Dean Burnett on the misunderstandings of smartphones and their effect on the brain

There’s been a lot of talk about smartphones and how they are allegedly damaging our brains. In recent times, this has been fuelled by a recent social media ban for under 16s in Australia, a Guardian article by Simon Jenkins, and the related UK documentary he was writing about, called Swiped.

Dean Burnett wrote a newsletter on the misunderstandings of these claims and it was a breath of fresh air. It was hard to isolate a blockquote for this so I’ve taken this, responding to Sian Boyle’s Guardian article on the claim that doom scrolling could be rotting our brains:

[…] What’s actually being said is “People who use their phones excessively have a reduced amount of grey matter in certain parts of their brain when compared to the typical brain, and/or the brains of those who doesn’t use their smartphone to excess”.

Some might argue that this is a pointless distinction, just splitting hairs, but it really isn’t. Because “people’s brains got smaller over time as they used a smartphone” strongly suggests that smartphones are causing this brain matter loss. But “people who use their phones too much have less grey matter in certain regions than those who don’t” means it’s much harder to be sure about the cause of this difference.

The only reason I’m writing any of this is because I got sent the Guardian article and while I hate things like Roblox and Fortnite, I’m also someone who doesn’t bow to sensationalist media. I’m used to outlets quoting studies without looking at the minutiae or adding important context to certain findings. Who was tested? Were the test subjects truly representative of affected demographics? Were the findings conclusive? How many other studies have been done to corroborate the findings? Did the researchers actually add these caveats and the outlets ignored them in favour of a biased story? You don’t need to be a scientist to scrutinise like this and, in an age of mis/disinformation, it’s crucial to ask these questions or you’ll adapt to a threat that isn’t there, or isn’t nearly as threatening as claimed.

Is anyone asking whether the news is “rotting” our brains? Because lord knows we’re inundated with reports of genocide, murders, sexual assault cases, transphobia (hi, The Guardian), fascism (hi, USA). Where are the studies, news reports, and documentaries on the very real harms in those cases? But that would mean outlets have to take responsibility for what they report and how, or the proliferation of boosted trauma on social media. That’s not going to happen as long as Twitter’s owner is part of the incumbent presidency and that president uses the platform to say the most diabolic shit imaginable.

And now I have a headache without a smartphone in sight.