The debate about the future of book publishing is largely focused on two questions: First, how will books be sold (bricks and mortar vs. the Internet)? And, second, how will the content be delivered (traditional bound books vs. digital)? Both of these issues are, of course, being driven by the new realities made possible via the Internet.
But I think something even more profound is happening. While the Internet is shaping how we read, it is also shaping how we think.
In the current issue of Atlantic Monthly (July/August 2008), Nicholas Carr asks, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?†He then goes on to describe what the Internet is doing to our brains. This is a must-read for anyone in the book publishing industry.
He says,
Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.
I can definitely relate to this. Something is happening to me, too. I am finding it increasingly difficult to focus when I read books or even long articles.
Carr notes that he no longer really reads. He just skims:
And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.
He goes on to say that it’s not just reading. Something is happening to our brains:
When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.
What does this mean for book publishing? I don’t know. But I do think Carr is onto something significant. If he is right, then how books are sold and delivered are the least of our worries.
What do you think?
How would you rate this post?
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michaelhyatt.com%2Ffromwhereisit%2Fheader.jpg)
Karla Akins says:
I think it means writers need to be more cognizant of their reader's short attention spans. They will need to practice the art of "twittering," that is, being as succinct as possible while providing information in an attention-getting and -holding way. If people are thinking in sound bites, then they are probably reading in sound bites, too.
As a teacher and lover of classic literature, this is evidence that reading aloud is going to be even more effective for students and my children. (I have always believed in reading classics aloud!)
I think audio books are going to be more important because people can multi-task while they listen. They can walk, run, drive, cook, clean, etc. while they "read" a book via audio.
This is true for me. As a busy Mom of kids with disabilities, my time to spend reading for pleasure is often put on hold. But I take great delight in listening to audio books while I perform my chores.
When it comes to non-fiction I often read in a skimming way. It's not so much because of my attention span, but because my time is limited.
This is why I like nonfiction books that are clearly marked with the main talking points. Chapter lists with a summary for what is in each chapter are a boon. Summaries at the end of a chapter help, too. At a glance appendixes and bold letter headings are my salvation when doing research.
What troubles me most about this article is the affect this must be having on the minds of learning children. We need to learn to teach and reach this next generation of tech savvy, distracted kids. I am wondering if this new way of learning is "wrong" or just "different." Time will tell.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 01:57 PM
tommy says:
I can definitely relate to this because I find the same thing happening to me. I lose my sense of concentration a lot and have to re-read paragraphs and pages because I basically skimmed over them.
When I'm reading things on the Internet or even watching a video or something and I hear the sound of an incoming email, I am immediately distracted by it. I am probably better off setting the mail client to "offline" when I am doing other things.
Multitasking has its consequences.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Maurilio Amorim says:
The net content is multimedia and so much more dynamic than the printed page. It has changed the way we experience content. Its greatest impact is on a generation that has grown up with the multimedia impact of the web.
Great post, Mike and I love the illustration.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Mark McPeak says:
Mike, I can't decide if I'm troubled or relieved. I've experienced the same thing and am glad I'm not alone. It's like I can't make myself do something that actually used to be enjoyable. I'll keep listening to this conversation, thanks.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Timothy Fish says:
I read things differently based on the media through which it is presented. I usually skim lengthy web pages, though I occasionally read the whole thing. With e-mail newsletters, I generally just send them to the recycle bin. With regular newsletters, I read headlines and may read the articles. The same is true of newspapers. With bound books, I read from cover to cover, assuming I have time to read. I really don't see that the Internet has changed how I read except that it seems to kill a bunch of time that I might otherwise use to read other stuff. Rather than causing us to think differently, I think the Internet just takes so much of our time that we don't have time to read other forms of writing.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 07:17 PM
James E. Robinson, III says:
If something *needs* to be long, then i will simply print it out; easier for me to concentrate on longer material that way.
