K retweeted
Cell phone addiction is an absolute thermonuke to the brain and nobody 'takes it seriously' because it is not clear that there is any solution in a world where the revealed preference of everyone across the globe, regardless of income, race, age, any factor whatsoever, would rather be on their phone than do *anything* else. Deciding "I use this too much" and meaningfully altering one's behaviour doesn't seem to have much success for any of the very small minority of people with the sentience or self-reflection to realize how bad it is. Most people seem to think of it as an unproductive habit at most, rather than an addiction. Any attempt to speak seriously about this is met with derision, accusations of pretentiousness. There is no real solution to it. The future of human cognition fifty years down the line is horrifying if you stop and think about it for even a moment.
Replying to @FCisnotScience
@FCisnotScience @FCisnotComm
I came across an interview with FC proponent Joe Infranco promoting his book. In the interview, he said he was open to debating someone from ASHA. I wonder if this offer might be open to any FC critic.
We've had some comments about the Clever Hans effect and comparing people to horses. Maybe this blog post will help:
facilitatedcommunication.orgā¦
Genetic potential certainly plays a role in something developing into what it is.
Environments will help, hinder, provoke and facilitate change.
This is a good point of response. Still, we cannot ignore the current landscape of young people continuing to grow up under the influence of tech devices and social media. The answer lies in the development.
Replying to @JDaviesPhD
There is an important point hereābut also a false dichotomy.
Problematic social-media use can produce or amplify inattention, and clinicians absolutely should ask about it before labeling every distracted young person with ADHD.
But demonstrating an environmental contribution does not disprove a neurodevelopmental one.
The relationship may also be bidirectional: an attentionally vulnerable brain may be especially attracted to rapid-reward digital environments, while those environments may further impair attention.
The real clinical question isnāt āADHD or TikTok?ā
It is: What is producing this particular personās inattentionāand what is maintaining it?
Our diagnostic categories are maps. Biologyāand environmentāare the territory.
Indeed. After I was given an ADHD diagnosis a few years ago, I started to wonder what was really true and what was really to blame. I heard from friends and acquaintances who were diagnosed both before and after me, and I couldn't help but wonder about factors of social contagion
This is creepy as hell.
I suppose it's easy for people to write this off as a problem of mental illness because accepting the possibility of such a degree of invasiveness from technology / weaponry is a scary thought indeed.
It's interesting coming from a religious background where you are taught to "follow the spirit" (i.e., you are trained to listen for the "still small voice") who will give you spiritual promptings (i.e., thoughts and impressions) about any number of things.
It's a weird world we live in where people can go crazy.
But what is making people go crazy?
Magical thinking?
Deception?
Infiltration?
Denial?
I've noticed this in past conversations with a few people. I wonder what underlying philosophical / spiritual beliefs are to blame.
Is it a misapprehension of what technology is, of what certain technologies or tools are?
A few notes about The Lord of the Rings that people suddenly seem to be misrepresenting:
The One Ring is NOT "just a tool"
It was infused with the evil of the being that crafted it
The only way to deal with it is to completely destroy it
youtu.be/WoIgX-i2hSs?t=460
I haven't read the Catcher in the Rye, but this review is telling. Phoniness, disillusionment, resistance to the norms of a decaying societyāthese are is relatable themes.
youtu.be/GF64afzlAQ0?si=irupā¦











