“Proust makes it clear that conscious focus could never have yielded such profound magic: Marcel has to abandon the constraints of what he calls voluntary memory…in order to get into the deeper truths available only by distraction. This sort of free-associative wandering is essential to the creating process; one moment of judicious unmindfulness can inspire thousands of hours of mindfulness.” This is on page 10, at the end of paragraph 4. I really like this idea. I 100% agree that a complete lack of distraction in life can make things boring. If you’re always so focused, how often will you be inspired? I feel like inspiration comes from spontaneous moments, which are often the product of distraction. It’s like work/life balance; you need a balance in order to live a fulfilling life. What is the point of living if you can’t relax or have fun every now and then? I think this can apply to distraction as well. Also, I really like the idea that a complete lack of distraction would get rid of a lot of creativity. I have definitely been inspired in moments of distraction-it’s probably how I got into crocheting. One moment of scrolling through Instagram led to me watching a video about crocheting something, which led to me actually picking up the hobby.
“There’s been lots of hand-wringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t, like conduct 34 conversations simultaneously across six different media, or pay attention to switching between attentional targets in a way that’s been considered impossible. More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity.” This is on page 11 and 12, at the end of the last paragraph on 11 and at the beginning of the first paragraph on 12. I also wholeheartedly agree with this point. A point I have been trying to make is that the human race is adaptable. So, why wouldn’t we be able to adapt to technology? Will multitasking really be impossible forever? Sure, it may be impossible for older generations because they haven’t really been forced to yet, but the author also mentions that human brains are changing faster than ever these days. What is impossible for the brain now won’t always be impossible. I don’t necessarily think the evolution of prioritized skills is a bad thing either. Sure, there may still be situations where focus is needed, like performing surgery, but if people shift the priority to tasks that can be multitasked or where distraction is welcome, I don’t think that is a bad thing. It might even make the person who is doing the task happier, and want to continue doing tasks like that.
” The smallest computers were the size of the delivery vans”(pg 2 paragraph 2) I thought that was very net to look at and it caught my eye. Everything in this world usually started off small but now is big. like houses, cars, stores, jewelry. but computers and its wired to see how big they were but now there so small and I can fit in into my pocket.
“He compares it, in facto smoking. people aren’t aware what’s happening to their mental process.” (pg 4 Paragraph 2) I couldn’t agree more. people don’t realize what is happening to there body when there smoking or doing anything or putting anything bad into there body until its to late and there in the hostpital.
“Meyer and a host of other researchers have proved again and again that multitasking, at least as our culture has come to know and love and institutionalize it, is a myth. When you think you’re doing two things at once, you’re almost always just switching rapidly between them, leaking a little mental efficiency with every switch. Meyer says that this is because, to put it simply, the brain processes different kinds of information on a variety of separate “channels” – a language channel, a visual channel, an auditory channel, and so on – each of which can process only one stream of information at a time. If you overburden a channel, the brain becomes inefficient and mistake-prone.” This passage was on page 5, paragraph 1. I found this part of Anderson’s essay interesting and very accurate. When I feel like I am “multitasking,” it feels like my brain is running a mile a minute. That could just be because I am not the “professional multitasker” other people have claimed to be, or it could mean that it is, in fact, just a myth. It feels like my brain is moving so fast to keep up with too many things at once, and it just drains so much of my energy. That is why most of the time when I’m doing homework, I try to eliminate any distractions in my area and definitely not listen to music. Listening to music is one of my favorite things to do, so when it comes to “multitasking” with homework and music, it is easy for me to get lost and find myself trapped in the music rather than focused on the work in front of me.
“The tech theorist Linda Stone famously coined the phrase “continuous partial attention” to describe our newly frazzled state of mind. American office workers don’t stick with any single task for more than a few minutes at a time; if left uninterrupted, they will most likely interrupt themselves. Since every interruption costs around 25 minutes of productivity, we spend nearly a third of our day recovering from them. We keep an average of eight windows open on our computer screens at one time and skip between them every twenty seconds. When we read online, we hardly even read at all – our eyes run down the page in an F pattern, scanning for keywords. When you add up all the leaks from these constant little switches, soon you’re hemorrhaging a dangerous amount of mental power.” Also, on page 5, in paragraph 3, I found this information interesting because when Anderson puts it this way, it makes it seem like distraction takes up a lot of our time in life. This passage is a little complicated for me, but it is just nitpicky stuff. Overall, I agree with Stone’s phrase that people will often distract themselves if they don’t get distracted by something else, that when reading something online, people look for specific words to get the information they need and then move on. I also believe that trying to catch up on the time wasted on distractions can be hard on our minds, causing us to be mentally drained. I agree that switching from one topic or one tab to another so frequently and quickly can scatter our minds to the point where it can be hard to get them back to focus on one thing at a time.
