A Review of iBrain: Is it evolution or adaptation?

iBrain - A Review
By Charles Calmbacher

iBrain is an interesting interpretation by the authors, Gary Small, M.D. and Gigi Vorgan, of the impact of modern technology on the functioning of the brain. The book documents the changes occurring in various parts of the brain with the development and increased use of new technological equipment. The hypotheses presented in the book are interesting, and open to some interpretation. The book offers scientific evidence to show that the gap between the baby boomer generation and the younger X and Y generations is measurable. There is a difference in the active areas of the brain between baby boomers and the younger generations, particularly when using modern technological equipment.
The difference is significant enough that the authors distinguished the generations as "digital immigrants" (baby boomers) and "digital natives" (X and Y generation members). The baby boomer immigrants were born before the development and proliferation of home computers, video games, PDAs (personal digital assistants), iPods®,  DVDs, MP3 players, and other electronic and technological devices. The digital natives were born into a world already populated with these technological wonders. Therein lies the difference between the generations and how their brains process information. Without going too deeply into the anatomy of the brain here, the authors present  data showing that different areas of the brain are activated in immigrants and natives when they are performing the same tasks using modern technological devices. Dr. Small and Ms. Vorgan go into detail about the different areas of the brain and the actual and potential differences that the disparity of brain area use creates between digital natives and digital immigrants.
Some differences may be evident to the casual observer. Greater hand-eye coordination among digital natives is observed as a result of playing video games from a young age. The thing that is not seen is that the digital native uses a different part of the brain than the digital immigrant when they play the same game. Other difference also are observed and documented between natives and immigrants when other technological tasks are performed.  
Very little trepidation is seen among digital natives in using current devices and readily adopting the newest technological advances. Many natives show measurable joy at the anticipation and acquisition of the newest technological advances. To the contrary, scientifically observable reservation or fear documented through scientific measurement in digital immigrants when faced with the need to use modern technology. Some digital immigrants still resist the use of computers. Other immigrants are content with the technological devices that they have, even though they are not the "latest and greatest" equipment or software available. Dr. Small and Ms. Vorgan demonstrate that such responses can be reasonably expected when the areas of brain activity are observed, mapped, and analyzed.
It is after these analyses that the authors make some errors in interpretation. They conclude that these differences are an indication and proof that the brain is evolving. They discuss the changes in human ancestral brains that lead to physical changes in the brain that allowed the development of speech and other adaptive changes that led to modern humans. They compare the differences in the use of areas of the brain that were little used, or were used for other reasons, to the changes that occurred along the path to the evolution of the human of today.
This interpretation is an expression of the long-abandoned Lamarckian explanation of how changes are adopted as a mechanism for evolution. Lamarck would say that constant stretching of the neck to reach food resulted in the long necks of giraffes. The offspring of those that have stretched their necks would develop long necks. This is not the mechanism of evolution. Those giraffes that had longer necks were more fit and became a greater part of the gene pool that led to the modern giraffe with continued selection of those with longer necks. This is the "natural selection" of Darwin. The authors appear to have a misunderstanding of the principles of Darwinian evolution. They believe that those that who have the new wiring of the brain to accommodate today's technology are more fit and, therefore, will be selected as the future model of brain function. They cite Darwin as being the source of their belief that there is "survival of the fittest."
Having a doctorate in systematic and evolutionary biology, I take exception to this claim of evolution of the brain. First, Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest." Darwin talked about "natural selection" which has a far different implication to the change of organisms through time. In the fifth edition of Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged that Mr. Herbert Spencer's phrase: "survival of the fittest" might be applicable in some instances. However, "natural selection" is the descriptive phrase that is most applicable and inclusive to the forces of evolution.
Because the brain can be trained to use previously little-used or unused parts of the brain does not imply that evolution is occurring. All people inherently have the capability to train and use these already existing parts of the brain. It is not evolution or natural selection. It is training. This training will be an advance in social and cultural development, as in teaching someone to use a hammer that had never seen one. Until the use of these parts of the brain are passed as an inherent characteristic from generation to generation through genetic patterning, using these different parts of the brain are a response to socio-cultural need not an indication of genetic change.
If these misleading references to evolution are removed, iBrain is an excellent analysis of changes to thought and brain patterns resulting from the use of modern technological devices and methods. The use of new technology is imposing a requirement to use parts of the brain not previously brought into use. It is interesting that digital natives use these new areas of the brain during initial learning. Digital immigrants use other parts of the brain to perform similar tasks.  The authors discuss the importance of these differences. It may be more complex for a digital immigrant to train their brain to perform technological tasks that are considerable simpler to perform for digital natives.
Dr. Small and Ms. Vorgan analyze the impact of the differences in brain activity as they relate to the apparent generation differences between digital immigrants and digital natives. They show that digital natives have their brains wired in such a way that face-to-face social interactions are harder to deal with than digital immigrants. Language and emotional development in digital natives also appears to be retarded in development. Yet, digital immigrants may exhibit stress over communicating through e-mail and other electronic means.
The problems discussed and their causes are presented and documented well. The authors succeed in explaining the reason that there is a difference in the way generations view, approach, and react to the demands of modern technology. They also offer a primer for each of the generations to help them overcome the obstacles they face in adapting to social and technological requirements developing with greater technological advancements.
Forgiving the oversimplified application of the principles of evolution, this is a great book. It is recommended to both digital natives and digital immigrants. The dichotomy of response and adaptation to technological changes will exist for several more decades, until digital immigrants become a smaller part of the population. iBook makes the differences in the generational approaches to technology understandable. It offers answers to how these differences can be amicably addressed. Everyone will gain something insightful from this book. It is well done.

©2008 by C. Calmbacher