If something is long, but shouldn't be, i will simply skim.
If something is long, but is broken up into pages on the web -- making me click to change pages -- i will do neither; i simply won't read it.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 07:35 PM
Michael S. Hyatt says:
I asked my wife, Gail, to read the original Atlantic Monthly post. She said, “It’s too long.†I said, “I rest my case.â€
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Alexis Alvarez says:
One possibility: Has anyone considered that maybe we're all just getting old?
Another possibility: Maybe what we are reading isn't good enough to command our full attention and concentration?
My experience: For my job, I am on a computer 8 to 10 hours a day, editing, checking e-mail, or doing research on the web. I also read a great deal at home and on my commute, and have not found that my concentration skills have suffered because of my exposure to the Internet.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 09:03 PM
marina says:
I am so glad you posted this - and I'm going to try to read the original Atlantic Monthly post - it might put me over the edge, though! I've been an avid reader my entire life, until maybe the past 5 years. I thought I was just too busy to read. But now, I've got time set aside for reading and I find myself having to underline or highlight the books that I read. Or writing notes in the margins. Or journaling about what I've written. It's like I want to interact with the book in some way - and maybe I don't just WANT to interact, I NEED to interact. I've become so accustomed to hyperlinks and rabbit trails and all the fun stuff that a static book just isn't as enjoyable to me anymore. I just bought 3 books last Thursday [all Thomas Nelson ;-)] and I'm struggling to read more than a few pages at a time. I've never owned a bookmark in my life, but now, I've got scraps of paper or business cards sticking out of these books. And most likely, I'll have to go back a paragraph or two to remind myself of what I've already read. OK, it could be because I'm 42 and my brain is dangerously over-full of useless information. But I do think that even with more and better writers and topics and nearly immediate access to them all, books as we've known them 'til this point are going to have to morph into something different. I almost find that the book-purchasing experience is better for me than the book. I read reviews. I cruise thru excerpts. I interact with publisher websites and read author interviews. When I finally sit down with book, it's hard to settle in and stay with it. I want more of the interactive experience which resulted in me purchasing the book. Very interesting twist in the book publishing world. I wish you well in your pursuit of the solution/s.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Jim Thomason says:
I have to echo the points above; I was once a regular reader of especially long books of 700 or more pages. I loved the long-form novel and now must make myself read even a long magazine article. I get all my information off the web and haven't seen a nightly TV news broadcast in years.
I wonder if the impact on non-fiction Publishing categories will be similar to that of the music industry. In both cases you have new releases that are often 10 - 15% truly new content surrounded by filler. In the case of music, a 16-song CD containing 14 filler songs selling for $18.95 has become an obsolete business model; now I buy the two good songs off iTunes for 99¢ each. Much of the future of non-fiction titles may be a $5 download of the new content or serialized releases of short attention-span-friendly segments. Whatever our future, I doubt that it will be a $29.95, 350-page hardback book.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Colleen Coble says:
Gosh, I must be the lone dissenter! I don't find this true for me. I'm an AVID interneter. I'm always on the net. But I still read voraciously. My love for novels has only strengthened over the years, and i still love long, wonderful epics. Stephen King's come to mind!
Maybe it would be true if I were reading non fiction. I do skim for the research I need but then I have never read non fiction for fun, only research. I'm basically a fiction only reader, except for the Bible. So I don't think my brain cells have been replaced by microchips yet. :)
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 09:59 PM
Karina Mikhli says:
I really think the difference is between fiction and non-fiction, and where one is reading.
For non-fiction, I often go to the Web, and I too don't have the patience to read something long: in part because I hate reading long things on my monitor; in part because I don't have the patience. If it's a really interesting or relevant article, I'll print it out first and then read the whole thing.
