We are living through a massive, largely unmonitored experiment in digital consumption. Our attention is fragmented, our schools are battling device addiction, and our political realities are curated by black-box algorithms. These three studies map the specific, measurable consequences of our tech environment—and what happens when we actively intervene.

Research Roundup

How To Harm Yourself in 30 Seconds

I was told that my books must be less than 70,000 words or no one will read them. My talks must be less than 15 minutes or no one will sit through them. My interview clips must be less than 30 seconds or no one will watch them. I call bullshit…and so does neuroscience.

When people “viewed either a continuous long video or multiple short videos matched for duration and content”, the short videos caused “poorer memory accuracy” and “weakened…connectivity” in crucial (claustrum–caudate nucleus) learning circuits.

Outside the experiment, people who consumed more short-form videos have lower claustrum–caudate connectivity and, in turn, lower “memory performance”.

As the study authors claimed, “Learning through short videos impairs memory by disrupting brain systems involved in information integration, cognitive control, and semantic processing.” [1]

That which is consumed without effort is digested without meaning, leaving only an appetite for milk and sugar.

[1] Yay! Engagement KPIs are likely damaging our brains! What a cool large-scale experiment to run on ourselves!

How To Solve the Wrong Problem

The impacts of technology are rarely uniform. Across AI, social media, or smart phones, different people show differing usage patterns, and so averaging over them reveals very little. Take, for example, students and smartphones.

An analysis of data on lockable phone pouches in U.S. schools shows that the bans actually work in that “GPS pings” around schools drop dramatically, but the effects on individual student academics and psychology are lost in the averages.

The restrictions triggered a temporary rise in disciplinary issues and a drop in “well-being” during the first year, which turned positive in subsequent years. Average test score impacts were nearly non-existent, though “high schools see modest…math” improvements while middle schools register slight declines. [1]

Because we didn’t know what individual students were doing with their phones pre-ban, the average results of the ban are just a muddle. Much as with my own research on AI, some students likely flourished with their phones; most likely suffered. A uniform ban nets…nothing. [2]

To build cognitive resilience in students, look past binary debates about banning technology and instead focus on how we actively structure healthy cognitive environments and give students the capacity to flourish with or without technology.

[1] Were the middle schooler's cheating? Or is FOMO so prevalent in 7th grade that kids Jonesing for a text message just couldn't concentrate?

[2] That’s not fair: positive well-being after a couple years is nice. I previously reviewed another paper that showed students would initially pay to keep Facebook but later would pay to not have it back. “Hysteresis” is your work of the day.

Competing in the Marketplace of Engagement

A recent paper showed that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm had no political bias [1]. Can the same be said for X?

“Active US-based users” were assigned “randomly to either an algorithmic or a chronological feed for 7 weeks”. Switching to algorithmic feed both “increased engagement” and “shifted political opinion towards more conservative positions”. Why? X’s “algorithm promotes conservative content and demotes posts by traditional media”.

Interestingly, leaving the algorithm for a chronological feed “had no comparable effects”. Nor did switching feeds significantly affect affective polarization or self-reported partisanship. It turns out X’s algorithm leads users to follow conservative activist accounts, which they continue to follow even after the algorithm is turned off.

Completely unrelated, training LLMs based on social media engagement metrics quickly causes that to fail all standard benchmarks. I don’t know why I mention this—it’s surely irrelevant.

[1] Well, unbiased beyond shallowly serving up whatever itch kept you scratching.

Media Mentions

After so many op-eds and news coverage in recent months, how about a blast from the past...how about 2!

And sharing a stage with Brian Cox:

SciFi, Fantasy, & Me

Unfortunately, I've got nothing to recommend this week. I read two books recently but didn’t connect with either. So instead, I'm going to do the thing every writer eventually does and talk about my own unfinished project [1].

I’ve always had a deep love for classic, sweeping epic fantasy—the Belgariad or the Wheel of Time. But modern fantasy seems to have bifurcated into either relentless grimdark cynicism or ultra-cozy escapism [2]. I miss the classic, truly heroic epics that made me think deeply about human potential.

So, in my spare time, I’ve been building my own.

It’s a very, very slow passion project called The Long Caravan. But to make it more than just an homage to Jordan, Eddings, or the Topless Towers of Rothfuss, I am designing its cosmology and metaphysics to directly reflect my actual cognitive science research.

I'm not quitting my day job [3], but I am curious: what is a  sci-fi and fantasy "big idea" that completely changed how you looked at the real world?

[1] Over here, instead of plywood and tarp, imagine a curving two-story atrium in rich rosewood. The roof will connect all the way to the basement!

[2] There are some great books in these genres, and done right you get Murderbot. But I still miss the classic magic-rich quest…and there’s only so much Sanderson can fill the void all by himself. [4]

[3] Whatever the hell that is.

[4] And why is famed misanthrope Miyazaki such an engaging producer of profound girl protagonists.

Stage & Screen

• June 11, Luxembourg: How Europe (and even some of it smallest states) compete and grow in a trade environment dominated by zero-sum leaders
• June 18, Stockholm: The Smartest Thing on the Planet: Hybrid Intelligence
• June 25, Online: "The Tax On Being Different" can't be wished away
• July 7, MIT: I'm giving the keynote for the MIT App Inventor Global Education Summit taking place this year at MIT CSAIL.
• July 8, NYC: It a book talk for Robot-Proof at the Harvard Club...how swanky!
• Maybe July 24...Maybe San Diego: Maybe....
• September 19, Phoenix: I'm giving the keynote for the Association of Science & Technology Centers annual conference.
• September 21, Stanford: We're still working on the details, but hopefully I'll be talking about my research on machine learning and neurodiversity for Stanford's Neurodiversity Project.
• September 24, NYC: Culture Shifting Deal Making Summit
• September 29, Cincinnati: Still baking...
• September 30, Irvine: Hybrid Intelligence for innovation!
• October 6, SF: UCSD Alumni Association
• October 6, SF: Giving a talk at the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation
• October 21-23, Warsaw: So much good stuff is in the works for my first visit to Poland (and maybe time in Germany as well!)
• October, Toronto: The Future of Work...in the Future
• November 19, NYC: Secrets in the dark!

Vivienne L'Ecuyer Ming