:00:00. > :00:00.often controversial. In her latest book she looks at the way digital
:00:00. > :00:00.technology including video games virtual networks and the Internet
:00:07. > :00:23.may be changing the way our minds work.
:00:24. > :00:31.Your premise in this book, is that our brains are changeable and
:00:32. > :00:34.adaptable. They respond to changes in the environment around us.
:00:35. > :00:37.Digital technology means the environment is changing dramatically
:00:38. > :00:42.therefore our brains must be changing. Let's look a couple of the
:00:43. > :00:47.specific examples you use. Not a new one, fast paced video games may be
:00:48. > :00:52.making us more aggressive. What is happening in the brain would you
:00:53. > :00:56.say? Let's unpack that little bit because I don't think people realise
:00:57. > :00:59.just how sensitive their brains are to the environment. It's not just
:01:00. > :01:04.the environment of the digital world, it is the environment of
:01:05. > :01:08.everyday life. That is why we occupy more ecological niche is than any
:01:09. > :01:12.other species on the planet. This world compared to the normal world,
:01:13. > :01:17.is two`dimensional, and as he have said it is very fast paced, just
:01:18. > :01:23.hearing and vision. It is supernormal and super fast and the
:01:24. > :01:25.brain will adapt to that. The kind of changes on seasonal changes in
:01:26. > :01:29.attention, this is reflected in changes in brain scans, both in the
:01:30. > :01:35.longer term and also in the shorter term, in terms of violin stimuli, it
:01:36. > :01:40.has been shown that in a particular pathway in the brain if you present
:01:41. > :01:45.the subject in an experiment with violin stimuli you see a
:01:46. > :01:59.desensitisation. `` violin. That is to say a reduction of the activity
:02:00. > :02:02.in this crucial area. Violent for the uses social networking harbours
:02:03. > :02:08.unpromoted potentially vicious biochemical cycle. `` in the bit you
:02:09. > :02:12.say. What does that mean? It is strange to think of the chemical
:02:13. > :02:17.being vicious, it means a vicious cycle. Not that the chemical is
:02:18. > :02:20.vicious. Let's start on the cycle all human beings love the dog about
:02:21. > :02:25.themselves. The reason we love to talk about ourselves is because it
:02:26. > :02:29.is the antidote being lonely. `` to talk. In evolutionary terms we know
:02:30. > :02:33.loneliness is back for the health, it is in our evolution to want to
:02:34. > :02:41.talk about yourself. `` bad for your health. In one experiment, human
:02:42. > :02:45.subjects choose monetary, instead of monetary reward they choose to talk
:02:46. > :02:48.about themselves. If you're given the choice of money or the
:02:49. > :02:51.opportunity to talk about yourself you talk about yourself. The problem
:02:52. > :02:57.talking about yourself is you are leaving yourself and vulnerable to
:02:58. > :03:04.being attacked, not physically, but attacked in a psychological social
:03:05. > :03:08.way. She has done is, and that, it has evolved body language. `` what
:03:09. > :03:12.evolution has done. You wouldn't tell me a secret, you wouldn't tell
:03:13. > :03:15.me much about yourself if I was like this with my eyes averted and my
:03:16. > :03:18.eyes folded and looking away. If I was leaning forward as you are
:03:19. > :03:27.obligingly doing now I would be more inclined to confide in you. Body
:03:28. > :03:27.language has evolved as a very important means for allowing you to
:03:28. > :03:37.have interpersonal very protected way. And under
:03:38. > :03:41.certain situations. In social networking it is like taking off the
:03:42. > :03:44.handbrake. You have your foot on the accelerator but there is no
:03:45. > :03:49.handbrake and there was no one there to stop you talking about yourself.
:03:50. > :03:54.So off you go. That makes you very vulnerable because now it means that
:03:55. > :03:58.the so`called friends you have, an audience of 500 or more people, are
:03:59. > :04:03.going to feel they can now comment in a way that you wouldn't comment
:04:04. > :04:09.to a close friend face`to`face. You then feel very low self`esteem, but
:04:10. > :04:13.at the same time, and enhanced narcissism because that is all you
:04:14. > :04:18.have. In order to talk about yourself, to detect yourself you
:04:19. > :04:23.invent a parody of yourself, someone who has lots of boyfriends and
:04:24. > :04:28.girlfriends, and the real view has no friends and suffers a massive
:04:29. > :04:33.vicious circle. `` real you. Is this what you say when social networking
:04:34. > :04:37.undermines our sense of identity? Not quite but partly. What really
:04:38. > :04:41.undermines our identity is the main fact that now your identity is
:04:42. > :04:46.constructed externally. What you say in the book resonates intuitively
:04:47. > :04:52.with people confronted by this. You try to give it some scientific
:04:53. > :04:56.underpinning or explanation. It is because of the science I said it, I
:04:57. > :05:00.didn't dream up ideas and cost around in the literature, the
:05:01. > :05:04.science was there. Understood, and issue you come back to a number of
:05:05. > :05:08.times in the book is whether or not coronation equates to causation.
:05:09. > :05:10.Because we can see something happening in people and in the
:05:11. > :05:16.outside world doesn't necessarily the changes, the behaviour in the
:05:17. > :05:21.brain, are caused by that. `` correlation. This is something that
:05:22. > :05:25.someone who is not a brain scientist does struggle with. We are used to
:05:26. > :05:29.cause and effect. We are used to if I drop that on the floor it will
:05:30. > :05:35.break and so one. With the brain, there is a chicken and egg problem,
:05:36. > :05:39.in that now with the power of modern neuroscience we can look at changes
:05:40. > :05:43.in brain structure and activity, changes and chemicals, and we can
:05:44. > :05:49.correlate, we can match that up with subjective changes in mood. And
:05:50. > :05:52.behaviour. Because of that, people I think expecting much of
:05:53. > :05:55.neuroscience, they expect you to prove that one thing in the brain
:05:56. > :06:00.causes this. It could be the other way round. It is probably both. In
:06:01. > :06:04.the larger scale of things, in the act of writing the book, you have
:06:05. > :06:11.issued causation, have you not? Why write a book unless you were intent
:06:12. > :06:16.on pointing out that these changes in the brain resulting from an
:06:17. > :06:21.increasing exposure to technology? Yes, the point, but I also say, I
:06:22. > :06:25.for some papers where they say, is it a predisposition are certain
:06:26. > :06:32.people more prone to things than others, in terms of the changes they
:06:33. > :06:36.show. I hope they explain, people get irritated with scientists when
:06:37. > :06:41.we used the subjunctive twice removed, it could be the case that
:06:42. > :06:45.maybe... It is because science is always conditional. You call the
:06:46. > :06:47.book might change, you draw an analogy with climate change can
:06:48. > :06:51.really say they are two issues confronting us with which we need to
:06:52. > :06:56.come to terms. Climate change, the signs around it, with a small
:06:57. > :07:00.minority of people, is controversial. They accuse climate
:07:01. > :07:03.change scientists of scaremongering. Are you scaremongering? What is the
:07:04. > :07:10.and a wake`up call? We only know and a wake`up call? We only know
:07:11. > :07:12.afterwards. Scaremongering is a conclusion you should reach, not a
:07:13. > :07:16.premise you should start with. In retrospect it might be that it is a
:07:17. > :07:20.wake`up call, in retrospect, when we say everyone to take things into our
:07:21. > :07:24.own hands. Instead of sleepwalking into this, can't we harness the
:07:25. > :07:28.computers to deliver something very exciting and beneficial rather than
:07:29. > :07:31.just a shaming it is automatically wonderful. Thank you for joining us.
:07:32. > :07:34.`` just assuming.