For the first time, scientists have quantified how quickly the human brain is able to process any information and the results might not be as flattering as we might have previously believed. According to the researchers, humans process information at a speed of just 10 bits per second despite receiving billions of bits of information that our senses, including the eyes, ears, skin, and nose gather cumulatively.

Notably, a bit is the basic unit of information in computing with a typical Wi-Fi connection processing about 50 million bits per second. Scientists found that during activities such as reading, writing, playing video games, and solving Rubik’s cube, humans can only think at a speed of 10 bits per second, which they called “extremely slow”.

Scientists at the California Institute of Technology set out to discover the reason for this paradox and published their findings in the journal Neuron last week.

“This is an extremely low number. Every moment, we are extracting just 10 bits from the trillion that our senses are taking in and using those 10 to perceive the world around us and make decisions. This raises a paradox: What is the brain doing to filter all of this information?” said neurobiologist Markus Meister who was involved in the study.

Also Read | Scientists Reveal How Love Lights Up Different Parts Of Human Brain

What’s the reason?

Although there is no clear answer, the researchers posited that our slow brain processing might be down to necessity, or rather, the lack of it.

“Our ancestors have chosen an ecological niche where the world is slow enough to make survival possible,” the study noted. “In fact, the 10 bits per second are needed only in worst-case situations, and most of the time our environment changes at a much more leisurely pace.”

Based on the research, the scientists said there was a need for more research into how our brain only focuses on one train of thought at a time, instead of capitalising on the sea of information it receives every passing second.

“The current understanding is not commensurate with the enormous processing resources available, and we have seen no viable proposal for what would create a neural bottleneck that forces single-strand operation,” the researchers added.

Further exploration is needed as there are over 85 billion neurons with one-third of these dedicated to high-level thinking and located in the cortex.

An illustrative photograph showing the new Twitter logo rebranded as X (L) and the previous bird logo reflected in smartphone screens, July 27, 2023.
| Photo Credit: AFP

A survey conducted recently by the journal Nature found that researchers are leaving the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), a place they used frequently to promote their work, interact with the larger scientific community, and share their insights.

In 2016, Emilia Jarochowska, a PhD candidate, reportedly joined X with to boost her career in palaeontology. It was a platform where she could connect with colleagues, look for job opportunities and share her work. But after Elon Musk took over the platform in late 2022, sweeping changes to the platform’s management marred opportunities.

The findings, published by Nature in an article, stated that there are several reasons for the exodus, starting with the direction in which the platform seems to be headed since the takeover. Together with rolling back rules on content moderation, doing away with the blue-tick verification system, shifting to a subscription model where paying members get extra privileges, limiting the number of tweets users can see, and changing the names and logo has caused discomfort and uncertainty, leading to scholars to avoid using the platform.

Also Read | Elon Musk wants to remove the block feature on X

The survey contacted 170,000 scientists who are or have been using the platform, of which nearly 9,200 responded. At least half of them reported that they have reduced the amount of time they spend on X in the last six months. At least 7% of respondents have stopped using it completely while some 46% have joined other social media platforms.

The platform also seems to have also accrued an increasing number of fake accounts, trolls, and hate speech since the change of ownership, the survey noted. The transition from a platform facilitating scientific discourse to one fostering controversy and misinformation has prompted a wave of migration to alternative social media platforms such as Mastodon, Bluesky, Threads, and TikTok. 

Despite Mr. Musk’s claims to the contrary, a study revealed an increase in hate speech since his takeover

Also Read | Musk plans to change how news is shared on X

Ziga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, told Nature he started noticing the presence of far-right accounts espousing science denialism and racism that he had to keep blocking. “X has always been not so nice let’s say, but it is a mess right now,” he said.

Mastodon, established in 2016, has become a popular alternative to X after the takeover for its decentralised and open-access regulations. But the fragmented landscape resulting from a migration has posed challenges to science communication. Previously, X served as a ‘hub’ for scholars to access information through specific hashtags. But with a diaspora across multiple platforms, it has become challenging to say where researchers are congregating, hindering access to their insights.

The impact of these changes extends beyond personal connections. The sense of community fostered on X, particularly for marginalised groups like scientists of colour and female researchers, has been a driving force in addressing issues such as harassment, unequal pay, and inequity. It provided a platform for scientists to collaborate, discuss research fraud, and spotlight topics like scientific colonialism and diversity, the Nature article said.

Also Read | The problem with X? Meta, Microsoft, hundreds more own trademarks to new Twitter name

One change, introduced in February, was the closure of the platform’s application programming interface (API), which allowed scientists to observe how users interacted with one another on the platform. This would feed studies of how people were discussing climate change, how people with autism were making their voices heard, and the platform’s response to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, etc. Research on such topics has suffered a blow ever since access to API was revoked for the general public. 

According to the survey, LinkedIn was the second most popular place to open new accounts followed by Instagram and finally Threads, both of which are owned by Meta.

Even as some scientists feel that with the changing paradigm of X, the sense of community is slipping away, others are sure researchers will come up with unique ways to overcome the challenge. Ms. Jarochowska suggested webinars and other methods of networking might be more fruitful to promote scientific work. “If you appear with your scientific content between videos of cats,” she told Nature, “it’s not a particularly good medium for promotion yourself professionally, anyway.”

Mark Carrigan, a digital sociologist at the Manchester Institute for Education, U.K., said that the void left behind by X can be used to diversify science and democratise academia.