11 replies to this topic

[harpsound]

Are we losing are ability to focus long term on longer more detailed pursuits?

As SEOs most memory actions/brushstrokes are fairly brief.

The Guardian

Or is this yet another media scare story along the lines that radio will make you deaf later followed by TV will make you blind?


S

[nethy]

Nice article.

I think the are couple of sides to this.

1 - The usual leary reception of big & new things replacing other things. People notice that they and others (especially young'ins) are doing things differently. Can't keep herself busy without a tv. Radio rots your brain. Cars make him lazy. My favourite is: Can't enjoy philosophical verses or a historical poem because of those darn' novels (supposedly the majority of early novels were pornographic.. go figure).
* You could say that since 50 pages of writing took a scribe a full week to copy, it paid to make text hard to read. Spend a hour contemplating the meaning of that page. reread the last few verses ten times till you get it. better value. Medieval texts are about as about as easy reading as a quantum physics textbook. A novel is made to go fast. So's a newspaper by the way. They do the contemplating for you. You just skim.

2 - The extent to which that leariness is founded. I actually think the last one is a the best analogy. The printing press did let in a lot of riff raff. I can't spell anymore. The concept of referencing something at the end of a book will seem ridiculous to those now in primary school. How are you supposed to click on a book?

10 years ago, well read meant she knows stuff. If you couldn't concentrate on a book you couldn't really learn much. If you read a book about Napoleon and all of a sudden felt like looking into some poet he mentioned, you needed to find the appropriate book, abandon your current one etc. A lot of hassle and not very productive. You wouldn't learn much if that was your tendency. Now you will.
Could be that a short attention span is suitable for 2008. maybe information quanta have gotten smaller.

[Randy]

I don't think it's a media scare story, because the idea it puts forth (basically that some people don't read whole novels or even 3,000 word articles anymore) has merit IMHO. Some try to say it's a generational phenomenon, however I think they're missing the boat.

It's not a traditional generation change because age isn't a real factor. It just shows itself this way.

It's really more of a Web Addiction change. Meaning those who spend a fair amount of time reading things on the Web tend to have a short attention span when it comes to reading. It just so happens that the younger generations spend more time on the Web than many of their older counterparts. So the phenomenon masks itself as a generational switch.

Now, where I find this all very interesting is the old debate about Long Copy vs. Short Copy. And how one best optimizes their copy to convert at a better rate. FTR, it's my belief there are other major factors in the Long Copy vs. Short Copy equation (a subject for another discussion) but I do think the Web Savviness or in Randy-speak Web Addiction has a place in the discussion.

I've done a bit of testing in this area and have seen that slightly different approaches on the test preparation side of things can have some significant effects. Both on conversions and the length of copy.

[Jill]

In a cruel twist of irony, I didn't want to read this thread because the posts looked too long. Then I decided to come back to it (procrastinating writing my newsletter) and started to read the article in question, but my mind kept wandering and I couldn't quite get to the end.

So all in all, I think I'd have to agree with it!

(It may just be that I unexpectedly woke up at 4AM this morning and couldn't get back to sleep so my mind is a bit groggy too.)

[Randy]

Good one Jill !

FWIW, there was actually a program on C-Span yesterday where some bloggers were discussing this issue. In it one of the panelists made the point that if the discussion were a written piece instead of verbal very, very few people in the room would make it to the end of the written piece. Even though they were obviously interested in the subject.

[qwerty]

Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

Exactly. And we internet marketers have played a role in that, keeping our content easy for the "reader" to quickly scan.

[harpsound]

I find this topic very interesting.

18 years ago I was diagnosed with Schizoeffective Disorder.
One of the side effects is being unable to engage in novels and movies where there is a prolonged emotional uncertainty.
I become very agitated and anxious if I do.
My egoic self engages fully.
The British TV comedy "Faulty Towers" drives me to full panic/anxiety attack.

Conversely I can spend many hours on a computer.
It is probably a version of egocasting in short bites.
I can stay focussed on the computer but I have complete control on incoming content and can bail with impunity when the anxiety is disturbed.

This is truly a case of where the "medium is the message" for me.

This may sound strange but my longer term book reading is at the "soul level" rather than ego level.
I read books that activate the deeper inner spiritual self below the anxiety level of the egoic self.
It is kind of like sinking down to the bottom of the deep end of a swimming pool and looking up at the turbulent surface from underneath.
It is calm down there and one can watch the ego indefinitely (or until one runs out of oxygen!)

The more I am in the deep inner self - the longer my attention span when back in day-to-day egoic.
One day I will be able to read a novel that I have not already read.

Newspapers are like this - rereading novels - at their deepest level (which is not very deep) they only serve and reinforce the known status quo.
You will not change deeply when you read the newspaper.
It is more of the same without diversion from a strict worldview.
I think the short term internet breaks this cycle with palatable ""memory bites" that are small enough to be acceptable whatever the content (new or not) yet big enough to be intriguing and promote inner change if pursued.

Hence conventional media will always be uncomfortable with the internet because the internet has a shifting worldview.
Each major new media method intrinsically always attracts disparaging comment from the older media types/worldview.

S

Edited by harpsound, 01 July 2008 - 12:48 PM.

[arlen]

Really interesting topic ... and I thought I was alone, lol.

