An award-winning neurologist on the Stone-Age roots of our screen addictions, and what to do about them.The human brain hasn’t changed much since the Stone Age, let alone in the mere thirty years of the Screen Age. That’s why, according to neurologist Richard Cytowic—who, Oliver Sacks observed, “changed the way we think of the human brain”—our brains are so poorly equipped to resist the incursions of Big They are programmed for the wildly different needs of a prehistoric world. In Your Stone-Age Brain in the Screen Age, Cytowic explains exactly how this programming works—from the brain’s point of view. What he reveals in this book shows why we are easily addicted to screen devices, why young, developing brains are particularly vulnerable, why we need silence, and what we can do to push back. In the engaging storytelling style of his popular TED Talk, Cytowic draws an easily comprehensible picture of the Stone-Age brain’s workings—the function of neurotransmitters like dopamine in basic instincts for survival such as wanting and reward; the role of comparison in emotion, and emotion in competition; and, most significantly, the orienting reflex, one of the unconscious circuits that automatically focus, shift, and sustain attention. In light of this picture, the nature of our susceptibility to digital devices becomes clear, along with the possibility of how to break their spell. Full of practical actions that we can start taking right away, Your Stone-Age Brain in the Screen Age is compelling evidence that we can change the way we use technology, resist its addictive power over us, and take back the control we have lost.
Richard E. Cytowic, MD, MFA is a neurologist best know for bringing synesthesia back into the scientific mainstream in 1980. The trait of crossed senses is now seen as important to understanding how brains perceive.
Wednesday Is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia (with David Eagleman) won the 2011 Montaigne Medal.
Cytowic also writes non-fiction and fiction, and received his MFA in creative writing from American University. The Pulitzer nominee's work has appeared in The Washingtonian, New Scientist, and the New York Times Magazine.
Che il costante permanere attaccati agli schermi- del cellulare in primis- non sia un'abitudine virtuosa è il buon senso (antichissima forma di saggezza, ora avvertita come polverosa e demodé) a suggerirlo. Questo saggio ben scritto e chiaro anche quando parla di neuroscienza e ricadute cerebrali della dipendenza da schermi, però, acclara- dati alla mano, corredati di un'imponete bibliografia- il mutamento antropologico in atto. Concetti come autismo digitale, ansia da separazione (dai devices), depressione e ansia si connettono in una rete, ironicamente dipendente dalla Rete. Molto ci sarebbe da dire, molti i dati che mi hanno colpito (culle con schermi incorporati; scuole Waldorf senza connessioni per i figli dei magnati della Silicon Valley; ricadute a lungo raggio dell'aver perso l'uso del corsivo...e molte altre cose che sembrano antichissimi retaggi di un tempo che fu, ma che hanno prodotto e producono conseguenze) e per i quali mi sembra che questo saggio- molto fuori dalla mia bolla solita e per il quale ringrazio chi me lo ha suggerito- vada letto: soprattutto da parte dei genitori e/o di chi lavora con i bambini, coi giovani, nella formazione. Senza la prosopopea di considerarci immuni, noi adulti: anzi, almeno nel mio modestissimo caso. Il nuovo proposito, maturato a seguito della lettura, è quello di vedere le persone: e di spegnere lo smartphone, quando sono con loro.
This book is for anyone who knows that their relationship with technology is toxic. If you are on the fence about leaving social media, disabling notifications, or making any other changes in your technical consumption, this book will help you pull the trigger and reach freedom.
When I picked up this book, I was already on board with Cytowic's argument--I wanted to learn more about how technology could be contributing to my fatigue. Unfortunately, this manuscript is a mess on the book, chapter, and sometimes even paragraph level. Shockingly so, because to be a scientist the author had to master laying out his thoughts in order.