Passage #1
On the only paragraph of page 12, Anderson states “More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity”. I am using this quote to go with another sentence located on the third paragraph of page 11 saying “The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction”. I agree with this because the internet is not going away anytime soon. In this English class we have spent the last month learning and studying the topic of how the internet robs us of social interaction and attention. However, this is the first real solution I’ve seen to this issue, hence why it caught my attention immediately. Anderson puts it plainly by stating that the internet is not going anywhere, it is ingrained into our lives for good purpose, and our only option is to learn how to adapt our brains to it for the most optimal experience. How can we pull as many benefits as possible from the internet while also limiting the number of negative ones? Our brains our programmed so it can be reprogrammed. So, we must adapt. So now the question is how do we do it? Personally, I find this solution fascinating because now it makes me want to research other topics on how to adapt our brains efficiently.
Passage #2
Anderson seems to be condoning the use of neuroenhancers. He spends about half of page 8 giving benefits of doing so. Some of these quotes include “up to twenty-five percent of students admitted to using them; journalists on deadline, doctors performing high-stakes surgeries” (para. 2). He seems to be saying that when using these drugs, they can help us focus and achieve maximum productivity when doing structured task. Now on one hand I think that if there is a substance that can help society focus on tasks at hand very well, then why aren’t we using it. However, I wonder how society would function if it grew accustomed to using these substances. Would productivity go down if we ended up needing it to focus? Would I become addicted to these drugs and need them to complete assignments? And if so, do easy tasks become for difficult to do when we get used to these neuroenhancers? I personally believe I would hold off on using them and do more research in order to see if it should be okay to purchase them without a prescription.
On page 4 paragraph 3 and 4 Sam Anderson states that he asked the world’s foremost expert on multitasking and distraction if he found his own life negatively impacted. The answer was yes. I agree with the response of the person because of the way they explained it. Saying that they get calls all the time and are often being approached by people. Spending most of their day answering emails and talking to people. They also state that it was much calmer years ago than it is today. And I agree with that, the way the internet has been growing you can reach and talk to someone on any device at any time on any day. So it has just become very hectic when people talk with each other. I have been experiencing this which is why I agree with what is being said, because I used to not use the internet all the time or even a phone. Now it is all I use when communicating to people if not in person with them.
On page 5 paragraph 2 Anderson states that the only time multitasking works efficiently is when you operate on entirely separate channels. He gives the example of folding laundry while listening to a stock report. I completely agree with that statement because yes while you are still multitasking but it is efficient because you are doing something small physically while listening to something. An example I see in my everyday life that fits this is listening to music while doing school work. Yes I feel that it is efficient because listening to music can help soothe you and therefore helps you focus better and get your work done efficiently.
Anderson stated that “Google is making us stupid, multitasking is draining our souls, and the dumbest generation is leading us into a dark age of bookless power browsing” (Anderson 2.3). I fully agree with each of his points. We are given so much information but don’t search deeply into anything because we have so many things to do. We always need to check our text messages, emails, socials along with our personal browsing. A “recent study found that American teenagers spend an average of 6.5 hours a day focused on the electronic world”. That’s a lot of time we spend on the internet. That’s a lot of time we spend on the internet and it’s taking effect on us. One thing it takes away from is our desire to read into deeper context. This is because of power browsing as it’s changing the way we read and think along with shortening our attention span. We have adapted our brains to reading in short spurts, and if it’s a longer paragraph we are now most likely to skim the page. Since this is the way the internet is having us read, people are also adapting their writing to be like this, so less and less people are reading books.
On page seven paragraph four Anderson states that it’s not only our willpower to blame but also the way that the internet is designed. “The internet is basically a Skinner box engineered to tap right into our deepest mechanisms of addiction” (7.4). I agree as the internet has designed itself to build us each our own personal feeds and keeps us interested with pop ups and random info we probably wouldn’t know otherwise. It’s unpredictable like Anderson said. Although, at the end of the day It’s our choice to get off our phones and stop doom scrolling. It’s hard in the world as a college student as a majority of our work is done on a computer. To communicate with professors or staff on campus we email them, and to contact our friends we text them or use social media. It’s the society we have grown up in. I personally didn’t get a phone till freshman year, but I had an iPad when I was younger, so electrons have been in my world. But as I grow up it becomes more involved in my everyday life and I’m trying to find a healthy balance. But like we’ve talked about its hard because of the way they designed the internet.
The first thing I find remarkably interesting in Anderson’s journal is on page 5 paragraph 1. He is talking about an interview he did with David Myers, an expert on multitasking. While Anderson believes we need to adapt to where technology is taking us, Myers disagrees and believes that something needs to be changed. As Myers says, “When you think you’re doing two things at once, you’re almost always just switching rapidly between them, leaking a little mental efficiency with every switch”, which I find interesting and believable. If you are trying to focus on too many things at once, how much are you retaining? I believe this is important to Anderson’s journal as he has put someone else’s point of view. He gives himself someone to conversate and argue with in the piece adding depth to his argument. In this part i agree more with Myers than the point Anderson is trying to make.