I've not been able to stay truly focused long enough to make it to the end of a novel in years ... not unless I shut the world away ... say pitch a tent in some remote neck-o-the woods and spend 3 days immersed in reading. Then my heart calms, my breathing slows, I relax and really become focused, and remember what was said 10 pages back. Under normal circumstances, I end out re-reading so much I loose the thread, the flow of the book.

Is the net to blame? In part, but I think it's a symptom of the pace life runs at anymore. Who really ever slows down. Who takes Sunday off ... completely. Who spends 'vacation' (if they even take one) doing nothing but regenerating, no itinerary, no plan, no rush, rush, rush?

I did find the observation in the article that the web is a "global memory-prosthesis" to be humorous, and totally accurate, that's how I use it, lol.

Edited by arlen, 01 July 2008 - 01:03 PM.

[nethy]

In a cruel twist of irony, I didn't want to read this thread because the posts looked too long.

Brilliant.

It's not a traditional generation change because age isn't a real factor. It just shows itself this way.

That's interesting actually. This is a change in those with habits already, not just those that never formed novel reading habits in the first place. But at least I (even though I'm did 20s) know that know that a novel is not an unreasonable length, I am being unreasonably lazy.

And we internet marketers have played a role in that, keeping our content easy for the "reader" to quickly scan.

Well marketers are almost by definition panderers. Next in line are politicians and then artists. Since art is mostly too profitable for artistic considerations to play any role, and politics are what they have become in media hungry democracies, the gaps are pretty narrow. In a sense its because they are all marketers.

[nethy]

Slightly off topic:
Seth Godin reviewed the Amazon Kindle recently: http://sethgodin.typ...m-thoughts.html
It's long (Jill, don't even bother ) so here's a quote:

The Kindle does a fine job of being a book reader, and a horrible job of actually improving the act of reading a book. This is a surprising design choice, I think, and a mistake. Here are three simple examples of how non-fiction books on the Kindle could be better, not just cheaper and thinner:
--Let me see the best parts of the book as highlighted by thousands of other readers.
--Let me see notes in the margin as voted up, Digg-style, by thousands of other readers.
--Let me interact with hyperlinks and smart connections not just within the book but across books

I agree that one thing that a lot of new 'products' using 'revolutionary' new technology have missed the revolution by trying to do what they did before through the technology/media/etc. The right way is usually to find things you just couldn't do before but are a much better way of solving the underlying problem. {wikipedia vs brittanica; Google vs Yellow Pages;}

But if they take him up, the Kindle (or future kindles) will kill the book for good. A hyperlinked, interactive, community driven word reading device is just not a book.

I wonder if the number of kids that skip to the last page of the book before they get to it is on the rise.

[Blue Spider]

Hard to say whether it's the 'net's fault for shorter attention spans.
Personally, I have a very short attention span online - I can rarely read more than two or three pages without bailing. If I want to read articles, I typically print them out and read a pile at once.

I have no problem reading a real book, regardless of length, depending on the subject and quality, of course. Maybe that's because I'm of the age that I was already "trained" on books rather than the internet.

It's quite certain that the new generation is doing things much differently than others did just 10 years ago. I have trust in the spirit of mankind that most will still be able to read a good novel, whether that's in a Kindle format or a "real" book. If not, they're missing one of life's simple pleasures: curling up with a good book. (But perhaps we're "missing out" on the thrill of riding an open sleigh over the snow rather than taking the easy way out in the car...)

[purplebear]

I just read Jill's newsletter that had the link to this discussion.

"In a cruel twist of irony, I didn't want to read this thread because the posts looked too long. Then I decided to come back to it (procrastinating writing my newsletter) and started to read the article in question, but my mind kept wandering and I couldn't quite get to the end.

So all in all, I think I'd have to agree with it! "

hee, hee Very interesting topic and very interesting discussion you're having. I guess I do have to agree with it, but also kinda makes me sad a little. I think a lot of it is that people are just sooo busy and don't want to take the time for anything anymore, everything seems to be kinda just get it done the fastest or easiest way possible with a lot anymore. Am not sure if that's necessarily a good thing, tho.

I'm a dinosaur tho, I still enjoy writing actual letters to people sometimes, umm do long emails and enjoy them in return and altho I spend most of my time online am not in that much of a hurry always to not want to take the time to read rather long things. Have to admit, too....have a very hard time keeping things short.

"FWIW, there was actually a program on C-Span yesterday "

lol I used to watch it a lot and always thought I was probably the only person doing so. lol

Hard to say whether it's the 'net's fault for shorter attention spans.
Personally, I have a very short attention span online - I can rarely read more than two or three pages without bailing. If I want to read articles, I typically print them out and read a pile at once.

I have no problem reading a real book, regardless of length, depending on the subject and quality, of course. Maybe that's because I'm of the age that I was already "trained" on books rather than the internet.

It's quite certain that the new generation is doing things much differently than others did just 10 years ago. I have trust in the spirit of mankind that most will still be able to read a good novel, whether that's in a Kindle format or a "real" book. If not, they're missing one of life's simple pleasures: curling up with a good book. (But perhaps we're "missing out" on the thrill of riding an open sleigh over the snow rather than taking the easy way out in the car...)