The intro of the actual paper* is ambivalent, rather than what the post title asserts.
"We critically examine relevant findings and argue that there is no clear evidence for detrimental lasting effects of digital technology on cognitive abilities."
"We critically examine relevant findings and argue that there is no clear evidence for detrimental lasting effects of digital technology on cognitive abilities."
If you write a scientific publication you should really really aim to avoid stuff which can easily be misinterpreted by laypeople and opportunistic journalists/influencers. The audience for scientific material is now way closer to the average human with no reference for how to interpret this kind of shit.
The implication of all this (partly from the shitty phrasing on the part of the authors) is that we’re better off not being forced to think about the things that technology trivializes. A bunch of research on physiological and cognitive or neurological adaptation (or whatever happens in the absence of a stimulus to adapt to ) would raise some proper questions about that implication.
To me the way they present this is irresponsible.
Most people read the headlines and move on. It doesn't hardly matter the source.
I'm not about to drop the cash to actually read this article (as you should suspect). I just know at this point anything I read on nature.com is trash.
PS: if someone have access to the pdf paper it would be great to share it!