The next thing that I find important to Anderson’s journal is on page 10 paragraph 3. He talks about how he believes spending a couple of hours on the internet is just another way to follow your attention. I disagree with this statement, going to scroll through your phone is distracting you from things you should be doing. If a thirty-minute assignment takes you one and a half hours to complete because you keep looking and playing on your phone, you are not being productive. This can then cause you to be behind on work or working on something super late into the night because you procrastinated by playing that one game or just looking at that one post which turns into scrolling for hours. Your phone, the game and the posts will be there after you finish that one essay or read that one article. But if you get caught up in your phone you can lose track of time and the next thing you know you should be getting ready for bed.
I agree with Anderson in this passage that information consumes the attention of its recipients. When we’re on the internet scrolling through, we are exposed to a massive amount of information everywhere we look, whether it’s on social media, news articles, or advertisements, our abilities to focus immediately become more limited. I think that this “poverty of attention” as he states is even more relevant in today’s world than it was in 2009 when this was published. When I’m trying to do work but am constantly getting notifications for all sorts of things I feel like my attention is pulled from what I need to be doing, and it becomes harder for me to refocus every time I’m distracted. I also feel like when I’m given too much information at once, which the internet very often tends to do, I find it more difficult to concentrate or understand it deeply. The idea of allocating our attention efficiently stated in this passage is important because without it it’s very easy to lose focus and get overwhelmed by the amount of information available.
Page 5 paragraph 1
I agree with Anderson that multitasking leads to less metal efficiency and what Myers and other researchers have proved, that when doing two things at once it’s impossible to fully focus on just one of them. I feel it’s common for multitasking to be thought of as a skill and something people tend to be praised for. But there has been research, like what I mentioned above with Myers, that proves all it does is make us perform worse. Personally, I know that when I try to do multiple things at once like do my homework while watching a movie, or texting someone, I’m not giving my full attention to either, instead just switching between the two. The constant switching makes it more difficult to focus deeply on your tasks. So, rather than being a productive amazing thing multitasking is actaully a bigger problem leading to more mistakes. I think this is a good indicator that its important for us to be giving our full attention to one thing at a time if we want to be successful with it.
On page 4 paragraph 2 Anderson explains how David Meyer, and expert on multitasking, thinks that distraction is an epidemic and can wipe out an entire generation of focused and productive thought. I agree that distraction is a major problem but I think this is a little too extreme. Technology may reduce our focused and productive thought but I don’t think it will ever get to a point where it completely stops. If a generation was completely wiped of focused and productive thought, no one would make It through any school work and no one would be able to preform at work. That’s just not realistic.
On page 11 on the last paragraph, Anderson mentions how the younger generations may lack skills but they also can do things their elders can’t. I agree with this idea that there are positives and negatives. These younger generations brains are different due to the neuroplasticity so they’re able to adapt to these new ways. They’re able to do things that older generations cannot.
On page 3, last paragraph, Anderson says something that really made me agree: multitasking. Performing two tasks that require the brain to work in the same way may make both of them suffer. But when doing different tasks at the same time, it looks like people can manage tasks that need different levels of thinking. For example, Anderson mentions a scenario such as listening to the stock market while folding laundry. To me, these can be as basic as responding to simple emails while taking a walk. These activities do not require the same part of the brain and thus it just feels more manageable to try and juggle them together. In fact, performing two activities that require the same kind of concentration such as essay writing and responding to messages can stress me out. I find that my brain cannot switch from one task to another fully allowing my full attention to both; ultimately, not being able to accomplish either task. Switching from one activity to another, I notice extra time being spent getting my mind refocused again. In other words, this type of “mental switching” takes up a lot of energy and could lower productivity, thus somewhat justifying Anderson’s argument on the hidden costs of real multitasking.
On page 11, in the last paragraph, Anderson talks about younger generations, often called “digital natives.” They have new skills that older generations don’t have. I agree with this statement. Growing up in a world full of technology has really changed how we think and understand information. People are afraid that young people aren’t able to work on difficult tasks from start to finish, but we actually have gained some new skills useful for today’s fast-moving world. We can manage, for instance, several conversations on different platforms simultaneously or switch fast between different tasks without losing the thread of what we are doing. This happens because, according to Anderson, the brain is very good at adapting to lots of changing information. While older people might become better at deep focusing, young people are increasingly improving their ability in handling and understanding more information all at once. As technology keeps changing, our brains might keep adapting.
In paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 4, Sam Anderson shares that he asked the world’s leading experts on multitasking and distraction whether they felt these issues negatively affected their lives. The expert replied affirmatively. I resonate with this response, particularly because of their explanation. They mentioned being constantly interrupted by calls and approached by people, spending most of their day answering emails and engaging in conversations. They also noted that life was much calmer in the past compared to today. I agree; with the rapid growth of the internet, we can now connect with others anytime and anywhere, making interactions increasingly hectic. I’ve experienced this shift, as I relied less on the internet and phones for communication. They are my primary means of connecting with others, aside from in-person interactions. In paragraph 2 on page 2, I agree with Anderson’s assertion that information consumes the attention of its recipients. When we browse the internet, we are bombarded with a vast array of information—from social media and news articles to advertisements—making it increasingly difficult to maintain our focus. I believe that this “poverty of attention,” as he describes it, is even more pertinent today than it was in 2009 when the article was published. When I’m trying to work but keep receiving notifications for various things, I find my attention pulled away from what I need to do, making it challenging to refocus each time I’m distracted. Additionally, when I’m overwhelmed with too much information at once, as often happens online, I struggle to concentrate or grasp it fully. The concept of efficiently allocating our attention mentioned in this passage is crucial; without it, we can easily become overwhelmed and lose our focus amidst the sheer volume of available information.
On page 3 paragraph 2 Anderon states, “Distraction, it turns out, is a critical component of creativity and insight. I would have to agree with this sentiment, this quote is meaningful because it challenges the common perception that distraction is purely negative. A good quote forces a reader to contradict popular opinion. Instead, it suggests that distraction can even aid in the development of creativity and insight. By allowing our minds to shift focus, we might stumble upon new ideas and solutions that we wouldn’t have discovered if we were always strictly focused. This perspective encourages us to see the value in moments of distraction and how they can contribute to our overall growth. As a critical component of creativity and insight, distractions and letting the mind wander has led to a wide array of new concepts that have driven the human race to new levels of intelligence.
On page 8 paragraph 3, Anderson argues that “Our brains are designed to be constantly shifting focus, to be attuned to the slightest change in our environment.” This quote is important because it highlights an essential aspect of how our brains function. It suggests that our ability to shift focus and notice changes in our environment is a fundamental characteristic of human cognition. I agree with what Anderson is saying, our innate ability to be distracted is a keystone human characteristic and from this, many new ideas and concepts have been developed. This constant shifting helps us adapt to new situations, stay alert to potential threats, and be more responsive to our surroundings. One could argue that distractions are an adaptation of the human race, it allows us to be able to step away and come back with fresh eyes or to contemplate and develop new ideas.
Page 2, Paragraph 2
Anderson presents the idea that “…a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention…” I agree with this statement and I find it important to the overall meaning Anderson is trying to convey. This quote stuck out to me because it means that too much information presented to us can be overwhelming, creating a lack of attention span. I can relate to this since I probably had about ten breaks in between reading Anderson’s essay. I saw that it was twelve pages long, and I kept getting overwhelmed, making the reading much longer than it should have been. Relating this back to the idea of technology, the internet is a huge, overwhelming mass of information. Due to the “poverty of attention,” we tend to only skim the surface of online text. We often search for the convenient answers to our questions, while avoiding the deeper meaning or reasoning behind them.
Page 4, Paragraph 2
I have a complicated opinion on the ideas presented by David Meyer. He compares this “cognitive plague” to smoking, saying that it is just a danger that we do not comprehend yet until we acquire better technology to see it. I somewhat agree with this. I just don’t believe that it is this extreme. I grew up with many technological distractions like the Wii, cable television, laptops, etc. I guess you could say I was distracted by these objects. That being said, if I didn’t have these pieces of technology, wouldn’t I have just found something else to be distracted by? I’m sure my parents didn’t live with one hundred percent attention. They just found different sources of distraction. This is like Socrates’ idea about how writing is going to ruin our attention. There is always going to be more advances in technology, more ways to be distracted, but I am confident that we will overcome them like we have in recent history.
Page 2 Paragraph 4: I agree with what Anderson has to say in this paragraph. He talks about how the doomsaying is a bit blown out of proportion, as the problem is not necessarily the technology, but more so the fact that we have not adapted to it yet. We are addicted to change and simply haven’t figured out how to navigate the everchanging of technology as we have the everchanging of art or music. He uses Socrates as an example of doomsayers, as Socrates feared how reading and writing would affect the way we think. Obviously, we adapted to it and it did not make us incapable of thought, and this can be correlated to the use of digital technology. We might just be in that weird phase where we have not yet adapted but have the new technology we need to adapt to.
Page 7 Paragraph 4: I agree with what Anderson has to say in this paragraph. He talks about how the real problem of technology lies with our lack of self-control and pure human behaviorism. Using psychology, specifically B.F. Skinner and his rat experiment, as reasoning, Anderson talks about how using technology is almost like completing a task and receiving a reward at random (variable ratio schedule). Using the internet gives us random little dopamine hits, almost like, in Anderson’s words, using opium throughout the day. He says that like an opium addict, it would be hard to just put away the thing that provides us with these little highs, which explained like this makes perfect sense. He even mentions that there was recent discussion of adding Internet addiction to the DSM which would classify it as a very serious mental health disorder on the same level of Schizophrenia.
