The societal impact of our rapidly-evolving communication technology is an interesting question that seems to be coming up with increased regularity. Handheld communication devices that enable voice communication, text messaging, e-mail, photos, videos, and web access for information and social networking have made being connected commonplace -- nearly anywhere, anyplace, anytime on the planet. This ubiquitous state of connectivity has seemingly created a variety of new "human conditions" such as "Continuous Partial Attention," "Digital Absorption," "Facebook Depression," and the "Tethered-Self" among others. There are several recent books that assert to uncover and explain the source and likely consequences of these new human conditions. The most

recent is the well-written The Shallows (2010) by Nicholas Carr. I particularly related to his celebration of the brain's ability to change throughout our lives (plasticity, something not fully appreciated until the 1980s!) with the important caveat of particular relevance here -- that our brain embraces both new good habits and, unfortunately, new bad ones as well. Two other interesting works with neuroscience and social psychology foundations are Torkel Klingberg's The Overflowing Brain: Information Overflow and the Limits of Working Memory (2009) and Gary Small and GiGi Vorgan's iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind (2008).  Dr. Klingberg is a cognitive neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm whose research is largely concerned with attention and working memory, the effects upon which are at or near the core of this communications technology controversy. John Palfrey and Urs Gasser's Born Digital (2008) and Don Tapscott's Grown Up Digital (2009) -- with the latter based on an interesting study of more than 11,000 young people by the consulting group nGenera Innovation Network -- both provide insights on how the "net generation" is affected by this communication technology and how they may affect the world around them.

If we begin by embracing history, we can readily go back and compare our current technological development concerns with those of the past. It seems reasonable to conclude that technological developments such as the printing press, electricity, the telegraph, the radio, the telephone, the typewriter, the television, and the computer all generated varying degrees of trepidation about the changes to existing societal norms and expectation they would likely impose as use spread. As neuroscience would teach us, the brain is much more likely to focus on the negative than the positive with regard to change. From my own experience here in Italy, I recall the day in my early adult life when a television showed up at my favorite local bar. The men of the community began to gather regularly at the bar in the early evening to watch the news before going home to dinner. The running commentary among those gathered as the news was presented became a major daily event -- a social expectation of that generation. The next generation saw televisions become a whole lot cheaper. That television, that indispensable social magnet to the prior generation, has long since disappeared from the bar as people chose to be at home to watch the news on their own televisions. I can still recall the deep concerns of village elders that the affordable television was breaking down societal structure. What was to become of our little community if people no longer took the time to have face-to-face conversations about the important issues of the day? In full transparency, I should add that my favorite local bar is once again attracting its citizens with technology -- now with a Wi-Fi Internet connection. Interestingly, they are not communicating so much with each other but with others from around the world as they sit and enjoy a cup of coffee or a glass of wine "together."

Computers and computer technology have impacted and will certainly continue to impact our lives going forward. But as with prior technological developments in communications, what are the facts and fictions of the impact on our present way of life these new technologies bring about? They are most certainly rewiring our brains as we adapt ourselves to their existence. While the computer and the Internet are certainly the products of impressive technological change, have we gotten better in other related technological areas that will allow us to be better prognosticators as to whether those changes are for the better or the worse? For example, can brain-imaging technology improve our ability to understand the impact of our new communications technologies?

The questions being asked of neuroscientists and social psychologists in this regard are interesting and provocative. Is this new technology affecting our ability to think? Is it reducing our ability to relate to others, and particularly as it relates to empathy and all-important empathy-related emotion? Is it affecting our ability to pay attention, to focus, to self-regulate? Are the synergies between these various effects impacting our core intelligence, perhaps making us less capable of being able to use the resources the technology places at our feet? Let's briefly consider some of the research.

