Email Destroys Your IQ: Official!

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/22/email_destroys_iq/' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/0...il_destroys_iq/</a><br /><br /></div>At Pocket PC Thoughts, we regularly touch on the topic of computers &amp; technology and their wider role and impact in and on society. We've often debated how software and shiny gadgets and gizmos affect us, sometimes negatively. Does the following surprise you or had you always suspected it?:<br /><br /><i>"Modern technology depletes human cognitive abilities more rapidly than drugs, according to a psychiatric study. . . Email users suffered a 10 per cent drop in IQ scores, more than twice the fall recorded by marijuana users, in a clinical trial of over a thousand participants. Doziness, lethargy and an inability to focus are classic characteristics of a spliffhead, but email users exhibited these particular symptoms to a "startling" degree, according to Dr Glenn Wilson. The deterioration in mental capacity was the direct result of the trialists' addiction to technology, researchers discovered. Email addicts were bombarded by context switches and developed an inability to distinguish between trivial and significant messages."</i> <br /><br />The Register reckons that we are awash with facts and have forgotten how to think. So, putting your 'Thoughts' thinking caps on, does that seem fair, or is there more to this than meets the eye? Are computers the cause or the symptom of our ever accelerating culture and our manic muddling and juggling multitasking?

[KTamas]

Does anyone have a joint for me? :lol: :lol:
I'm really, really afraid of emails now :lol: :lol:

[mcmuddle]

Did someone say "muddling" ? :lol: Stats can be spun to say anything you want them to. In the cases of "20% walking away from a conversation to check messages", that's just poor social skillsand/or ADD. The schools in this area are responsible for the 'dumbing down' of the masses. So afraid of stigmatizing an underachiever they fail to challenge the top of the class.
At work I was taught to 'trust, but verify', so I rarely accept an email or internet as 'fact' untill I've done my own muddling and verified it. The study does not seem to distinguish between email users/computer users/game players, or between a common spliff head and a hydroponic hobbyist.
The promises from the 60's of technology providing us lives of leasure never came to pass, instead (and rightly so IMHO) we are each able to increase our productivity and accomplish the tasks of many 'Ward Cleavers'
"wffffffffffft!, 'ere!"
I reject the data. :D

[KTamas]

Other things that causes IQ increase/decrease:
Buying a Mac: +10
Buying a PPC: +15
Buying a PPC AND selling the old Palm: +30
Buying a Palm: -20
Buying a palm and selling your PPC: -40
Making stupid researches: Pricele...i mean -200 :lol:

[bvkeen]

I don't understand. Well, back to my e-mail.

[KTamas]

I don't understand. Well, back to my e-mail.
lol... :lol:

[stevelam]

Yeh those claims may be true but i bet you lose even more IQ if you frequently use IM programs.

[stevelam]

Or you click on spam e-mails and then buy something from one!!!

[emuelle1]

I have to wonder what kind of people they started with. How did they verify their IQ's prior to and after the study? Are we talking about people who were intelligent and able to think analytically prior to the study, or were they the kind of people who already believed that a county sheriff would use a mass email chain to distribute public safety information rather than a press release?

[AximMeister]

Give me some thumpin' tunes and a few pills over email anyday. Employers take note.

[KTamas]

Yeh those claims may be true but i bet you lose even more IQ if you frequently use IM programs.
...therefore skype simply kills your brain?... :roll: :P

[OSUKid7]

Hmmm...
IQ = Knowledge - email - IM - IRC - RSS ?

;) :lol:

[felixdd]

The survey merely found a correlation between email and IQ...for all we know, the causality can be reversed (low IQ leads to poor email habits), or perhaps a third causal factor can come into play (poor intersocial skills lead to low IQ and (or can cause) poor email habits).

Then there's the issue of the relevance of IQ as a measure of intelligence, but that's another can of worms altogether.

[Tracy Daubenspeck]

It is not a definitive study, only 1100 people. However, it does bring up a good point. We are inudateded with needless messages, especially at work. The tendency to send everything to everyone is a plague. Many of my co-workers get several hundred emails a week. Most can be disregarded, but you have to filter through to the ones that might be important.

Some are victims of their own inaction because they don't know how to set up filters, and don't take the initiative to get off of email distribution lists. This is a relatively new phenomena, 10 years or so, and we really haven't had time to figure it all out.

My strategy: I have 2 monitors, 1 for email and 1 for work. I scan each incoming email and flag the important ones for later review. If it requires imediate action, I work on it, otherwise I review the flagged mails when I am ready for a new task. I also have auto filters on and have informed all my coworkers and friends to not forward me jokes and junk mail. It helps me stay sane and productive.