15 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 13”
“Proust makes it clear that conscious focus could never have yielded such profound magic: Marcel has to abandon the constraints of what he calls voluntary memory…in order to get into the deeper truths available only by distraction. This sort of free-associative wandering is essential to the creating process; one moment of judicious unmindfulness can inspire thousands of hours of mindfulness.” This is on page 10, at the end of paragraph 4. I really like this idea. I 100% agree that a complete lack of distraction in life can make things boring. If you’re always so focused, how often will you be inspired? I feel like inspiration comes from spontaneous moments, which are often the product of distraction. It’s like work/life balance; you need a balance in order to live a fulfilling life. What is the point of living if you can’t relax or have fun every now and then? I think this can apply to distraction as well. Also, I really like the idea that a complete lack of distraction would get rid of a lot of creativity. I have definitely been inspired in moments of distraction-it’s probably how I got into crocheting. One moment of scrolling through Instagram led to me watching a video about crocheting something, which led to me actually picking up the hobby.
“There’s been lots of hand-wringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t, like conduct 34 conversations simultaneously across six different media, or pay attention to switching between attentional targets in a way that’s been considered impossible. More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity.” This is on page 11 and 12, at the end of the last paragraph on 11 and at the beginning of the first paragraph on 12. I also wholeheartedly agree with this point. A point I have been trying to make is that the human race is adaptable. So, why wouldn’t we be able to adapt to technology? Will multitasking really be impossible forever? Sure, it may be impossible for older generations because they haven’t really been forced to yet, but the author also mentions that human brains are changing faster than ever these days. What is impossible for the brain now won’t always be impossible. I don’t necessarily think the evolution of prioritized skills is a bad thing either. Sure, there may still be situations where focus is needed, like performing surgery, but if people shift the priority to tasks that can be multitasked or where distraction is welcome, I don’t think that is a bad thing. It might even make the person who is doing the task happier, and want to continue doing tasks like that.
” The smallest computers were the size of the delivery vans”(pg 2 paragraph 2) I thought that was very net to look at and it caught my eye. Everything in this world usually started off small but now is big. like houses, cars, stores, jewelry. but computers and its wired to see how big they were but now there so small and I can fit in into my pocket.
“He compares it, in facto smoking. people aren’t aware what’s happening to their mental process.” (pg 4 Paragraph 2) I couldn’t agree more. people don’t realize what is happening to there body when there smoking or doing anything or putting anything bad into there body until its to late and there in the hostpital.
“Meyer and a host of other researchers have proved again and again that multitasking, at least as our culture has come to know and love and institutionalize it, is a myth. When you think you’re doing two things at once, you’re almost always just switching rapidly between them, leaking a little mental efficiency with every switch. Meyer says that this is because, to put it simply, the brain processes different kinds of information on a variety of separate “channels” – a language channel, a visual channel, an auditory channel, and so on – each of which can process only one stream of information at a time. If you overburden a channel, the brain becomes inefficient and mistake-prone.” This passage was on page 5, paragraph 1. I found this part of Anderson’s essay interesting and very accurate. When I feel like I am “multitasking,” it feels like my brain is running a mile a minute. That could just be because I am not the “professional multitasker” other people have claimed to be, or it could mean that it is, in fact, just a myth. It feels like my brain is moving so fast to keep up with too many things at once, and it just drains so much of my energy. That is why most of the time when I’m doing homework, I try to eliminate any distractions in my area and definitely not listen to music. Listening to music is one of my favorite things to do, so when it comes to “multitasking” with homework and music, it is easy for me to get lost and find myself trapped in the music rather than focused on the work in front of me.
“The tech theorist Linda Stone famously coined the phrase “continuous partial attention” to describe our newly frazzled state of mind. American office workers don’t stick with any single task for more than a few minutes at a time; if left uninterrupted, they will most likely interrupt themselves. Since every interruption costs around 25 minutes of productivity, we spend nearly a third of our day recovering from them. We keep an average of eight windows open on our computer screens at one time and skip between them every twenty seconds. When we read online, we hardly even read at all – our eyes run down the page in an F pattern, scanning for keywords. When you add up all the leaks from these constant little switches, soon you’re hemorrhaging a dangerous amount of mental power.” Also, on page 5, in paragraph 3, I found this information interesting because when Anderson puts it this way, it makes it seem like distraction takes up a lot of our time in life. This passage is a little complicated for me, but it is just nitpicky stuff. Overall, I agree with Stone’s phrase that people will often distract themselves if they don’t get distracted by something else, that when reading something online, people look for specific words to get the information they need and then move on. I also believe that trying to catch up on the time wasted on distractions can be hard on our minds, causing us to be mentally drained. I agree that switching from one topic or one tab to another so frequently and quickly can scatter our minds to the point where it can be hard to get them back to focus on one thing at a time.
