Jump to content

Teen brain - David Gillespie


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 CallMeFeral

Posted 21 April 2019 - 01:06 PM

Haven't read the book but was listening to this. Has anybody read it/heard this and have opinions?

I have biases against screens so probably hearing this with some confirmatory bias. Would be interested to know if anyone knows if the science is solid. The gateway addiction thing sounds plausible.

https://www.abc.net....UAYZYwH5mUo3EOA

#2 IamzFeralz

Posted 21 April 2019 - 01:31 PM

The science is quite mixed.

Teens 'not damaged by screen time', study finds https://www.bbc.co.u...nology-47825826

But it’s a subject that people often have strong opinions about.

#3 Catticus

Posted 21 April 2019 - 02:30 PM

He's a lawyer and a 'social' researcher. Not a psychologist, nor a psych researcher.

As it happens, my Psych class researched this exact question for an assignment.

The older research shows that there has been some correlation in some studies, but that confounding variables could have been behind those results. Most recent research shows that in fact, screens tend to be beneficial when used in moderation - so not too much, and not too little. The not too little is important - and came from a study of over 100,000 students in the USA.

Edited by Spikey-on strike, 21 April 2019 - 02:30 PM.


#4 CallMeFeral

Posted 21 April 2019 - 03:12 PM

 Spikey-on strike, on 21 April 2019 - 02:30 PM, said:

He's a lawyer and a 'social' researcher. Not a psychologist, nor a psych researcher.

I have mixed feelings on this. I'd certainly prefer someone from the field, but I do think that thorough research does not have to be the domain of people with a degree in that area, so if a person is willing to do the research, and reference it, I think the relevance of their initial qualifications reduces. And  I'm cognisant that people like Jordan Peterson are clinical psychologists and still 100% full of sh*t.
I would prefer if he was some sort of medic but I don't think the lack of it erases his research conclusions IYKWIM.

Do you know what the US study was that you mention?


I think what I'm most curious about (because it's an angle that I haven't heard before) is that screens activate addiction type mechanisms (this part I suspect is not in doubt), and firstly that this leads to greater anxiety and depression (I'm not sure about the direction of causality he claims here) but secondly that, like other addictions, early addiction tends to provide a gateway to greater likelihood of later addictions (which I believe is a known phenomenon called gateway drug theory).

#5 purplekitty

Posted 21 April 2019 - 05:41 PM

Author of Sweet Poison?

Hard pass.

#6 **Xena**

Posted 21 April 2019 - 06:07 PM

I'm not sure that the Science is really that solid. There's ongoing research into the effects of video games but so far most studies have a lot of flaws- especially as it's harder to work out what is biology and what is environment and that's with the researchers actually having neuroscience qualifications.

Games tend to be a form of escapism where the high comes from a hit of dopamine from the brain for an achievement- like when you win a race or get an A which is something that they may not feel they have or get in the real world. Also in a game you can make it happen more frequently than it might in the real world. I found this article interesting actually about positive outcomes from video games in moderation and how it can teach children about perseverance (and by a neuroscientist) https://www.google.c...g-addiction?amp

Drugs are usually a form of escapism too but the motivations of gaming usually are different so I don't necessarily agree one would lead to the others. However a lot of drugs are about numbing mental or emotional issues and gaming addiction can definitely also do that. My theory though is that any link would stem from the fact that most addicts tend to have similar motivations for fuelling their addiction rather than one necessarily directly leads to the other.

Most computer addicts are men/boys under 30 with low self esteem and little real life social support. Most suicide victims are also men in a similar age range as are most drug addicts. I personally think that on the cases when gaming addiction links to drugs it probably stems more from trying to escape mental health and other problems. It's those issues rather than the gaming that may also cause these men to try drugs or commit suicide rather than the game addiction being a gateway.

Edited by **Xena**, 21 April 2019 - 06:39 PM.


#7 Expelliarmus

Posted 21 April 2019 - 06:19 PM

I have significant issues with people doing research who aren't familiar with the domain. I also hate the term 'screentime' and phrases like 'screens are damaging our kids' because the screen isn't doing any of it - it's what's happening in the kids' life and on the device.

As for this David Gillespie - screams charlatan to me.

#8 Catticus

Posted 21 April 2019 - 06:27 PM

I have the article on my school USB. I will get you a citation and you can chase it. I picked it up via my uni library, so not sure if you could access it from a non paywalled site, but you can at least see the abstract.

#9 Octopodes

Posted 21 April 2019 - 06:36 PM

His website is full of scaremongering. It looks far more like opinion rather than scientifically backed research.

Qualifications are important. They teach you how to conduct research and how to interpret the results. The right qualification also gives you a solid understanding in the area you are researching. Reading a few textbooks or taking a few subjects as electives doesn't make one an expert in a field.

