Greenfield v Goldacre
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 by M09
Luke brought up some interesting points made by Susan Greenfield. I want to address her claims and those from her subsequent critics. Consider this an exercise in critical thinking and the media.
Greenfield asserts that computer games, fast-paced television, chat rooms, instant messaging and social networks contribute to a 're-wiring' of the brain so that they become less sociable. I could not find any evidence that Greenfield actually claimed social networking sites to be the sole cause of behavioural changes. Therefore, we should address her actual claims not her supposed ones.
Firstly, does she back her claims up with research evidence? No, she does not. She freely admits it would be difficult to determine a causal relationship between the screen and behaviour. The critics go one step further and claim it is impossible to gain conclusive evidence, yet these are the same people demanding to see such impossible evidence.
As for the brief debate itself, Goldacre in no way addresses any of the issues Greenfield raised, he provided no reasoned rebuttals, and refuted no evidence. Goldacre, may not fall prey to ‘bad science’ but it seems he has been devoured by bad argumentation. Goldacre is mistaken in believing that because there is no evidence, Greenfield’s claims are false. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, Goldacre does make a valid point, we should look at both sides of the argument and come to a reasoned conclusion.
One final but crucial point is the ad hominem attacks on Greenfield. She has been called an ‘elitist’, I think Luke referred to her assertions as “elitist guff” and he may very well be right. However, I don’t think this is relevant to her actual argument. Greenfield may be an elitist, but that does nothing to weaken her argument. We should engage the idea not the individual. We should be fair and objective in acknowledging both sides. To be critical of a viewpoint does not mean to be cynical of it.
Personally, I agree with Luke’s viewpoint on these technological issues. I believe they are merely symptomatic of a deeper problem. A problem that is not specific to a culture, society or technology. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the problem is us.
Greenfield asserts that computer games, fast-paced television, chat rooms, instant messaging and social networks contribute to a 're-wiring' of the brain so that they become less sociable. I could not find any evidence that Greenfield actually claimed social networking sites to be the sole cause of behavioural changes. Therefore, we should address her actual claims not her supposed ones.
Firstly, does she back her claims up with research evidence? No, she does not. She freely admits it would be difficult to determine a causal relationship between the screen and behaviour. The critics go one step further and claim it is impossible to gain conclusive evidence, yet these are the same people demanding to see such impossible evidence.
As for the brief debate itself, Goldacre in no way addresses any of the issues Greenfield raised, he provided no reasoned rebuttals, and refuted no evidence. Goldacre, may not fall prey to ‘bad science’ but it seems he has been devoured by bad argumentation. Goldacre is mistaken in believing that because there is no evidence, Greenfield’s claims are false. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, Goldacre does make a valid point, we should look at both sides of the argument and come to a reasoned conclusion.
One final but crucial point is the ad hominem attacks on Greenfield. She has been called an ‘elitist’, I think Luke referred to her assertions as “elitist guff” and he may very well be right. However, I don’t think this is relevant to her actual argument. Greenfield may be an elitist, but that does nothing to weaken her argument. We should engage the idea not the individual. We should be fair and objective in acknowledging both sides. To be critical of a viewpoint does not mean to be cynical of it.
Personally, I agree with Luke’s viewpoint on these technological issues. I believe they are merely symptomatic of a deeper problem. A problem that is not specific to a culture, society or technology. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the problem is us.
Quite right. You have to look at the merits of the argument and not just the social status of the speaker. However, I also think there is a long history of elitist discourses on the "dangers" of new media (whether cinema, tv, home VCRs or whatever) that are often indirect ways of bashing the (imagined) lower classes for being so susceptible and so ill-equipped to avoid the negative impacts. So I don't think that social class is entirely irrelevant here. Just to try and defend myself ever so slightly, though, I think what I said was that we can easily dismiss these concerns as "elitist guff" and, in doing so, ingore critical questions that we could be asking (about ourselves, not an elitist concern for the welfare of the great unwashed) in terms of attention spans and the nature of friendship. In other words I was cautioning against a knee-jerk dismissal of the issues Greenfield and Sigman. Having said all that, I still think Greenfield's position is itself knee-jerk elitism about which I can't help being rather cynical. Maybe I want to have my cake and eat it! Great post - it definitely distracted me from what I should be concentrating on right now!
I didn't mean to take your phrasing out of context, I apologize. I only remembered that bit because I've never heard anyone actually use the term 'guff'.
However, I must disagree about the relevance of ‘knee-jerk elitism'. You may be completely right that Greenfield is simply being reactionary, she may be bias, better still she may be a hypocrite, using multiple SNS and encouraging her kids to do so as well. But her argument, if it is good, will remain true. She is giving an argument not testimony. If Greenfield were to say “I have researched all relevant evidence, take my word for it: New technologies will have a negative effect on children”. Then you would be completely justified in calling into question her motives. However, this is not the case. Greenfield is providing reasons for her conclusions – this constitutes her argument. Greenfield’s argument is fair game, Greenfield herself is not. In short, the source of an argument is irrelevant, the argument itself is wholly relevant. For this reason I purposefully left out her titles of ‘neurologist’ and ‘baroness’.
The difficulty is actually determining what her argument is. Thus far I have only found articles with small quotations. I have yet to find her actual report.