For fiction, I rarely go to the Web and still avidly buy and read books. As a publishing professional, I have always been very picky as to which books I will actually finish, and that has not changed. But if a book is well-written and has momentum, I have all the patience in the world and actually lose track of time while reading it. I also do a lot of non-Web reading while commuting.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Stephen Bloom says:
The opportunity cost of reading a book has gotten so much higher. In other words, when you choose to read one book, you are really choosing not to read everything else in the world during the time it takes you to read that book. A couple of decades ago that meant you were giving up reading another few thousand other books in your local library or bookstore for every one you read. But now when you choose to read one book, you are giving up using that time to read any of millions of other books you can easily acquire AND all the gazillions of other stuff you could be reading on the net, much of it interactive and rapidly unfolding in real time. So it's no wonder we get edgy and distracted while reading one book - the opportunity cost is so high! And that book better be a doozy, or we'll move on quick. We can't afford not to!
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Marvin Nelson says:
I don't know. I must say as a 23 year old, I grew up being inundated with information and the web has been my primary source (since High school at least). However, I don't necessarily agree with everything said above. I have become MORE of a reader lately. I read like a maniac, where before I didn't read at all. Maybe I've been so bombarded with all of it, that the simplicity of the text sparks something inside my brain that says: "Yea, I like to make pictures of my own sometime". I don't know, this is just my experience.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Luke Gedeon says:
I started using the internet for research in college. At that point in life I had to skim everything I read fiction or non. The volume of information that I had to absorb was greater than the time available.
I went directly from college into a career that required me to assimilate massive amounts of information, so I continued to skim.
For me the transition happened going from high-school to college. Before college I would read textbooks, dictionaries, and fiction cover-to-cover. College was different, but I expected it to be. So, for me the transition was just a part of growing up and being so much more busy.
I have to wonder though, if life really did move slower before the 80's, was boredom rather common back then? I do remember being bored as a kid, but my children never seem to be. Maybe the whole world has changed and not just me.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Michael S. Hyatt says:
@Colleen: I think I read fiction differently, too. There's no shortcut there. And if the story is good, I stay with it.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 06:03 AM
Michael S. Hyatt says:
@All: I just read a fascinating response to Carr here. It extends Carr's thesis into the classroom and shows what the Internet is doing to the traditional classroom experience. It is very scary.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 06:15 AM
Wayne Hastings says:
Mike, great post.
I think there's also an "opportunity cost" involved. For example, I was watching CNN the other night and they had four different (not unusual for them) stories going at once through the visual. I bring this up only to illustrate that often now when I'm reading I find myself asking "What am I missing?" I'm so used to multiple inputs, multiple interruptions and multiple opportunities for my time that I find myself unable to focus on just one thing very long - and that's an awful feeling for someone with the gift of Focus.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 07:29 AM
Tiffany Stuart says:
Like James, I print out things that are long for online reading. And before I do I have to decide if I really want to read it. Sometimes I pass. Because printing it involves using my paper, walking to my guest room, ect.
Good post again.
I don't like what the Internet is doing to our brains. However I agree with your findings.
I just wonder how on earth educators are going to capture our kids if their attention span is so short.
Something will need to change..Not sure what.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 08:42 AM
Renee Ann Culver says:
Audiobooks are my first choice these days. And, if not an audiobook, I prefer digital books over paper. I'm not sure I'll ever buy another hard-copy book... at least it will be rare.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 09:02 AM
David says:
I subscribe to The Atlantic. The cover of the latest issue certainly got my attention, and it struck a cord in me because I had noticed my attention span for reading has greatly changed over the years.
The cover's title is different than the article, which I think says it all - "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?"
