Those activities typically don't require observation and inference. A big part of birdwatching is identifying small, fast-moving animals that exhibit specific combinations of behaviors at specific times of the year based on specific climatic conditions. That sort of rapidfire pattern matching from video and audio info is probably a big contributor to what keeps the brain sharp.
The couple of times we've gone with guides who are serious birdwatchers, it is impressive to watch their abilities in this area of multimodal species identification (and male/female/adult/juvenile) in challenging visual and audio environments (and recall of species names in Latin, English, and Spanish).
Meanwhile I'm out there with my camera like "Hey, look at that beautiful red+blue bird!" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They have access to the same information as the rest of us (sight, sound, general awareness of season and habitat) but their inference is so amazingly fast and accurate.
The bird feeder attracted way to many mice and rats. I wish I didn’t have to take it down.
So VR birdwatching works, or no?
Remember, if VR birdwatching works, then you can now watch small, fast-moving animals that exhibit specific combinations of behaviors at any time of the year from the comfort of your couch and thus, the benefits of birdwatching can be enjoyed by a much larger population.
And it is a classic for folks with limited mobility:
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/birding-window-get-s...
There's a reason why it has a reputation as a great retiree hobby - it's "go sit on a bench and pay attention" not "first, purchase a mountain bike of adequate spec...".
The person in that article saw ten species in two months? This doesn't sound like a situation where your activity is listed as "birdwatching", it sounds like you spend a minute on it every once in a while.
And if I consider binoculars and a feeder, that's on the same price tier as VR.
Some parts of birdwatching could be Virtual - watching a feeder somewhere (anywhere) waiting for birds to come in and watch what they do - or watching different trees/plants at different points in the year attracting different birds exhibiting different behaviours (eg. I have a love of seeing Tui[NZ] when Taiwanese Cherry or Kowhai are in flower, they gather in the tree at different times of the day when the nectar is at its peak, there are fights for dominance between the birds, there's a racket as they all feast, then boom, as quickly as they arrive they're gone again, off to the next tree)
It's why there's so much distrust of science globally. We've cured cancer! Except we haven't, it was mouse studies. Except we have! Except not really, that drug failed it's first clinical trial. Except we have! Except that's just mechanistic reasoning not proven by any observational studies.
So then people think, wow, these scientists have no idea what they're doing and just make stuff up all the time to get attention. Which they aren't - most peer-reviewed studies include a mountain of caveats and I've rarely seen, even in large meta-analyses and Cochrane Reviews, papers that make half as strong a claim as ad-revenue obsessed news editors do with their hyperbolic headlines.
That's good science journalism imo
We want to know what it is in birdwatching that registers as beneficial because if the factor(s) are distinct and isolated then the same benefits can be scaled outside of birdwatching.
And if you just went birdwatching because they said so, you wouldn't know why it might be beneficial to you. Or maybe there's a factor that wasn't identified separately and birdwatching itself doesn't improve your cognitive capabilities while, for many others, it supposedly does.
You would want to know you're getting benefits from whatever you decide to do if you're doing it in order to gain those benefits.
> A big part of birdwatching is identifying small, fast-moving animals that exhibit specific combinations of behaviors at specific times of the year based on specific climatic conditions. That sort of rapidfire pattern matching from video and audio info is probably a big contributor to what keeps the brain sharp.
It takes time and experience to build up your identification skills but it’s really rewarding and exciting and modern tech makes it easier than ever to learn
Birdwatching includes looking at top trees searching for birds. Looking at complex fractal-like accumulations of branches and leaves. Also following sounds and identifying their source. The brain was designed for this task.
A screen does not seem a substituted for such a incredible rich experience. Screens are a flat low-resolution, low fidelity view of reality. And no brain has evolved to watch at them. It can actually be quite tiresome to look at screens all day, as so many things about them go against how our eyes and brains work.
The average CounterStrike player, for example, is scanning complex structures trying to identify an enemy, listening to sounds and trying to follow the source...etc. Why would the screen get in the way in one case but not the other?