#10 kadoodle

Posted 22 April 2019 - 07:36 AM

Dude’s a quack.

The “not too little” mentioned upthread is interesting. I’ll have to see if my out of area academic id can get me through the paywall.

#11 Catticus

Posted 22 April 2019 - 12:02 PM

For those playing along at home, this is the article.

You should be able to access it all here. https://www.semantic...c9261079cdc52cf

Jean M. Twenge, J. M., Gabrielle N. Martin, G. N., & Campbell, K. W. (2018). Decreases in Psychological Well-Being Among American Adolescents After 2012 and Links to Screen Time During the Rise of Smartphone Technology. Emotion, 18 (6), 765–780.

Abstract
In nationally representative yearly surveys of United States 8th, 10th, and 12th graders 1991–2016 (N 1.1 million), psychological well-being (measured by self-esteem, life satisfaction, and happiness) suddenly decreased after 2012. Adolescents who spent more time on electronic communication and screens (e.g., social media, the Internet, texting, gaming) and less time on non-screen activities (e.g., in-person social interaction, sports/exercise, homework, attending religious services) had lower psychological well-being. Adolescents spending a small amount of time on electronic communication were the happiest. Psychological well-being was lower in years when adolescents spent more time on screens and higher in years when they spent more time on non-screen activities, with changes in activities generally preceding declines in well-being. Cyclical economic indicators such as unemployment were not significantly correlated with well-being, suggesting that the Great Recession was not the cause of the decrease in psychological well-being, which may instead be at least partially due to the rapid adoption of smartphones and the subsequent shift in adolescents’ time use.

#12 Tyfle Hour

Posted 22 April 2019 - 12:52 PM

David Gillespie seems to make a living selling books that are based on motherhood statements people like to hear:

Too much screen time is bad for kids
Sugar is bad for you
Private schools are no better than public (easy to say when you're in the Brisbane state High catchment, oh and actively work to keep those not in the zone out!)

Not a fan.

#13 purplekitty

Posted 22 April 2019 - 02:50 PM

 Tyfle Hour, on 22 April 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

David Gillespie seems to make a living selling books that are based on motherhood statements people like to hear:

Too much screen time is bad for kids
Sugar is bad for you
Private schools are no better than public (easy to say when you're in the Brisbane state High catchment, oh and actively work to keep those not in the zone out!)

Not a fan.
Oh my.
I had no idea he was the David Gillespie from State High and public schooling.

Quite the total w*n*er.

#14 Burro

Posted 22 April 2019 - 05:54 PM

Anyone read taming toxic people by Gillespie?

#15 Future-self

Posted 22 April 2019 - 05:56 PM

Gillespie is also friends with Pete Evans  and they cross promote each other’s wisdom .

Yeah...he’s not on my list of authoritative  sources.

#16 kimasa

Posted 22 April 2019 - 06:07 PM

Sugar AND vegetable oil. You can't forget the book about evil cooking oils.

#17 Catticus

Posted 22 April 2019 - 09:26 PM

He wrote a book about psychopaths (toxic people). Except that he doesn't understand what psychopathy is.

#18 CallMeFeral

Posted 22 April 2019 - 09:33 PM

 Future-self, on 22 April 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

Gillespie is also friends with Pete Evans and they cross promote each other’s wisdom .  

Noooo.... seriously?
Ok that's pretty damning...!

#19 Starlia

Posted 23 April 2019 - 08:43 AM

Wait - this guy is an expert in nutrition, psychotherapy AND screen time impacts?

How many degrees has he got?

Hmmm...something doesn't add up. It seems like he jumps on the latest fad and writes a book about it.

#20 CallMeFeral

Posted 23 April 2019 - 10:27 AM

 Starlia, on 23 April 2019 - 08:43 AM, said:

Wait - this guy is an expert in nutrition, psychotherapy AND screen time impacts?

How many degrees has he got?

Hmmm...something doesn't add up. It seems like he jumps on the latest fad and writes a book about it.

Not arguing with the fad stuff, it does somewhat seem like what he's doing.
But I am kind of uncomfortable with the "doesn't have a degree in it = can't really know about it" theme that is running here. I think any person if they have access to academic journals and time on their hands should be able to research something thoroughly and come to an understanding on it, and then condense that for public consumption. To me it matters most whether it's evidence based and cites reputable research less than whether the person has a degree in that area - degrees cover a wide range of topics in an area of interest, but in the end people during degrees are using exactly the same methods to learn - talking to experts and reading academic literature. There's nothing magic about whether it happens in a degree or outside it, IF the same process is happening.