After reading the article in its entirety in one sitting (although I did have to make myself do it), I committed to not only reading more thoughtfully but to encouraging my grandchildren to do the same.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Evangeline Hopkins says:
I don't believe that this is a new phenomena. It has always taken effort to dig into reading, especially the most worthwhile material. From time to time I have to pick up Chrysostom or Plato just to remember how much fun it can be to lubricate those neuropathways. The Internet is not designed to make us smarter, just better informed. We will always start with wisdom and slide down into knowledge, and land in a huge pile of information. Those three levels have been separate from day one and will remain separate til Kingdom come.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Diana Symons says:
Because the Net makes it free for anyone to write what ever they feel like, everyone does. Unfortunately, not everyone is a great writer. I tend to skim online a lot because the writing doesn't keep my attention or the subject just isn't that interesting. A well written book, on the other hand, will keep me for hours.
But there is a difference in reading online and hardcopy. I just can't read long articles online. I need a comfy chair, not my desk.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Renee Ann Culver says:
By the way, it's easy to read digital content in a comfy chair with a laptop, Kindle or the like.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Theron Kelso says:
As I age, my appetite for books has grown – the more complex the better. As Alberto Mangue says: “I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us … A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.†[A History of Reading]. In parallel, being professionally bound to the internet, my attention is also drifting.
As Carr indicates, the history of reading - like all human history - has been about change. Mangue tells remarkable tales of change between the 5th century BC and today. Each story is readings’ punctuated equilibrium. At each cladogenesis, men like Plato, have wondered if ‘this one’ will lead to man’s demise. Evolution is without motivation, without value judgments – it is what it is. For me, I welcome the feed and life-stream – staying connected, talking, sharing. Yet we rightly resist it taking over.
So everyone agrees, our collective attention span is shorter; our collective ability to think critically has degraded. But are we dumber? Not yet - just lazy. In a recent blog post on slate.com, Michael Agger says: “You, my dear user, pluck the low-hanging fruit. When you arrive on a page, you don't actually deign to read it. You scan. If you don't see what you need, you're gone.†If that is all we do – “pluck the low-hanging fruit†– we are in real danger. Carr counts readers of newspapers, magazines, feeds, cereal boxes as true readers. Mangue goes one step beyond – a child reading its mother’s face, a farmer reading the weather, a soldier reading the lay of the land – all readers. Can you imagine the impact to farmers that “pluck the low-hanging fruit� Dorothy, Toto, a wild-ride, and a dead witch come quickly to mind. To resist becoming Toto (or the witch), I arm myself with a tome, my leather chair, classical music and time to read, digest and reflect each word sound, prosody, form and allegory.
Like the Fourth Estate, the book industry must adapt – while not forgetting it is essentially in the education business. Get our attention; let us taste the low-hanging fruit. However, do not stop there – teach us to think for ourselves, and give us the books we need.
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 02:41 PM
Dan says:
I wonder why is it that we can still watch sporting events for 2 hours without any struggle? Or concerts? What about television shows can we sit and watch and even wish they weren't ending as soon as they do?
How does this impact sermon length and how we teach?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 01:49 AM
Rebecca LuElla Miller says:
Michael, I had to think about this some, then when I came to add my reply, I see you've indicated fiction might be a different animal.
I can't help thinking we--educators and those in the book business--are missing what we should be learning from the Harry Potter factor: good writing and good stories still engage us.
Despite the huge success of that series, I still hear the statement, quoted as fact, that kids don't have a long enough attention span these days to slog through a 300-page book.
Uh, no, but they will stay on the edge of their seats through a 700-page one if it is gripping, if it transports them into a story world.
To be honest, I skim a lot on the internet, but then, I learned to skim when I was doing research for papers in college. The idea is to find that golden nugget.
With so much writing now at the click of the mouse, skimming is more frequent, but a good post, magazine article, non-fiction book, and novel will still demand that I read every word.
Since the Harry Potter generation seems to have no trouble with fiction, I suggest they will have no trouble with non-fiction if it is well-written and covers that which concerns them most. And while they are looking for those pieces of writing, I'm not at all concerned if they skim considerably more.