Jaidin Fuentes
Journal #13
Passage #1
On the only paragraph of page 12, Anderson states “More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity”. I am using this quote to go with another sentence located on the third paragraph of page 11 saying “The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction”. I agree with this because the internet is not going away anytime soon. In this English class we have spent the last month learning and studying the topic of how the internet robs us of social interaction and attention. However, this is the first real solution I’ve seen to this issue, hence why it caught my attention immediately. Anderson puts it plainly by stating that the internet is not going anywhere, it is ingrained into our lives for good purpose, and our only option is to learn how to adapt our brains to it for the most optimal experience. How can we pull as many benefits as possible from the internet while also limiting the number of negative ones? Our brains our programmed so it can be reprogrammed. So, we must adapt. So now the question is how do we do it? Personally, I find this solution fascinating because now it makes me want to research other topics on how to adapt our brains efficiently.
Passage #2
Anderson seems to be condoning the use of neuroenhancers. He spends about half of page 8 giving benefits of doing so. Some of these quotes include “up to twenty-five percent of students admitted to using them; journalists on deadline, doctors performing high-stakes surgeries” (para. 2). He seems to be saying that when using these drugs, they can help us focus and achieve maximum productivity when doing structured task. Now on one hand I think that if there is a substance that can help society focus on tasks at hand very well, then why aren’t we using it. However, I wonder how society would function if it grew accustomed to using these substances. Would productivity go down if we ended up needing it to focus? Would I become addicted to these drugs and need them to complete assignments? And if so, do easy tasks become for difficult to do when we get used to these neuroenhancers? I personally believe I would hold off on using them and do more research in order to see if it should be okay to purchase them without a prescription.
On page 4 paragraph 3 and 4 Sam Anderson states that he asked the world’s foremost expert on multitasking and distraction if he found his own life negatively impacted. The answer was yes. I agree with the response of the person because of the way they explained it. Saying that they get calls all the time and are often being approached by people. Spending most of their day answering emails and talking to people. They also state that it was much calmer years ago than it is today. And I agree with that, the way the internet has been growing you can reach and talk to someone on any device at any time on any day. So it has just become very hectic when people talk with each other. I have been experiencing this which is why I agree with what is being said, because I used to not use the internet all the time or even a phone. Now it is all I use when communicating to people if not in person with them.
On page 5 paragraph 2 Anderson states that the only time multitasking works efficiently is when you operate on entirely separate channels. He gives the example of folding laundry while listening to a stock report. I completely agree with that statement because yes while you are still multitasking but it is efficient because you are doing something small physically while listening to something. An example I see in my everyday life that fits this is listening to music while doing school work. Yes I feel that it is efficient because listening to music can help soothe you and therefore helps you focus better and get your work done efficiently.
Anderson stated that “Google is making us stupid, multitasking is draining our souls, and the dumbest generation is leading us into a dark age of bookless power browsing” (Anderson 2.3). I fully agree with each of his points. We are given so much information but don’t search deeply into anything because we have so many things to do. We always need to check our text messages, emails, socials along with our personal browsing. A “recent study found that American teenagers spend an average of 6.5 hours a day focused on the electronic world”. That’s a lot of time we spend on the internet. That’s a lot of time we spend on the internet and it’s taking effect on us. One thing it takes away from is our desire to read into deeper context. This is because of power browsing as it’s changing the way we read and think along with shortening our attention span. We have adapted our brains to reading in short spurts, and if it’s a longer paragraph we are now most likely to skim the page. Since this is the way the internet is having us read, people are also adapting their writing to be like this, so less and less people are reading books.
On page seven paragraph four Anderson states that it’s not only our willpower to blame but also the way that the internet is designed. “The internet is basically a Skinner box engineered to tap right into our deepest mechanisms of addiction” (7.4). I agree as the internet has designed itself to build us each our own personal feeds and keeps us interested with pop ups and random info we probably wouldn’t know otherwise. It’s unpredictable like Anderson said. Although, at the end of the day It’s our choice to get off our phones and stop doom scrolling. It’s hard in the world as a college student as a majority of our work is done on a computer. To communicate with professors or staff on campus we email them, and to contact our friends we text them or use social media. It’s the society we have grown up in. I personally didn’t get a phone till freshman year, but I had an iPad when I was younger, so electrons have been in my world. But as I grow up it becomes more involved in my everyday life and I’m trying to find a healthy balance. But like we’ve talked about its hard because of the way they designed the internet.
The first thing I find remarkably interesting in Anderson’s journal is on page 5 paragraph 1. He is talking about an interview he did with David Myers, an expert on multitasking. While Anderson believes we need to adapt to where technology is taking us, Myers disagrees and believes that something needs to be changed. As Myers says, “When you think you’re doing two things at once, you’re almost always just switching rapidly between them, leaking a little mental efficiency with every switch”, which I find interesting and believable. If you are trying to focus on too many things at once, how much are you retaining? I believe this is important to Anderson’s journal as he has put someone else’s point of view. He gives himself someone to conversate and argue with in the piece adding depth to his argument. In this part i agree more with Myers than the point Anderson is trying to make.
