A quick google search learns, that falls account for 35% of brain injuries, while ‘recreational activities’ cause 29%*. Now assuming these categories are mutually exclusive, and ´recreational activities´ do not include falls from trees, but do include computer games -along with other recreational activities such as rugby, ice hockey, headbanging, cage fighting and glue sniffing- my best guess would be that falling from trees is more damaging to the young, developing brain*.

(To see if they are independent factors, children should be dropped from trees with computers.)

* see Incidence, Severity, and External Causes of Pediatric Brain Injury, Jess F. Kraus, MPH, PhD; Daniel Fife, MD, MPH; Pamela Cox, MPH; Karen Ramstein, MPH; Carol Conroy, MPH
Am J Dis Child. 1986;140(7):687-693.

How did “could be” become “will not” ??

Badscienciness

Just yesterday a column appeared on the website of Australia’s only national newspaper rehashing her baseless claims. I’ve blogged about it here: www.goodbadandbogus.com/2009/09/news-ltd-causes-brain-damage/

www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/mayo/
the link should be live for probably the next few days for that podcast.

it was shocking to hear how simplistic, ignorant, and patronizing her reasoning was. this woman is a “director” of something? goes to show the cream doesn’t always rise to the top. her concern comes from the basis that other people are complete idiots i guess. the idea that a kid playing violent video games won’t realize that violence in real life will have consequences is laughable. never mind her claim that video games do not punish users for their actions. the WHOLE POINT of video games is that users are rewarded for understanding the game mechanic,and punished for failing, that is the idea behind any GAME. i just listened and was stunned as this woman spewed out sentence after sentence..each more ridiculous than the last. it was simply amazing. the label of “royal” and “baroness” really have zero meaning when standards are this low.

However, I’m struck my the dearth of voices which concede that there may be some truth behind what appears to have been expressed in a counterproductive manner and context.

I am a “non resident” parent of three children. The eldest is hoping to do maths at Cambridge starting a year and a half from now (and is aware he might not get in).

His younger sister will not do as well, not being as intensely enthused by any particular subject, but is more of an all rounder in terms of driving herself.

They have a younger brother in primary school. His school performance is at best mediocre. More that once, he’s been provided with extra tuition in maths (arthimetic, to use the distinction we have in Scotland) and English. When visiting me I’ve observed him to be perfectly capable of undertaking these lessons.

In day to day interactions, he doesn’t listen, he doesn’t remember, and doesn’t concentrate. A child’s capacity for absorbing new information is, in my own experience, and my vicarious experience of my children, unparalleled. His behaviour is in jarring contrast with that.

Anecdotally, then, I consider that, until proved incorrect, the fact that his “resident parent” (or “mother”) permitted him (in contrast with the experince of the elder two) unlimited television viewing at all times of day, and unlimited computer game playing, from an early age, is an adequate explanation for his characteristics.

I appears to me, from the nature of his interest in nothing other than exposure to TV, film of “sci-fi” variety, and computer games, that his deficiencies are mere bad “mental habits” induced or encouraged by that excessive exposure.

So I’d welcome some authoritative and un-ignorable “health warning” which someone who is burying their head in the sand and tinkering at the edges with tutors etc. could not ignore.

This, of course, purely personal self interest – otherwise I’d have the freedom to adopt the scientific purist approach advocated by the bulk of the contributors here, and wait a few decades for research to be conducted, published, accepted, and instantiated on policy (or for the consequences already to have manifested themselves).

This quote made me chuckle…no I’m not worried about these people, I’d be more worried if they were doing whatever it is they like doing out in the real domain?

She is very keen to abrogate responsibility for her appearance in the popular press, which might be a bit more plausible if she didn’t appear in it so frequently and say such gloriously evidence-free things as she does in this delightful interview with the Telegraph. The quote about the Twin Towers is especially terrifying.

“Earn yourself a Ph.D and/or M.D. and then I might start listening to you again. ”

Er…… Not being funny, but…… Hasn’t Ben had his medical degree for years now?

Are you referring to the fact that an M.D. (as conferred in (e.g.) North America) is a graduate program, and therefore superior to a medical degree from the UK, which is an undergraduate program?
(actually, MD and MBChB are considered equal due to the fact that 3 or 4 good UK A-levels are on academic parity with a US science Bachelors)

I don’t see why peer observation should only be valid if it is directed towards a lower member of the academic qualifications hierarchy.

“My Dad’s bigger than your Dad” is alive and well, it would appear.

No Ben, that’s her job. She has not charged herself with anything. Whilst you may disagree with her (as I myself do) she’s not “charged herself” with doing anything.

…what? you think she took the job having no clue what it entailed and had those responsibilities dropped in her lap to her shock and delight? or is it perhaps more likely that she saw the job description, thought ‘i can do that’ and applied?

Three words

World of Warcraft