Here is a catchy CNN headline, Scientists Warn of Twitter Dangers. I found this is through Twitter (@charlesyeo) so be careful reading it in case there is an infection. The article starts with: “rapid-fire TV news bulletins or updates on Twitter or Facebook could numb our sense of morality and make us indifferent to human suffering, scientists say.” Now being a former research psychologist I look at this with a bit of skepticism. There have to be a lot of operational definitions for starters. The original work on moral development turned out to be more about reading comprehension. I do know that Twitter has also alerted people to a lot of human suffering in crisis situations (e.g. Mumbai attacks) and helped to bring others closer to what is happening.

I read more. It goes on. “Brain scans showed humans can process and respond very quickly to signs of physical pain in others, but took longer to show admiration of compassion. “For some kinds of thought, especially moral decision-making about other people’s social and psychological situations, we need to allow for adequate time and refection,” said Immordio-Yang.

Now, I have often reflected on the content of Twitter and tweets have raised awareness of something that I would not have known about otherwise. Just because you see something quickly does not mean that you process it quickly. Another scientist comments in the report, “USC sociologist Manuel Castells said the study raised more concerns over fast-moving TV than the online environment.”

I would agree with Manuel as TV is non-stop. Remember Twitter is still an asynchronous communication channel, just a fast one. The reader has to read and can set their own pace to reflect or not. Also, many Twitter feeds of value actually link to a longer piece like a blog post where you can get the details, like the Twitter post that alerted me to this story. I scan Twitter feeds, look more closely at the interesting ones and then click on the link for the details.

In this case about Twitter dangers you certainly need to go beyond the headline. At the end the article mentions that “Research leader Antonio Damasio, director of USC’s Brain and Creativity Institute, said the findings stressed the need for slower delivery of the news, and highlighted the importance of slow-burn emotions like admiration.” I do not think they should jump to this conclusion so fast.

Twitter should not be viewed in isolation. It is an awareness tool that can lead to slower more in-depth reflection through other channels that allow for longer and more reflective content. I do know that studies have shown that reading print can cause more reflection in certain situations than seeing video because the reader is in more control of the speed of processing and uses their imagination more. Of course, in other situations video gives a richer experience. There are no easy answers here and more work needs to be done.

Post Script – Taming Down the anti-Twitter mentions – After I posted this CNN changed the headline to Scientists Warn of Rapid-fire Media Dangers.  They also changed the first sentence from “Rapid-fire TV news bulletins or updates on Twitter or Facebook could numb our sense of morality and make us indifferent to human suffering, scientists say.” to “Rapid-fire TV news bulletins or getting updates via social-networking tools such as Twitter could numb our sense of morality and make us indifferent to human suffering, scientists say.”They also took out other references to Twitter later in the text.   Interesting. I could specultate on why they bad changes but will leave it to you to decide.