The next thing that I find important to Anderson’s journal is on page 10 paragraph 3. He talks about how he believes spending a couple of hours on the internet is just another way to follow your attention. I disagree with this statement, going to scroll through your phone is distracting you from things you should be doing. If a thirty-minute assignment takes you one and a half hours to complete because you keep looking and playing on your phone, you are not being productive. This can then cause you to be behind on work or working on something super late into the night because you procrastinated by playing that one game or just looking at that one post which turns into scrolling for hours. Your phone, the game and the posts will be there after you finish that one essay or read that one article. But if you get caught up in your phone you can lose track of time and the next thing you know you should be getting ready for bed.
Page 2 Paragraph 2
I agree with Anderson in this passage that information consumes the attention of its recipients. When we’re on the internet scrolling through, we are exposed to a massive amount of information everywhere we look, whether it’s on social media, news articles, or advertisements, our abilities to focus immediately become more limited. I think that this “poverty of attention” as he states is even more relevant in today’s world than it was in 2009 when this was published. When I’m trying to do work but am constantly getting notifications for all sorts of things I feel like my attention is pulled from what I need to be doing, and it becomes harder for me to refocus every time I’m distracted. I also feel like when I’m given too much information at once, which the internet very often tends to do, I find it more difficult to concentrate or understand it deeply. The idea of allocating our attention efficiently stated in this passage is important because without it it’s very easy to lose focus and get overwhelmed by the amount of information available.
Page 5 paragraph 1
I agree with Anderson that multitasking leads to less metal efficiency and what Myers and other researchers have proved, that when doing two things at once it’s impossible to fully focus on just one of them. I feel it’s common for multitasking to be thought of as a skill and something people tend to be praised for. But there has been research, like what I mentioned above with Myers, that proves all it does is make us perform worse. Personally, I know that when I try to do multiple things at once like do my homework while watching a movie, or texting someone, I’m not giving my full attention to either, instead just switching between the two. The constant switching makes it more difficult to focus deeply on your tasks. So, rather than being a productive amazing thing multitasking is actaully a bigger problem leading to more mistakes. I think this is a good indicator that its important for us to be giving our full attention to one thing at a time if we want to be successful with it.
On page 4 paragraph 2 Anderson explains how David Meyer, and expert on multitasking, thinks that distraction is an epidemic and can wipe out an entire generation of focused and productive thought. I agree that distraction is a major problem but I think this is a little too extreme. Technology may reduce our focused and productive thought but I don’t think it will ever get to a point where it completely stops. If a generation was completely wiped of focused and productive thought, no one would make It through any school work and no one would be able to preform at work. That’s just not realistic.
On page 11 on the last paragraph, Anderson mentions how the younger generations may lack skills but they also can do things their elders can’t. I agree with this idea that there are positives and negatives. These younger generations brains are different due to the neuroplasticity so they’re able to adapt to these new ways. They’re able to do things that older generations cannot.
On page 3, last paragraph, Anderson says something that really made me agree: multitasking. Performing two tasks that require the brain to work in the same way may make both of them suffer. But when doing different tasks at the same time, it looks like people can manage tasks that need different levels of thinking. For example, Anderson mentions a scenario such as listening to the stock market while folding laundry. To me, these can be as basic as responding to simple emails while taking a walk. These activities do not require the same part of the brain and thus it just feels more manageable to try and juggle them together. In fact, performing two activities that require the same kind of concentration such as essay writing and responding to messages can stress me out. I find that my brain cannot switch from one task to another fully allowing my full attention to both; ultimately, not being able to accomplish either task. Switching from one activity to another, I notice extra time being spent getting my mind refocused again. In other words, this type of “mental switching” takes up a lot of energy and could lower productivity, thus somewhat justifying Anderson’s argument on the hidden costs of real multitasking.
On page 11, in the last paragraph, Anderson talks about younger generations, often called “digital natives.” They have new skills that older generations don’t have. I agree with this statement. Growing up in a world full of technology has really changed how we think and understand information. People are afraid that young people aren’t able to work on difficult tasks from start to finish, but we actually have gained some new skills useful for today’s fast-moving world. We can manage, for instance, several conversations on different platforms simultaneously or switch fast between different tasks without losing the thread of what we are doing. This happens because, according to Anderson, the brain is very good at adapting to lots of changing information. While older people might become better at deep focusing, young people are increasingly improving their ability in handling and understanding more information all at once. As technology keeps changing, our brains might keep adapting.
In paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 4, Sam Anderson shares that he asked the world’s leading experts on multitasking and distraction whether they felt these issues negatively affected their lives. The expert replied affirmatively. I resonate with this response, particularly because of their explanation. They mentioned being constantly interrupted by calls and approached by people, spending most of their day answering emails and engaging in conversations. They also noted that life was much calmer in the past compared to today. I agree; with the rapid growth of the internet, we can now connect with others anytime and anywhere, making interactions increasingly hectic. I’ve experienced this shift, as I relied less on the internet and phones for communication. They are my primary means of connecting with others, aside from in-person interactions. In paragraph 2 on page 2, I agree with Anderson’s assertion that information consumes the attention of its recipients. When we browse the internet, we are bombarded with a vast array of information—from social media and news articles to advertisements—making it increasingly difficult to maintain our focus. I believe that this “poverty of attention,” as he describes it, is even more pertinent today than it was in 2009 when the article was published. When I’m trying to work but keep receiving notifications for various things, I find my attention pulled away from what I need to do, making it challenging to refocus each time I’m distracted. Additionally, when I’m overwhelmed with too much information at once, as often happens online, I struggle to concentrate or grasp it fully. The concept of efficiently allocating our attention mentioned in this passage is crucial; without it, we can easily become overwhelmed and lose our focus amidst the sheer volume of available information.
On page 3 paragraph 2 Anderon states, “Distraction, it turns out, is a critical component of creativity and insight. I would have to agree with this sentiment, this quote is meaningful because it challenges the common perception that distraction is purely negative. A good quote forces a reader to contradict popular opinion. Instead, it suggests that distraction can even aid in the development of creativity and insight. By allowing our minds to shift focus, we might stumble upon new ideas and solutions that we wouldn’t have discovered if we were always strictly focused. This perspective encourages us to see the value in moments of distraction and how they can contribute to our overall growth. As a critical component of creativity and insight, distractions and letting the mind wander has led to a wide array of new concepts that have driven the human race to new levels of intelligence.
On page 8 paragraph 3, Anderson argues that “Our brains are designed to be constantly shifting focus, to be attuned to the slightest change in our environment.” This quote is important because it highlights an essential aspect of how our brains function. It suggests that our ability to shift focus and notice changes in our environment is a fundamental characteristic of human cognition. I agree with what Anderson is saying, our innate ability to be distracted is a keystone human characteristic and from this, many new ideas and concepts have been developed. This constant shifting helps us adapt to new situations, stay alert to potential threats, and be more responsive to our surroundings. One could argue that distractions are an adaptation of the human race, it allows us to be able to step away and come back with fresh eyes or to contemplate and develop new ideas.
Page 2, Paragraph 2
Anderson presents the idea that “…a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention…” I agree with this statement and I find it important to the overall meaning Anderson is trying to convey. This quote stuck out to me because it means that too much information presented to us can be overwhelming, creating a lack of attention span. I can relate to this since I probably had about ten breaks in between reading Anderson’s essay. I saw that it was twelve pages long, and I kept getting overwhelmed, making the reading much longer than it should have been. Relating this back to the idea of technology, the internet is a huge, overwhelming mass of information. Due to the “poverty of attention,” we tend to only skim the surface of online text. We often search for the convenient answers to our questions, while avoiding the deeper meaning or reasoning behind them.
Page 4, Paragraph 2
I have a complicated opinion on the ideas presented by David Meyer. He compares this “cognitive plague” to smoking, saying that it is just a danger that we do not comprehend yet until we acquire better technology to see it. I somewhat agree with this. I just don’t believe that it is this extreme. I grew up with many technological distractions like the Wii, cable television, laptops, etc. I guess you could say I was distracted by these objects. That being said, if I didn’t have these pieces of technology, wouldn’t I have just found something else to be distracted by? I’m sure my parents didn’t live with one hundred percent attention. They just found different sources of distraction. This is like Socrates’ idea about how writing is going to ruin our attention. There is always going to be more advances in technology, more ways to be distracted, but I am confident that we will overcome them like we have in recent history.
link: https://youtu.be/faL5QARkR3A
Page 2 Paragraph 4: I agree with what Anderson has to say in this paragraph. He talks about how the doomsaying is a bit blown out of proportion, as the problem is not necessarily the technology, but more so the fact that we have not adapted to it yet. We are addicted to change and simply haven’t figured out how to navigate the everchanging of technology as we have the everchanging of art or music. He uses Socrates as an example of doomsayers, as Socrates feared how reading and writing would affect the way we think. Obviously, we adapted to it and it did not make us incapable of thought, and this can be correlated to the use of digital technology. We might just be in that weird phase where we have not yet adapted but have the new technology we need to adapt to.
Page 7 Paragraph 4: I agree with what Anderson has to say in this paragraph. He talks about how the real problem of technology lies with our lack of self-control and pure human behaviorism. Using psychology, specifically B.F. Skinner and his rat experiment, as reasoning, Anderson talks about how using technology is almost like completing a task and receiving a reward at random (variable ratio schedule). Using the internet gives us random little dopamine hits, almost like, in Anderson’s words, using opium throughout the day. He says that like an opium addict, it would be hard to just put away the thing that provides us with these little highs, which explained like this makes perfect sense. He even mentions that there was recent discussion of adding Internet addiction to the DSM which would classify it as a very serious mental health disorder on the same level of Schizophrenia.