I always struggle with articles that start from the opinion that no one can focus, especially kids. While I agree that something in our culture and society has changed, especially post pandemic,...
Exemplary
I always struggle with articles that start from the opinion that no one can focus, especially kids. While I agree that something in our culture and society has changed, especially post pandemic, but I don't agree that social media use and internet access in your pockets are the causes. Nor that removing those things is the solution. I would need to see studies conducted to draw a conclusion like that. While I'm glad that the author noted that some people don't agree, they only put the paragraph in there to give it lip service then go right back to making their point.
A handful of professors told me they hadn’t noticed any change. Some students have always found old movies to be slow, Lynn Spigel, a professor of screen cultures at Northwestern University, told me. “But the ones who are really dedicated to learning film always were into it, and they still are.”
Why doesn't the author give any time or thought to these statements? Who are these professors, versus the ones that think there is a difference?
Anecdote time: I have ADHD, diagnosed at 38 which I masked since childhood. Movies were always an absolute joy for me: it would give me long stretches of time where I wouldn't have to think about the people around me, I wouldn't have to try to remember their names, or the history we had together. They allowed me to be led on an emotional arc with the main characters that almost always ended in a catharsis (emotional regulation was always a huge symptom for me). Movies were a socially acceptable time for me to sit and stare at the screen with someone. Afterwards any social interaction would have an excited direction, I wouldn't have to try to find commonality to talk about, or feel awkward when explaining that I still don't watch sports, or like cars or military gear.
My 8 year old's favorite movie is Flow. It's an 85 minute silent animated film; she has watched it twice through without breaks and without taking her eyes off the screen. She also has diagnosed ADHD.
I can't conclude if anything is different, or if something is different what that may be. I can certainly hypothesize, though. My ADHD was heavily internalized, in no small part because it was socially unacceptable to externalize it 30 years ago. I also had decent teachers who were able to direct me positively: by rewarding me for being a teacher's pet in elementary school. All of those things are much more uncommon these days. It's very uncommon for disruptive students to be removed from classrooms. Class sizes are growing, and are much more integrated without additional help.
It's also no longer seen as socially acceptable to just do nothing. We need to be moving, we need to be cleaning, folding laundry, updating our resume, browsing job applications, answering school or work emails at all hours. If you don't do these things you are seen as lazy, passed over for jobs, or get a lower grade. While "staying home to wash my hair" was something of a joke on sitcoms 30 years ago, it wasn't so outlandish. People could just stay in and rent a movie, and do nothing else while they watched it. We should investigate why we all feel like were not allowed to do that any longer. Why it's seen as selfish to take that time for ourselves. One teacher saying "no, seriously, watch this" while they flip through papers on their desk, or pace the room to monitor can't undo years cultural and societal norms.
I suppose my bias that I have ADHD and learned to live with it since childhood could have given me an unfair advantage. I suppose it possible that social media and cell phones are giving all of you normal people ADHD. But that idea kind of flies in the face of all of the science I have learned about what ADHD is, how it functions, and how the physical brain structure is altered from childhood.
Answered when comparing the first line of the paragraph preceding the one you're referencing, emphasis mine. vs 21 vs 5 Small sample size, but 80% of the queried professors say it's an issue, so...
Why doesn't the author give any time or thought to these statements?
Answered when comparing the first line of the paragraph preceding the one you're referencing, emphasis mine.
I heard similar observations from 20 film-studies professors around the country.
vs
A handful of professors told me they hadn’t noticed any change.
21 vs 5
Small sample size, but 80% of the queried professors say it's an issue, so it seems prudent to focus the article on those that say it is a problem vs the few that say they "hadn't noticed".
Also I think it’s obvious that having a device with access to endless dopamine stimulating content will disrupt someone’s attention span, and dismissing it is a contrarian take
Also I think it’s obvious that having a device with access to endless dopamine stimulating content will disrupt someone’s attention span, and dismissing it is a contrarian take
I remember once my mom brought up some old quack who was anti-ADHD and insisted that if your kid could sit through a movie, they didn't have ADHD. Just your classic refusal to understand that ADHD...
I remember once my mom brought up some old quack who was anti-ADHD and insisted that if your kid could sit through a movie, they didn't have ADHD. Just your classic refusal to understand that ADHD is an issue with regulating your attention and not constant distractibility.