Social, cognitive, and affective neuroscientists are quick to point out that we are wired to be social. Our ancestral roots have left us wired so that social rejection generates a reaction in our brains that differs little from the brain's reaction to physical pain. To maintain our social group inclusion requires the interaction of four core psychological components: self-awareness, social awareness, an understanding of the brain's threat and reward circuitry, and self-regulation. In past ABCs we have talked about social awareness and the role mirror neurons play in understanding both another person's emotions and their perspective (termed "perspective taking"). If a person lived in a cave it would be very important to have navigation, visual, and digestive systems but it would not be necessary to have a mirror neuron system. Our new communication technologies are certainly subtracting from our face-to-face communications. With our brain wired in large measure by experience, is this lack of face-to-face interaction impacting our mirror neuron system to society's detriment?

A national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that, 8-18 year-old American kids spend an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes using entertainment media across a typical day (50+ hours a week) -- excluding school time, this amounts to virtually every spare minute of their time.  And because they tend to use more than one medium at a time, they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes worth of media content into those 7 hours and 38 minutes.  An important study by Professor Oscar Ybarra published in the 2011's Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin shows that everyday social contact boosts our brainpower and cognitive abilities, strongly suggesting that less face time means lower cognition and creativity. Professor Norman Nie of Stanford University's Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society published a study in 2005 showing that each hour on the Internet reduces face-to-face time by more than 23 minutes. Not only does time spent online reduce in-person interaction with family and friends, he reported, but "it is also associated with lower mental health scores." In a study published in 2010's Personality and Social Psychology Review, Professors Konrath, O'Brien, and Hsing found measureable declines in both empathic concern and perspective taking in college students with the decline being most dramatic over the past 10 years.Dr. Jamil Zakil writing in Scientific America hypothesizes that people are less empathetic because they read books less -- something noted in some detail by Nicholas Carr. One of the Harvard Business Review's recent "Breakthrough Ideas" was Linda Stone's notion of "continuous partial attention": using mobile computing power and the Internet, we are "constantly scanning for opportunities and staying on top of contacts, events, and activities in an effort to miss nothing." In that continuous partial attention (or "temporary distraction effect") effectively takes a portion of our working memory "hostage," preliminary research is showing a corresponding, temporary drop in IQ - cognitive performance is impaired so that high-level thinking and creativity are similarly impaired.  Research on the impact of video games using fMRI is perhaps the most extensive, showing that playing video games can literally turn off the prefrontal cortex-that part of the brain that performs executive functions such as reasoning, logic, analytical thinking, and importantly the restraint of emotion. Researchers at Nihon University in Tokyo have showed that the more time young people spend playing video games the less they use that part of the brain. Worse, if they play long enough they do not use it even when not playing games. Neuroscience tells us that if frontal lobe activity is kept low for a long period of time, human reasoning and decision-making are interrupted and anti-social behaviors can emerge.

So it seems there is research indicating our communication technology revolution is having negative effects. Still there is much good news as well.  For example, a study conducted by Dr. Paul Kearney found that some computer games can actually improve cognitive ability and multitasking skills. Using software developed by the US military to test multitasking skills, Dr. Kearney found that those who played certain computer games eight hours a week improved their multitasking skills by two and a half times on the test. Although somewhat controversial at the moment, considerable headway is being made in the area of brain training. For example, Ros et al. (2010) demonstrated that half an hour of voluntary control of brain rhythms is sufficient to induce a lasting shift in cortical excitability and intracortical function. Professors O'Connor and Gordon (2011) demonstrate a statistical improvement in productivity as a consequence of systematic use of the My Brain Solutions system. In the interest of full disclosure, CIMBA uses My Brain Solutions as an integral part of its intervention strategies with very good results. Clearly, this is an important area for further research and development. 

In summary, like past disruptive technologies, our new communication technologies are going to be mainstream going forward. As with those past new technologies, I am confident we will become aware of shortcomings and respond by maximizing benefits and minimizing downside risks. I am confident we will begin to see deliberate steps being taken to deal with the new "human conditions" it seems to be creating. Finally, brain-imaging technology is going to allow us to closely monitor for any potentially undesirable effects on our brains, all while standing on a base of scientific research to support our conclusions and ultimate solutions. Importantly, our leadership development system with its strong reliance on neurobiofeedback may very well be part of that solution base.