this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
148 points (99.3% liked)
science
14658 readers
236 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a hard time believing that an IQ test is a serious measure of attention.
Most importantly, that's not what this says.
It says the rise is IQ is happening, and they think a rise in attention span is also happening.
They're just saying it's a correlation, that's all.
But I don't think you know what a real IQ test is either...
That’s not really what the article says but ok. I like that you immediately assume I don’t know what an IQ test is lol.
Lol I can ace an IQ test but I can't function for more than 13 seconds without some kind of mental stimulus, preferably 3 or 4 simultaneous external inputs. TV + Lemmy + bunnies. PC game + phone game + podcast. Yeah I'm smart but God damn do I have attention problems like I never used to. Our entire society needs a phone detox but I'm only doing it if everyone else does too.
Why do I/ society need to detox because you have attention problems? How does your similar-to-adhd affect me? How does my phone usage affect you?
Sounds like you are the one who needs to detox.. but those are your words not mine.
Idc if you need six different stimuli to function, it doesn't affect me. If it affects you, you should change you
Also make sure you don't have something like ADHD, often what seems like something that's caused by external factors may in fact be due to internal ones. ADHD can also become more apparent to you, or affect you more, as you get older, at least it did for me.
How lucky we have trained professionals employed to check if it actually is!
That way they can check on it, and you can just read their report when they're done.
They take on all the hard work, and you can simply read if and how they figured out it's a serious measure. What a time to be alive!
Alright, so I did some reading of the research.
The attention part is “The task is to cross out all target characters (a letter “d” with a total of two dashes placed above and/or below), which are interspersed with nontarget characters (a “d” with more or less than two dashes, and “p” characters with any number of dashes).”
The participants are usually given 20 seconds per line and a total of 10 minutes. A controlled environment where the only thing you can do is this task seems like it measures some kind of attention but it might be not be generalizable.
I think the problem is that attention means a lot of different things. Often when people complain about lack of attention it’s within the context of the many distractions we have in the modern world.
So the scientific claim is “adult participants have gotten moderately better at the d2 attention task” but the article says “people are paying more attention”. To me that seems like clickbait from what is otherwise a reasonable meta analysis.
Agreed, and unfortunately almost all science "reporting" has this problem.
Which is why we don't listen to people who haven't at least read the source material, and ideally have read and understood enough about the field and methods to be able to evaluate if they are reasonable for the task.
Your implication that a study by "trained professionals" is proof of this is hilarious. Many professionals disagree strongly about the values of IQ tests, among many other subjects of scientific studies. A simple Google search would show you that OP's opinion on IQ tests is also held by many other "trained professionals".
A quick read of the first paragraphs of the article also shows that it's not the IQ tests that are the measure for concentration.