Anyway I also have ADHD and have always gotten very absorbed in movies, even when I was a child. I can sit around on my phone while a movie's playing and only half pay attention, sure, but that's usually a conscious choice and not because I just can't pay attention or anything like that. A movie has to be pretty bad to have me check-out mid-film if I came prepared to watch it, and even then that is also generally a conscious choice on my part, not some sort of fictitious inability to focus on things due to social media.
I also have ADHD, diagnosed at 43. I often wish that we had the tools and vocabulary that we do now, when I was younger. Even just knowing the words to properly describe what I was feeling and why...
I also have ADHD, diagnosed at 43. I often wish that we had the tools and vocabulary that we do now, when I was younger. Even just knowing the words to properly describe what I was feeling and why sometimes seemingly mundane things were hard would have been incredibly helpful. Most often when I was struggling with classes or activities that I wasn't fully engaged with, I was told to "focus more" and "try harder".
#offtopic
My 8 year old's favorite movie is Flow.
I absolutely adore that movie, especially as someone who went to school for animation. It is an actual masterpiece of both animation and filmmaking.
I'm curious why you seem to think social media has no affect on attention spans. I think it's pretty obvious it has had an effect. I've noticed it in myself even. How much of an effect depends on...
I'm curious why you seem to think social media has no affect on attention spans.
I think it's pretty obvious it has had an effect. I've noticed it in myself even. How much of an effect depends on the person. And it's not the only factor sure.
But I find it wild to claim that it has no effect and am curious where you are coming from with this deduction.
It's pretty trivial to go to Google scholar and see just how many studies have actively explored the link between social media use and attention span. Obviously not one of them is perfect, but...
I don't agree that social media use and internet access in your pockets are the causes. Nor that removing those things is the solution. I would need to see studies conducted to draw a conclusion like that
It's pretty trivial to go to Google scholar and see just how many studies have actively explored the link between social media use and attention span.
Obviously not one of them is perfect, but this is something that is being actively studied.
Food for thought - when televisions were invented, and in particular when colour televisions were invented, was there mass concern that younger generations no longer wanted to sit around and...
Food for thought - when televisions were invented, and in particular when colour televisions were invented, was there mass concern that younger generations no longer wanted to sit around and listen to radio dramas? We don't really have radio dramas anymore, and it's pretty much impossible for me to sit and listen to a podcast and do literally nothing else. How much of this is a shift of cultural behaviour based on technological changes, and how much is that people genuinely cannot pay attention even when they want to?
The article also mentions that some of these professors are intentionally selecting movies that are not traditionally interesting to try and force their students to learn how to be bored. I'm not sure then that students not watching or finishing a film is indicative of unwanted inattention. I'll also say that I am the only person I know who read every book assigned in English class cover to cover (save one); everyone else either skimmed, lied, or read Sparksnotes to get the jist without having to actually read it. I don't find skipping movies you don't want to watch to necessarily be evidence of an inability to focus, except maybe the prof who has used the same test for 20 years and has found test scores to shift to be unusually low. There's absolutely evidence that social media and screen use has changed people's behaviour and attention, but I'm not totally convinced that everything here is totally new and unusual.
I always struggle with articles that start from the opinion that no one can focus, especially kids. While I agree that something in our culture and society has changed, especially post pandemic, but I don't agree that social media use and internet access in your pockets are the causes. Nor that removing those things is the solution. I would need to see studies conducted to draw a conclusion like that. While I'm glad that the author noted that some people don't agree, they only put the paragraph in there to give it lip service then go right back to making their point.
Why doesn't the author give any time or thought to these statements? Who are these professors, versus the ones that think there is a difference?
Anecdote time: I have ADHD, diagnosed at 38 which I masked since childhood. Movies were always an absolute joy for me: it would give me long stretches of time where I wouldn't have to think about the people around me, I wouldn't have to try to remember their names, or the history we had together. They allowed me to be led on an emotional arc with the main characters that almost always ended in a catharsis (emotional regulation was always a huge symptom for me). Movies were a socially acceptable time for me to sit and stare at the screen with someone. Afterwards any social interaction would have an excited direction, I wouldn't have to try to find commonality to talk about, or feel awkward when explaining that I still don't watch sports, or like cars or military gear.
My 8 year old's favorite movie is Flow. It's an 85 minute silent animated film; she has watched it twice through without breaks and without taking her eyes off the screen. She also has diagnosed ADHD.
