"At baseline, time watching and socializing were negatively correlated with intelligence, while gaming did not correlate. After two years, gaming positively impacted intelligence, but socializing had no effect. This is consistent with cognitive benefits documented in experimental studies on video gaming."<p>So it's confirmed? Gaming > Socializing? /s
The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic scores already is a strong sign of low quality research. Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects. Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche.<p>Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a predatory journal, a very low bar. They publish tens of thousands of articles every year, while charging vast fees.<p>In general, these guys have correlations, not causation. Children's IQ - and gaming habits etc. - develop as they age, so controlling for baseline IQ is not enough to make a correlation with later IQ and gaming causal. It seems much more likely that smarter kids game more, e.g. because they live in richer households. (No, controlling for SES isn't enough to rule this out, for much the same reasons of measurement error as for the genetics.)<p>If you wanna believe that your hours on COD have made you a genius, go ahead, I won't stop you. Just don't imagine that this research proves it.
If this study has you scratching your head about the impact of digital media, do have a read of "Four arguments for the elimination of television" by Jerry Mander.<p>The arguments included in it are no different than many of these new studies coming out. If you grew up to be a latchkey kid and had your fair share of TV/video games/etc, it might give you perspective into things you never thought about.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NBEurnIqY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NBEurnIqY</a>
The only program I let my kids use is KidPix on the iPad. It's a (rather remarkable) drawing and animation program and I'm constantly amazed at what they make with it. And sometimes horrified. But the 5 yo enjoys creating scenes with sound effects (that she recorded) and animation (that she also recorded), while the 3 yo enjoys making intricate drawings and then methodically coloring everything green. It's his favorite color, and he enjoys this. Not affiliated at all, but KidPix is a <i>great</i> piece of software, and I wouldn't have known about it except it was on a public library computer.<p>My point is there is (at least) another important category of program that the researchers missed: creator software. I've also made simple songs with them with garage band, but the UI is still rather difficult for them to use it on their own. I was inspired to take this approach because my first introduction to computers was Logo on an Apple IIe, and Seymore Papert's beautiful work left a lasting impression.
When I was a kid I spent too much time on computers but it was mostly reading Wikipedia and googling programming questions, that kind of stuff.<p>Where I grew up there wasn't anyone around I could ask those kinds of questions of. I know that's not the Netflix / ipad world that the study is talking about or nessecarily exists today. But I suspect that bifurcation still exists.
"Digital media" is a gigantic umbrella and there are so many variations and confounding factors that I doubt anything useful could come from a study like this. As with anything that has the potential for addiction or maladaptive behavior, the difference between healthy and unhealthy consumption comes down to moderation and mindful consumption.
Interesting points mentioned about genetic influence and heritability of intelligence..<p>"We believe that studies with genetic data could clarify causal claims and correct for the typically unaccounted role of genetic predispositions. Here, we estimated the impact of different types of screen time (watching, socializing, or gaming) on children’s intelligence while controlling for the confounding effects of genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic status."<p>"The contradictions among studies on screen time and cognition are likely due to limitations of cross-sectional designs, relatively small sample sizes, and, most critically, failures to control for genetic predispositions and socio-economic context. Although studies account for some confounding effects, very few have accounted for socioeconomic status and none have accounted for genetic effects. This matters because intelligence, educational attainment, and other cognitive abilities are all highly heritable."
I’ve tried to encourage my wife to choose video games over Disney+ when she needs to drop the kids in front of something, but she still has a strong resistance to the idea that games are better.<p>To me, it’s pretty obvious. The kids problem solve when gaming, and are obviously engaged. When watching TV, they look like zombies.<p>I think my wife’s biggest hang up with games is that she was always told that they rot your brain. Also, our kids talk about games, but never about TV which she interprets as games being more addictive. I interpret it as games being more interesting and engaging.