Becky
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 02:39 PM
Heidi says:
This is my life story! I am now trying to limit my internet reading and focus on books and films. I was able to peruse my Norton's Anthology of Poetry from 9pm until 2am in college. Now, I could not do that even if I had the time! I also think it has made my writing worse. But that's just me. Everything in moderation.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 03:36 PM
Dean Nelson says:
It's a thought provoking question. I personally have no problem unplugging to "check out". It's therapeutic for me to take myself away to that "deep reading" place. I'm older and accustomed to this, however.
I'm more concerned (is concerned the right word?) about younger generations. There seems to be a reluctance to RISK taking the time to be "out of touch"...or off line...EVER. Constantly being in touch is a peer requirement...what if something was missed???...even if being in touch means awareness at a constant surface level rather than a level of any depth. I'm sure marketers love it. Just clicking Mike's link to a response article above exposed me to a plethora of advertising.
My teenagers are on Summer Break. We read many books during this time. I highly suggest a Young Adult book called "Feed" (M.T. Anderson). It examines a futuristic time when everyone has an internal "wet link" to the "feed"...a scary parallel to the external link that we all feel pulling at us in the present time.
One thing I do know...there's no turning back.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 04:34 PM
davidpleach says:
Late-night thoughts. 1) MTV and remote controls are bigger culprits than the internet. Public speakers learned almost 20 years ago that the attention span of the listener shrank to McSermon on the Hill because of the quick-cut style of videos--everyone including ESPN--has followed suit ever since. 2)Lots of material is poorly edited. We don't all need short, USA Today articles, but they show us that editing to the bone is possible. And Atlantic Monthly articles have ALWAYS been too long. 3) Good writing (and good editing) will keep us reading. Most books aren't authored by writers anymore. As a result, executive summaries would be enough for many a "book." When I find a writer who can handle "the language," I'll stick with it with joy. 4) I have 7 kids, only one of whom carves out time to read. The problem probably isn't the internet that ruined the other 6. Somewhere along the way, they never got in touch with their inner reader. That's not a single factor. Like Dean, I'm concerned for that generation. They are "bored" if their eyes aren't popping in 4 directions at once. Will they grow out of it? 5) We must publish whatever it is we publish to THAT generation--not mine or my parents. But even that will come down to good writing eventually, regardless of the vehicle.
Good post. Thanks for uploading.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Larry Shallenberger says:
@Colleen... but the fiction has changed. Mellville was devoted long chapters to give detailed descriptions of whales. Dostoevsky inserted countless dialogues into his murder mysteries.
Regarding Stephen King-- don't look at the length of the novel, look at the pacing. It's definitely changed.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad says:
There was a great article by a college teacher of remedial English,
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/college
about how many students shouldn’t be in college – because they seem unable to learn how to write a cogent paragraph: “ “Telling someone that college is not for him seems harsh and classist . . . I sympathize with this stance.†But he says, “it is with me and my red pen that that ideal crashes and burns.†â€
I claim this is also true of “deep thinkingâ€. It’s actually hard work, and the lazy folk (like me!) all too often prefer, and even demand, Infotainment. Light and easy entertainment disguised as information.
I’ve just spent over an hour reading and writing (yes, interactive! – don’t read blogs that aren’t worth commenting on!) about this important thought (thanks Michael; CNet has an article about it, too). On my blog will be a more complete, but still draft, fisking of the article.
I have long been toying with the relative limitation of purely sequential words in reading, relative to the richness of multi-media web. Also the ease of creating cool things with the web, like YouTube videos, as compared to the difficulty of writing similarly cool things.
In a rich society, “do what you love†means work is entertaining. Life is entertaining. Don’t expect learning information to be effective unless it, too, is entertaining.
But the article's main claim: “In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.â€
For most people, this is just false. Deep reading is deep escapism.
In fact, it is the multi-media richness where the surfer is looking for his own associations, to enhance his own ideas and provide analogies and quotes to support his inferences, or to test against. Quick surfing is likely the closest most folks will ever come to deep thinking – with choosing what to surf being easier than creating one’s own deep thoughts, but recognizing sympathetic thoughts from others much faster than creating them.