I can't conclude if anything is different, or if something is different what that may be. I can certainly hypothesize, though. My ADHD was heavily internalized, in no small part because it was socially unacceptable to externalize it 30 years ago. I also had decent teachers who were able to direct me positively: by rewarding me for being a teacher's pet in elementary school. All of those things are much more uncommon these days. It's very uncommon for disruptive students to be removed from classrooms. Class sizes are growing, and are much more integrated without additional help.
It's also no longer seen as socially acceptable to just do nothing. We need to be moving, we need to be cleaning, folding laundry, updating our resume, browsing job applications, answering school or work emails at all hours. If you don't do these things you are seen as lazy, passed over for jobs, or get a lower grade. While "staying home to wash my hair" was something of a joke on sitcoms 30 years ago, it wasn't so outlandish. People could just stay in and rent a movie, and do nothing else while they watched it. We should investigate why we all feel like were not allowed to do that any longer. Why it's seen as selfish to take that time for ourselves. One teacher saying "no, seriously, watch this" while they flip through papers on their desk, or pace the room to monitor can't undo years cultural and societal norms.
I suppose my bias that I have ADHD and learned to live with it since childhood could have given me an unfair advantage. I suppose it possible that social media and cell phones are giving all of you normal people ADHD. But that idea kind of flies in the face of all of the science I have learned about what ADHD is, how it functions, and how the physical brain structure is altered from childhood.
Answered when comparing the first line of the paragraph preceding the one you're referencing, emphasis mine.
vs
21 vs 5
Small sample size, but 80% of the queried professors say it's an issue, so it seems prudent to focus the article on those that say it is a problem vs the few that say they "hadn't noticed".
Also I think it’s obvious that having a device with access to endless dopamine stimulating content will disrupt someone’s attention span, and dismissing it is a contrarian take
I remember once my mom brought up some old quack who was anti-ADHD and insisted that if your kid could sit through a movie, they didn't have ADHD. Just your classic refusal to understand that ADHD is an issue with regulating your attention and not constant distractibility.
Anyway I also have ADHD and have always gotten very absorbed in movies, even when I was a child. I can sit around on my phone while a movie's playing and only half pay attention, sure, but that's usually a conscious choice and not because I just can't pay attention or anything like that. A movie has to be pretty bad to have me check-out mid-film if I came prepared to watch it, and even then that is also generally a conscious choice on my part, not some sort of fictitious inability to focus on things due to social media.
I also have ADHD, diagnosed at 43. I often wish that we had the tools and vocabulary that we do now, when I was younger. Even just knowing the words to properly describe what I was feeling and why sometimes seemingly mundane things were hard would have been incredibly helpful. Most often when I was struggling with classes or activities that I wasn't fully engaged with, I was told to "focus more" and "try harder".
#offtopic
I absolutely adore that movie, especially as someone who went to school for animation. It is an actual masterpiece of both animation and filmmaking.
I'm curious why you seem to think social media has no affect on attention spans.
I think it's pretty obvious it has had an effect. I've noticed it in myself even. How much of an effect depends on the person. And it's not the only factor sure.
But I find it wild to claim that it has no effect and am curious where you are coming from with this deduction.
It's pretty trivial to go to Google scholar and see just how many studies have actively explored the link between social media use and attention span.
Obviously not one of them is perfect, but this is something that is being actively studied.
(paywalled, but at least it's not a TLDW video)
Archive link
Food for thought - when televisions were invented, and in particular when colour televisions were invented, was there mass concern that younger generations no longer wanted to sit around and listen to radio dramas? We don't really have radio dramas anymore, and it's pretty much impossible for me to sit and listen to a podcast and do literally nothing else. How much of this is a shift of cultural behaviour based on technological changes, and how much is that people genuinely cannot pay attention even when they want to?
The article also mentions that some of these professors are intentionally selecting movies that are not traditionally interesting to try and force their students to learn how to be bored. I'm not sure then that students not watching or finishing a film is indicative of unwanted inattention. I'll also say that I am the only person I know who read every book assigned in English class cover to cover (save one); everyone else either skimmed, lied, or read Sparksnotes to get the jist without having to actually read it. I don't find skipping movies you don't want to watch to necessarily be evidence of an inability to focus, except maybe the prof who has used the same test for 20 years and has found test scores to shift to be unusually low. There's absolutely evidence that social media and screen use has changed people's behaviour and attention, but I'm not totally convinced that everything here is totally new and unusual.