and depressed people having social media as their only social outlet.

 

[PeterDonis]

It ought to be a simple matter to have one's phone collect one's alerts, so one can respond to them at one's leisure.

On my phone, I have "do not disturb" on virtually all the time. That means the phone only alerts me if the incoming call/notification is on the list of those important enough to disturb me. (Right now the only one who falls into that category is my wife.) I can look at the other notifications and deal with them when I have time.

 

[nuuskur]

What do we do to compensate for the (mostly) mindnumbing activities we do on the phone? I dare say not much so as the user gets lazier, the effects will reflect in their cognitive abilities. I don't blame the smart phone, I just blame the user. Perhaps overly simplified

I own a smart phone and it has had no effect on my ability to focus or remember things. Then again, I don't waste away looking at the screen, drooling. Maybe I'm being a bit spiteful, a tad touchy subject, kind of lost a friend to the smart phone (we do talk, but mostly online and the conversation is stale, at best, not like it used to be) and now I blame her, because she wouldn't listen to me

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So my provocative question is: Do we make us dumber with each new technology we use?

Or does tech free us from having to remember fairly trivial information or functions to focus on more advanced functions.

 

[DennisN]

What do we do to compensate for the (mostly) mindnumbing activities we do on the phone? I dare say not much so as the user gets lazier, the effects will reflect in their cognitive abilities.

The same thing we did before using phones. Reading something, doodling, daydreaming .

I don't blame the smart phone, I just blame the user. Perhaps overly simplified

Blame the phone too. And the persons responsible for developing the software. There are video game developers and social media platform developers who have knowingly used psychology (intermittent reinforcement) which creates a type of addiction in the users for the sake of making more money (and nowadays there are many video games in which users pay a monthly fee to play). Gambling machines (like slot machines) are based on intermittent reinforcement; with simple rules and visual enhancements, the machine sometimes reward the player, which can condition the player to keep putting in more money, even though the rewards are fewer than the times there are no rewards. And when there is a reward, there are "bells and whistles" to enhance the feeling of reward.

Compare with facebook; relatively simple interface, likes (thumbs up) and emoticon functions and notifications which are colored red to catch the eye. The users reward each other. And this has become a sort of standard on the net, it's the same on youtube and even on comments on youtube. And we have the same thing on forums (like this one, but I don't mind it here ).

Edit: And now I remembered an interesting TED talk on this topic, in which, among other things, the addictive components and cognitive consequences of social media usage are addressed:

Quit social media | Dr. Cal Newport | TEDxTysons

 

[DennisN]

I own a smart phone and it has had no effect on my ability to focus or remember things.

What I have noticed in myself is that the more social platforms I participate on, the less focused I become, particularly if I have them open on the computer at the same time. And it really started to bug me when I installed a lot of software on my Android TV box, which soon started to bombard me in my living room with notifications with annoying sounds from facebook, youtube and other software. I found it to be very distracting when I was doing other things at home. Those notifications have now been turned off .

 

[Mark44]

The proper use of pronouns is almost a totally lost ability. I constantly hear public figures and TV personalities (supposedly "journalists" whose TOOL is language) and seemingly educated guests using pronouns in ways that would have been considered shamefully ignorant 50 years ago.

Just between you and I, I think you are right. The wife and me were discussing this the other night.

Pronouns in English retain the last vestiges of the concept of grammatical case -- different forms for words depending on what part of the sentence they appear in. Way back in the Cretaceous, when I was in Jr. High, we learned how to diagram sentences, which reinforced the ideas of subject, direct object, indirect object, and other concepts that have implications on whether you use I or me, he or him, she or her, we or us, and they or them. In my opinion, it's a shame that this isn't taught much any more, or even at all. I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that a large fraction of middle school and high school English teachers in the US don't have a firm grasp on the proper use of pronouns.