By the way, the 2 monitor set up is a must for real productivity. Being able to have multiple window open and at readable size allows things like coding in one window and watching the results in the other, or side by side comparison of large datasets. Try it, you'll like it.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

By the way, the 2 monitor set up is a must for real productivity. Being able to have multiple window open and at readable size allows things like coding in one window and watching the results in the other, or side by side comparison of large datasets. Try it, you'll like it.
I do the same thing both at work and home and it's a fantastic productivity enabler.

As for the studies though, as someone else mentioned, these results can be spun in a number of ways, though I do agree in general that society is not challenged to think as much, resulting in an overall loss of creativity.

Many of today's tasks (both at work and at home) are automated by computers meaning a lot of information is pushed to us without requiring much effort or thought.

I would be curious where these participants were pulled from and what walks of life do they represent because there's a difference between an application user versus a true computer user. There are so many ways you can use computers to create and extend your own capabilities, but many folks today rely on the use of a few applications for non-productive, making computers more like a crutch rather than a true productivity tool (i.e. - folks who spend several hours/day behind a computer just so they can send/receive email or chat with friends or play games probably need to re-evaluate what computers are really doing for them).

This is really an interesting topic.

[karen]

...is it 4:20 already???? 8)

[phritosan]

on the opposite side of the coin, the most recent edition of Wired has an article about how the average IQ has been steadily raising due to the fact that our minds are constantly having to learn our way around new technology be it learning to email, learning to program the vcr, learning to program the oven, or using new devices such as gaming systems and computing devices. everything is becoming more and more complex in pursuit of simplification of our lives. every time we get a new appliance or cell phone, there is a learning curve that our brains must adapt to. this teaches them problem solving and how to think around a problem rather than just at the problem

[bvkeen]

I thought the definition of average IQ was that it = 100, and cannot, by definition, increase. Perhaps it's been too long since I read up on it. Probably too many e-mails between then and now. Regardless, I agree that we are required to know more now than we did, but I'm not convinced we're any smarter or any dumber in how we use it.

[jasondearyou]

Well with advantages comes vdis-advantages,,,,

buying from hp +5
buying from fs +25
buying from dell +5
buying from palm duh -5

but email rocks..... 0X

[phritosan]

I thought the definition of average IQ was that it = 100

aye, thats the case, but over the years they change the tests to make them more difficult. the test group takes both the old and new tests, on the old test the average was above 100, on the new one its at 100

[allenalb]

I think it's probably true, i know I feel dumber since the internet became popular. :)

all kidding aside, i have about 10 bookcases full of books. i can fill one shelf on one bookcase with the books i have purchased since getting broadband about 5 years ago. all the others were purchased before broadband was available. there is just no time to read books any more with so much (questionable) content available.

[mobilemail]

I would have to be convinced that this was a well run study to take its results seriously. However, I have seen some discussions (rants and ramblings) on various forums on the internet that make me seriously consider this arguement as it applies to forum addicts. Wait....feel....cognitive....processes....slowing....

[Damion Chaplin]

Then there's the issue of the relevance of IQ as a measure of intelligence, but that's another can of worms altogether.

Thank you felixdd! :D

Even the guy who invented the IQ test said that it is not intended to be the SOLE determiner of intellect!

My father is rated a genius on the IQ scale and yet he has never been able to figure out email. Guess he was one of the luckier smart ones...

Which makes me wonder: If your IQ drops from reading email, will there eventually be a time when one's IQ drops so low one can no longer email? :wink:

[k1darkknight]

Yeh those claims may be true but i bet you lose even more IQ if you frequently use IM programs.
Hey! I use them IM...thingys...alot!

k1darkknight, aka...uhhhh...(looks at his Yahoo Messenger window)

(grammatical errors intended...duh!)

[k1darkknight]

I have to wonder what kind of people they started with. How did they verify their IQ's prior to and after the study? Are we talking about people who were intelligent and able to think analytically prior to the study, or were they the kind of people who already believed that a county sheriff would use a mass email chain to distribute public safety information rather than a press release?
Well, they're definitely NOT dealing with the same people who are afraid to let the cashier at the gas station actually swipe the magnetic stripe on their ID through the reader to verify legal age for alcohol/tobacco sales. "Oh, no! 'Big Brother' will track everything I buy anywhere." Then these same people hand the cashier a credit card.

Come to think of it, maybe they ARE dealing with the same group of people...lol

k1darkknight, aka gas station employee (for now)

[k1darkknight]

...is it 4:20 already???? 8)

rofl...I actually READ that at 4:20!!!!!
Though you missed the really good one... 4:20 on 4/20

k1darkknight, aka...(tromps off for some munchies)

[k1darkknight]

Okay, last post here, I promise!

I thought the definition of average IQ was that it = 100

aye, thats the case, but over the years they change the tests to make them more difficult. the test group takes both the old and new tests, on the old test the average was above 100, on the new one its at 100
Wordy enough, off-topic enough reply to warrant its own topic, HERE (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39888).

k1darkknight, aka...OW! Typist's cramp!