#21 TrixieBelden

Posted 23 April 2019 - 10:36 AM

No problem with distilling research into a book intended for mass consumption - that’s what popular science is, as a genre.  Surprised people only read books by people with degrees in that field, really? That’s limiting your reading pretty drastically.

This bloke is still a fool, of course.

#22 Octopodes

Posted 23 April 2019 - 10:47 AM

You (hopefully) wouldn't follow the advice of a 'doctor' without a medical qualification, so why would you follow the mental health advice of someone without an appropriate qualification in mental health?

Seems mad to me. My mental health is just as important to me as my physical health.

#23 CallMeFeral

Posted 23 April 2019 - 11:04 AM

 Octopodes, on 23 April 2019 - 10:47 AM, said:

You (hopefully) wouldn't follow the advice of a 'doctor' without a medical qualification, so why would you follow the mental health advice of someone without an appropriate qualification in mental health?

Context matters. A medical degree gives a broad overview and if I were going to someone for diagnosis I would seek that. However if I was seeking specialised knowledge, I would look for someone who has done that.
As an example, a friend of ours had a son with Down Syndrome. They knew this before birth, did a crapload of research, and developed a greater understanding of it than the doctors they encountered in the maternity ward, who had only a surface level knowledge of it that did not include the most recent research, and due to the high rates of terminations of Down's these days had encountered very few babies with it. Due to their research they were able to push for the things that the latest research suggested was helpful. I would 100% ask them for information if I were in that position, over a general obstetrician with no special expertise in Down's.
They also sought out medical practitioners with a special expertise in the area, but the fact remained that they, with extensive and specific research, ended up knowing more about that area than doctors with a broader education who had less current exposure to that area.

So I would follow the advice of whoever had expertise (and could substantiate it with research) in the area I wanted to find out about, over the advice of someone with a general umbrella degree in that area.

#24 Octopodes

Posted 23 April 2019 - 11:21 AM

You being naive if you think people like David Gillespie spout anything other than superficial, unscientific opinions. They are not experts, they have read a couple of books/articles/journals, had a thought pop into their head and decided to share it with the world. That is it. Look at his website, nothing about it suggests this is a man who has spent years and years learning about these topics.

Parents who know a lot about their child's medical condition/s are also not experts. Yes, They are knowledgable, but most parents of children with additional needs (myself included) only become knowledgeable about issues which do or might directly relate to their child. That does not make them an expert in all children with Downs or all children with autism. It makes them an expert on their child.

#25 CallMeFeral

Posted 23 April 2019 - 11:26 AM

 Octopodes, on 23 April 2019 - 11:21 AM, said:

You being naive if you think people like David Gillespie spout anything other than superficial, unscientific opinions. They are not experts, they have read a couple of books/articles/journals, had a thought pop into their head and decided to share it with the world. That is it. Look at his website, nothing about it suggests this is a man who has spent years and years learning about these topics.

Parents who know a lot about their child's medical condition/s are also not experts. Yes, They are knowledgable, but most parents of children with additional needs (myself included) only become knowledgeable about issues which do or might directly relate to their child. That does not make them an expert in all children with Downs or all children with autism. It makes them an expert on their child.

I read Sweet Poison some time ago and that seemed well researched. Can't speak to the ones he's written since then. It's possible once you've developed a following with one book there could be a temptation to wing it a bit with subsequent ones, I'd have to read them to know.

And I'll disagree with the second paragraph too. A person who has done extensive reading of past and recent literature on Down's syndrome is more knowledgeable about children with Down's than someone who hasn't. Obviously. Not just their child, Down's in general, because that's what they've been researching. I find the assumption of the magical qualities of a degree in a certain area, without an understanding of the processes that create that knowledge and the fact that these can be replicated (and extended) outside the degree, somewhat bizarre.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
 
Advertisement
 

Top 5 Viewed Articles

 
Advertisement
 
 
 
Advertisement
 
 
Essential Baby and Essential Kids is the place to find parenting information and parenting support relating to conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids, maternity, family budgeting, family travel, nutrition and wellbeing, family entertainment, kids entertainment, tips for the family home, child-friendly recipes and parenting. Try our pregnancy due date calculator to determine your due date, or our ovulation calculator to predict ovulation and your fertile period. Our pregnancy week by week guide shows your baby's stages of development. Access our very active mum's discussion groups in the Essential Baby forums or the Essential Kids forums to talk to mums about conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids and parenting lifestyle. Essential Baby also offers a baby names database of more than 22,000 baby names, popular baby names, boys' names, girls' names and baby names advice in our baby names forum. Essential Kids features a range of free printable worksheets for kids from preschool years through to primary school years. For the latest baby clothes, maternity clothes, maternity accessories, toddler products, kids toys and kids clothing, breastfeeding and other parenting resources, check out Essential Baby and Essential Kids.