(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Mind Change, Susan Greenfield. Random House, 2015 One of the great questions of our time is how a digital reality affects us cognitively. Many people think something about this. Among the most prominent voices in the discussion is Jeremy Rifkin, who in several books has argued that digital aids help to democratize knowledge and communication and thus facilitate thinking and education regardless of class and geography. In his latest book The Zero Marginal Cost Society He draws it another notch: "The Third Industrial Revolution," as he calls it, could lead us out of capitalism and into another form of political governance, where earnings and (slave) work no longer define everyday life. Less optimistic reflections we find with writers like Sherry Tuckle, as in Alone together claiming that being social online really hides a deeper state of loneliness. We also have the very interesting To save everything, click here by Russian Evgeny Morozov, who places greater emphasis on the way digital technologies facilitate surveillance. Susan Greenfield, a neurologist, draws in other lines without new book, which goes more directly to the digital meaning of the brain She talks about how the brain can quickly be reprogrammed according to its context and what experiences it is exposed to. The brain's ability to change physically, through switched synapses and increased contact surface between neurons, is enormous: in fact, it can change in just a few days. Moreover, it never stops growing, so if you stay in shape mentally and physically, it will develop itself at an advanced age. The bad news when it comes to digital technology is that the quick rewards you get for example by posting updates on social media trigger the happiness hormone dopamine, which quickly leads to addiction. When we check mail or Facebook repeatedly over the course of a day, we will develop a "crystallized intelligence", as Greenfield calls it – a cognitive device that fixes certain habits, purely physically, in the brain synapses. Here, Greenfield is in line with brain scientist Manfred Spitzer, who thinks distractions and multitasking lead to "digital dementia," as he puts it in his book of the same name (which came in Norwegian last year). Self-touch. An important aspect of network reality is, in this context, the way identity is formed. Greenfield draws the lines a lot further than Spitzer. Especially through her emphasis on the value of storytelling and dramatic depth to live a full life. She refers to the sociologist Erwing Goffmanns Our role play on a daily basis when she explains how the levels of identity expression will differ from those of the past in a digital age, where social media is the platform for the self-construction for many. According to Goffman, there is a difference between the role we play when we take on a public role, or act by virtue of the mandate or work tasks we have undertaken, and the role we fall into when we relax in private spaces. It's in the distance between frontstage og backstage our selves are dramatized and formed, he believes. It is the superficial smiley faces and the documentation of "joy" and "happiness", often without further explanation, that often define social media as a platform for self-expression. How should we deal with these differences today, in a digital reality, Greenfield asks. Social media rarely has much room for negative emotions or complex experiences, which often leads to fewer "likes" and the loss of friends. It is the superficial smiley faces and the documentation of "joy" and "happiness", often without further explanation, that often define social media as a platform for self-expression. So maybe your digital self is, she suggests, verkenfrontstage or backstage, but something in between: It is a medium for a dream image of yourself, governed by a competition to be beautiful, cool, interesting or happy. "Facebook can open an alternative world in which people can escape from reality and be the person they would like to be," as she says. If we become hooked on external stimuli, and lose control of who we are behind the facade, consciousness will always be at the mercy of others' gaze and technology's demands for attention. Our selves are externalized, the interior is emptied into a semi-public battle zone where we have no control over the portrayal of ourselves – and can not protect our own rest and life story. The point is central – because when the digital identity, and the retouching of yourself that is implanted there, no longer has clear stage directions, the dream image can lead to a wear and tear in your unedited self. A crucial aspect of the dramatization of our selves – perhaps the most crucial – is therefore the relationship between the private and the public. One problem, Greenfield believes, is not only that we become dependent on an idealized image of ourselves, but that the addiction erodes the private space. We need a place we can retreat to, rethink, and "recharge our batteries." A place where we can work with the story of ourselves without being exposed to the gaze and criticism of others. Without privacy, we are also in danger of losing the ability to think, according to Greenfield, who emphasizes that thinking is not about the ability to solve logical tasks, but to locate our experiences within the framework of the peculiar narrative about ourselves. Another aspect of this situation, which Greenfield places less emphasis on, is how essential the alternation between the private and the public is when it comes to expressing oneself as an individual, as a citizen. At a time when smartphones mean that we are constantly online, we are on a stage non-stop, in a XNUMX-hour sub-public where we in reality are constantly in front of others and "perform" ourselves. Politics and cognition. It is this situation that is the very first scene in the philosopher Hannah Arendt's concept of the active, political man. Just like Greenfield, she believes it is essential to understand that the private is a space where one reflects and recovers, but just as important is that the rest period is a preparation to go out in public again. For Arendt, status updates on social media would probably be an expression of thoughtlessness, because we do not present our opinions to the public, but document our lives in fragments, without having anything essential to say. Thinking is not about the ability to solve logical tasks, but to locate our experiences within the framework of the distinctive narrative about ourselves. But Arendt does not talk about brain research, and that is where Greenfield can assist us. Because even though the brain is easily hooked on dopamine- and oxyticin-driven experiences, it can also be changed through repetition. This is neuroplasticity: if we repeat an action enough times, we have not only acquired a new habit, but actually reprogrammed the structure of the brain, quite concretely. But – then we must not become dependent on ours frontage-i, or forget the private room and the story of ourselves that is created there. Because if our brain pathways are automated through crystallized intelligence, we will become slaves to how others see us, not how we see ourselves. This is a crucial difference. "Mind is how you see the world, whereas identity is how the world sees you," writes Greenfield. There are a huge number of books on the effects of digital media, but in the discussion I have missed a perspective that goes directly to biology, and especially our cognitive apparatus: How is our thinking ability, neurological, and how can we understand brain development in light of digital technologies ? Can we understand more of what we should do and what we absolutely should not do? Greenfield gives us a pointer, but can be read in pairs with Arendt. Røed is a film critic in Ny Tid