For example, take chapter 18. In good news, it recaps in bullet list form all the facts and arguments Cytowic cycled through at nauseam in chapters 1-17. (Really though, why make it 17 different chapters if you will cover the same thing in each one). In bad news, the bullet list was actually supposed to be a list of things "you can do for yourself" to cope with technology. Some bullet points were about that, like "don't use technology while you eat" or "talk to people in person or on the phone." ("Read books" is bullet point 4 and then again 7, for some reason.) But more than half of the bullet points is things like "Two separate networks lie behind reward and pleasure. ... Unfortunately, addictions that successfully commandeer the dopamine network can alter it permanently for the worse." Sir, did you forget what you were supposed to be talking about?
The rest of the book similarly resembles a first draft. It needed some cleaning up and structuring. Even though I agreed with the author's ideas, I was constantly annoyed when reading.
PS. This is not the place to critique the actual arguments in the book, nor do I have the training to do so, but one detailed made my social historian blood boil. The biggest message in this book is that children shouldn't be exposed to technology at an early age. Cytowic brings up socioeconomic reasons for parents to over-rely on technology exactly once (pp. 226-228). And this reason is that less affluent parents "haven't yet heard the alarms." Really? You could not think of any other contributors?
If I could write a book on this subject (which I have considered) it wouldn’t look much different to this. I’ve said for a while that for all the good technology can do, it’s coming at a consequence for the next generation. The danger is that we stop evolving and actually devolve if we continue down this path of instant gratification, digital overload and screen addiction. Enjoyed the book - affirmed much of what I believe.
While his points are valid, they assume all negative impacts of devices with the precedent that our brains are not equipped to handle this screen age. The future will in fact have more technology, not prioritize memorization and provide the ability to learn at at earlier age if we allow it. While it’s true that devices build the instant gratification vs encouraging meaningful experiences and some believe this ultimately gave rise to the recreational drug epidemic, we might benefit from embracing this age vs pushing it away. Devices will actually be more of an extension of the human brain in the future and I think we need to focus on figuring out how to incorporate this new tool more successfully. I appreciate the authors perspective and knew what it was going on but I heard a lot more opportunity in his writing than downsides to the screen age.
The book touches on many great points about how our brain is unprepared to all the screens and the swirl of information coming from there.
I also hope that research on how much learning to write with your hands even in this digital age is detrimental to a child's development can reach more parents. My mum's a teacher and she can see the effects of this on a large scale in school.
This book however, just like all the other pop science books out there, could have been well enough as a longer video or article.
The idea that people are forming emotional attachments to their devices and treating them as extensions of themselves reflects a significant cultural and psychological shift in the digital era. . As technology has become an integral part of daily life, our smartphones, tablets, and other devices are no longer just tools; they have become companions, memory keepers, and personal assistants.
Poteva scrivere molte meno pagine. Certe cose sono interessanti, per altre non posso fare altri che consigliargli un buon neurologo. Inutile che cerchi di rendersi simpatico.
Per me ha perso tutta la sua credibilità quando ha parlato di DNA spazzatura, argomento che ha portato la sua presunta esperienza ad un livello di età della pietra. Non credevo di dover sentire ancora parlare nel 2025 di Junk DNA o presunti ex-organi spazzatura che sono inutilmente nel corpo “perché l’evoluzione così”. Sti tizio si è messo a prendere in giro chi credeva che il cervello utilizzasse solo il 10% del suo potenziale, per poi cadere in altre similie ca**ate.. Quando non sa come spiegare qualcosa, si appella al fatto che “l’evoluzione ha agito così” come se fosse un entità metafisica che debba orientare l’umano al suo migliore sviluppo possibile. Cambiate tutti queste arrampicate sugli specchi con “Dio” e vi accorgerete che indiscepoli del suo credo hanno semplicemente creato un nuovo concetto astratto senza prove dandosi pure autorità.
Non ho potuto fare a meno ad un certo punto di prendere il libro e buttarlo in un cestino, nonostante l’argomento sembrasse interessante, siccome è quello il suo ambiente ideale.
the author knows a lot about the relationship with screens and our bodies including brain. this is a good book that I wanna reread. it can be a bit difficult to read for some people because the author talks about science in a bit difficult way.