I don't think the problem is that polygenic scores are noisy. (You can choose to make them less noisy by restricting to significant SNPs, for example.) And noise doesn't require directional bias. But to me there are 2 problems:<p>(A) Polygenic scores for behavioral traits may be estimated in GWAS where the null assumptions (e.g., that mating is not conditioned on the trait being estimated) may not be valid[1]. That is on top of the issues that we usually face for other phenotypes (e.g., more routine population stratification due to geographic history).<p>(B) The authors did not describe the (genetic) ancestral background of the children being studied. Current techniques are biased across ancestries, for most traits, when using polygenic scores[2]. Certainly adjusting for 20PCs in the final model, as the authors seemingly did, would not be expected to make the scores comparable unless all of the children are from a close ancestral group.<p>With these sources of stratification, the polygenic score represents more (and less) than the trait that you're hoping it estimates; it also encodes population stratification.<p>As such, I hardly think this study can be interpreted.<p>1 = <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28294-9" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28294-9</a><p>2 = <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6563838/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6563838/</a>
They say that some of their main conclusions change if they control for parental education level, which they did not do. So that makes it all sounds questionable. Plus I've never heard of the journal; don't be misled into thinking it's a high profile Nature journal. Someone else here says it's a low quality journal.
Measuring "Intelligence" always seems to result in some questionable science.....<p>That being said I do wonder about how I would have turned out had my childhood not been spent hiding under the covers at night with a small light devouring novel after novel and instead been inundated with social media and other distractions.
"Unexpectedly, watching videos also benefited intelligence (standardized β = + 0.12)"<p>I would love to know what "watching videos" means here. There's a big difference between educational YouTube (Kurzgesagt, Physics Girl, Vertitasium, etc) and TV.
I think it is better to focus on getting kids to do creative projects. For example, parents should get them to write and illustrate a story once a month, or learn to play a music instrument, etc. If kids are doing interesting projects that change yearly and they work to improve their skills then the amount of time they spend on digital media will decrease and will not be a concern.<p>Having kids do projects is super helpful.
1) It builds their confidence in their ability
2) It shows the world (e.g. college admission boards) how they are valuable
3) It can become a way for them to be their own boss
4) It allows them to figure out what they want to be
5) It keeps them busy and out of trouble
Steven Johnson had an interesting take on this in his book Everything Bad Is Good For You: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_for_You" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_for_Y...</a><p>TL;DR - the <i>complexity</i> of media has been increasing over the past decades, which means that children spending time with digital media are benefiting from it relative to past generations.<p>As an example, playing a modern AAA video game is much more mentally stimulating than playing Pong. But also, watching an hour of a modern TV show, or even a modern reality show, is more challenging mentally than watching classic TV from the 60s and 70s—there are many, many more plots and relationship dynamics to track and speculate about.
Can't say whether they're addictive or not. My personal opinion based on my own history is that the reward system in games (levelling up etc.) made me feel like I'd achieved something while in reality, I just entertained myself.<p>Long hours of gaming and imbibing this translated over into the real world where it became harder for me to put in effort because I had to see rewards accumulate as a score somewhere and that wasn't happening.
Is the effect of media on intelligence really the primary concern?<p>Ad absurdum: if watching the Kardashians for two hours a day doubled your intelligence (however you decide to measure that) would you do it? Would you have your kids do it?
I worry about my future children's relationship with technology, especially social media.<p>But I'm not really concerned about general intelligence. As a parent I feel I have some input into their intellectual growth (to the extent environment allows). I'm far more concerned about the impact of social media on their emotional wellbeing. How they interact with others, and how they view themselves.<p>In Australia the Government is trying to regulate social media companies. For example, last year it introduced an "anti-trolling" bill, which would require companies to reveal the identities of anonymous trolls. And this is only the beginning of what in my opinion is heavy-handed Government overreach that will not improve the online experience of young people.<p>Despite being a fairly libertarian person, I'm open to a discussion on banning social media for people under a certain age (16? 18?). And then getting rid of all/most regulations on content.<p>Not saying this is something we should do right now, or that it's definitely a good idea. I'm just saying I think it's a discussion worth having.