I sense that the debate about the effect of media and communications on society (the subject matter of Distraction and this site) is building up a head of steam. The evidence in the last week has pointed in two opposite directions - although to be fair the topics were different technologies.
In a story covered widely (the Daily Mail and The Times at least and a good piece in the Register by the ever sceptical Andrew Orlowski), Dr Glenn Wilson of the University of London has researched the effect of text messages and e-mails on IQ. The background seems solid, though I've not seen the research - the research team used 80 volunteers in clinical trials and a wider base of 1,100 adults interviewed. I cannot find the original research on-line: if anyone knows where to find it please let me know.
The conclusion is (to quote a newspaper headline) "texting harms your IQ". The research extends beyond mobile phones and includes e-mail. According to the Times
"the noticeable drop in IQ is attributed to the constant distraction (aha!) of "always on" technology when employees should be concentrating on what they are paid to do."
Although I disagree with the second half of this statement (for a lot of people at work e-mail and calls ARE what you do, and can be productive), this looks like harder evidence for the idea that true focus in the modern communications context is hard and beyond many people's reach. However it is not clear how this translates into a loss of IQ: defective ability in the short term yes, but there's no evidence that it damages IQ long term. It might have been much closer to the mark to conclude that too much incoming (digital) communication profoundly affects EQ i.e., one's ability to deal with other people around you.
Meanwhile the BBC reports on Stephen Johnson's new book (he wrote, among others, Emergence).
Now though, a new book in the US is challenging the notion that TV has "dumbed down" over the years; that watching television is bad for you. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Steven Johnson argues that audiences are nostalgic for a "golden era" of TV that didn't really exist. We remember the good shows, but forget the abundance of dross. "You have to compare like with like," says Mr Johnson, who believes US shows such as ER, West Wing, Seinfeld, 24 and the Sopranos - all of which have won loyal followings in the UK - are infinitely more sophisticated than their equivalents in the 70s.
Today's programmes have more complex narratives, moral ambiguity, bigger casts, numerous intertwined plotlines - in essence, the sort of depth one would expect from a weighty novel. "The form of these shows, the fact the onus is on the viewer to make connections and understand what's going on... watching them is a mental work out," says Mr Johnson. Hill Street Blues, the long-running New York police drama which started in 1981, is Mr Johnson's baseline. It tore up the cop show rule book by injecting realism into a traditionally shoot 'em up format. Its success cleared the way for a host of increasingly more complex TV dramas, he says.
So TV can make you cleverer? According to Johnson...
"What people miss when they see reality shows is that these are group psychology experiences. It's fascinating to watch because it's unscripted. You have these intense interpersonal dynamics when they are solving a challenge, and the audience is trying to figure out if there's a better strategy. It's a much more engaged experience than watching a mediocre cop show."
I'd better read the book. There is surely something in the idea that TV formats have become more sophisticated, but does this make us smarter? Or better at life? Have to think about this one....