As sister comments point out, this could be reproduced with a lot more technology (VR with high precision controllers ?), which could bring it on par with playing Counter Strike in some ways perhaps ?
To expand on bird watching, people usually don't mindlessly choose a wood cabin and just sit there. They'll know which bird should be where depending on the season, where they tend to hide depending on the time of the day, their bird calls etc. and eventually trek to wherever the birds will be. It's also not so far from fishing.
Seems like we're all generally in agreement, then. Probably nothing to do with the literal act of seeing birds, but all of the cognitive work that goes into it. Birdwatching is just an easy-to-digest hobby that demands the right sorts of cognitive activity. This can be akin to a 'Bird Spotting: the Video-game' with whatever flavor and skin, be it a shooter or racing sim or sports game.... but does not seem to cross over into 'TikTok' style less-cognitive activities behind a screen
It's very entertaining for me, but I don't do it to him very often lest he become miswired.
Like, if you have a baseline cognitive decline of 25% in 10 years, and you instead spend 2 of those 10 years (total time spent) watching birds to go from 25% to 20% reduction in cognitive decline, you haven't really slowed your cognitive decline, you've just effectively paused it during the time you were watching birds.
Meanwhile most people just do the traditional thing
If a article headlines saying "People who wake up early live 20 years longer than people who sleep in", and then it turns out it wasn't the act of waking up early at all, rather, early risers then went out for a run or a swim and people who slept in but did the same actually lived even longer than those early risers, it's important to know that.
Also, in America, the kind of people who have a glass of wine a day (but not more) strongly correlate with those who can afford healthcare.
Similar for mediterranean diets. Turns out it’s the universal healthcare available in all the mediterranean countries both on the european and the african sides.
Of course, the root cause being people who are unfit, sick or elderly cannot literally make it up a flight of stairs.
but if people aren't paying attention, like the vast majority of population dont, you'll suddenly have an explosion of condos that start from the 5th floor with the first 4 floors turned into something else.
and all of them have lifts!
There are a few reasons why this is false, my favorite one is, they didn't control for alcoholics who stopped drinking and thus reported as non-drinkers. So the group of completely sober ones had people with liver damage etc. while those with only moderate drinkers had barely any heavy-drinkers in it.
In other words, if its shown that people who eat jawbreakers have good teeth, is it possible that the underlying reason for it is you simply cannot eat jawbreakers with dentures?
> According to a small brain-imaging study published in 2000, London cab drivers had unusually large hippocampi. This part of the brain also happens to degrade in people with Alzheimer’s disease.
[...]
> Interestingly, taxi drivers are not known for stellar health outcomes, Jena says. They typically have higher mortality rates compared with people in other occupations, making their very low Alzheimer’s rates especially remarkable. The researchers wondered if taxi drivers experience other factors that protect them against dementia more generally. In that case, the researchers would expect cab and ambulance drivers to be similarly protected from other types of dementia as well. But their analysis showed these drivers had ordinary rates of vascular dementia, which does not involve the hippocampus.
> And the very low incidence of Alzheimer’s disease did not manifest among drivers of other modes of transportation, which involve “fewer navigational demands.” Another brain-imaging study of long-time London bus drivers found that they do not have enlarged hippocampi. Scientists suspect that this is because “bus drivers are driving predetermined routes,” says Jena. “It’s not this on-the-fly navigational memory that taxi drivers are required to possess.” He and his colleagues found that pilots and ship captains also exhibited typical rates of Alzheimer’s mortality.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/05/harvard-taxi-drivers...
Birdwatching is basically elderly James Bond. Who knows what undercover mysteries grandma and grandpa are secretly discovering
"The extensive training required to achieve domain-specific expertise modifies the brain. Changes in brain structure have been found in domains including music, athletics, and navigation. Training also alters brain activity."
Or are the hiking, breathing in fresh air, the eyes seeing natural sunlight etc critical to the effects?
So if I swapped the birdwatching with watching horses run or pigs fornicate with everything else being the same (hiking, breathing in fresh air, the eyes seeing natural sunlight etc), I would enjoy the exact same benefits the article claims birdwatching results in?