[_tulpa]

“We didn’t find anything significant, here’s tasty phrasing that you can misinterpret and make sensational headline”

If you write a scientific publication you should really really aim to avoid stuff which can easily be misinterpreted by laypeople and opportunistic journalists/influencers. The audience for scientific material is now way closer to the average human with no reference for how to interpret this kind of shit.

[unishark]

One of the authors of the journal article is directly quoted in that UC story as saying technology makes us smarter. I'd be kind of surprised if there isn't something in that paper making the claim too. It looks like more of a review article than a study anyway.

[_tulpa]

Given a quick read of both articles, maybe that author should have said that computational technology maybe reduces cognitive load so we can focus on other stuff. No shit…

The implication of all this (partly from the shitty phrasing on the part of the authors) is that we’re better off not being forced to think about the things that technology trivializes. A bunch of research on physiological and cognitive or neurological adaptation (or whatever happens in the absence of a stimulus to adapt to ) would raise some proper questions about that implication.

To me the way they present this is irresponsible.

[nixpulvis]

Ease of misinterpretation is not the problem here. It's bad actors trying to make sensational headlines for views, just like so much other News.

Most people read the headlines and move on. It doesn't hardly matter the source.

[nixpulvis]

Sorry, but upon further reflection, the whole premise of the title is nonsense. What even is technology!? You simply can't make a convincing title for this subject.

I'm not about to drop the cash to actually read this article (as you should suspect). I just know at this point anything I read on nature.com is trash.

[_tulpa]

I mean the title of the nature article is pretty much a summary of a null result, but it’s phrased in a way that is very easy to interpret as positive (or at least non-negative) wrt the effect of technology on cognition. Where I really doubt the popular interpretation of ‘cognition’ matches the scientific one. It probably ends up closer to ‘smartness’ or ‘effectiveness’ or just ‘good’.