Just as I, in reading Nick Carr’s deep thoughts, have thought more deeply AS WELL as more efficiently, than had I sat down and thought about it myself.
Friday, June 20, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Mark Gilroy says:
Nicholas Carr is touching on a theme that Marshall McCluhan presented in the 60s with a number of books like The Gutenberg Galaxy and most notably, the Medium is the Massage. He argued that Gutenberg delivered much more than efficient and affordable content, but transformed society with the need for things like privacy (in order to concentrate, which brings us full circle), which then changed architecture (individual rooms), which then changed social interaction -- individuality v. group identification, and so on.
It's not just long form reading patterns that are changing. With 6 kids I am amazed when I see one or the other prefer internet interaction with a group of friends v. actually being together! Of course games like Halo and Clancy's army games make it a lot of fun!
Monday, June 23, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Debbie says:
The statement from Alexis is most interesting - "I almost find that the book-purchasing experience is better for me than the book." Isn't "experience" what we are all looking for? If it is good we dig in, if not we move on. So bottom-line we have to create books that provide a great experience.
But deeper than that, check out (read buy) and then read (read as in sit down with the book by yourself in a semi-quiet place) a book published by Thomas Nelson (of course!) titled "Thrilled to Death: How the Endless Pursuit of Pleasure is Leaving us Numb." Dr. Archibald Hart explains some of what I think might be going on. It's called anhedonia - the reduced ability to experience pleasure. Having pushed our stress levels and need for exciting stimulation higher and higher, we are literally overloading the pathways to the pleasure center of the brain causing a demand for more and more increase of stimulation to feel that pleasure. It's hard to sit quietly and enjoy a sunset, hard to actually read an entire book, hard to live for 5 minutes without checking our hand-held devices. If adults suffer then what hope do our kids have?! (Fortunately Dr. Hart includes a 7-step recovery process.)
I don't think we'll ever get back to the "good old days" nor should we, and for sure we all have much shorter attention spans that those of us in publishing must adapt to and create for, but more importantly it seems we need to figure out how to keep ourselves from overload and from the risk of not being able to enjoy the life we've been given.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Delina says:
Intriguing thoughts. Can't wait to read the article. I've already seen how this has influenced books. I've read books that tell you to go to a website to watch a video clip or tell you to go hear the author's introductions to the chapters. It anticipates people's short attention spans while keeping them engaged in the text and providing another layer of media. I kinda like it!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 07:05 PM
.Steve says:
Maybe that is why graphic novels and comic books are having a good show of late?
Maybe some people will write a book that looks like a newspaper - with different columns, pictures, etc (which kinda looks like a web page - look at this web page for example), but the story is all related to each column/article/sidebar. A mystery written like this would be dropping clues in the inane article about grease fires and the like...
Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Mary says:
I agree with your post but I also feel that the Internet is making me a better writer. If I don't express myself concisely in an interesting way, no one is going to read anything I have to say. I started to add "not even in the comments section" but realized it is "especially" in the comments section!
There is so much to read on the Internet that I find myself skimming but slowing down to savor when I find great content - such as I've found on your blog by the way.
Monday, July 07, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Chris Crifasi says:
I would agree wholeheartedly with this post. I too have noticed the same thing happening with my mind. I used to be able to immerse myself in a book, but now find that I have a hard time entering into the focus and concentration that I once had. It is definitely a symptom of "information overload".
Rather than writers and publishers changing the books and articles that we read, I think (at least for me personally) the onus is on me to work my brain. To purposefully enter into times of focus and concentration in order to work that part of my brain.
I notice this mostly in my work. I am having more and more difficulty concentrating on my work for long stretches. I'm a CPA doing tax work. As the internet has allowed us unprecedented access to information that access has turned me into a consumer of information rather than a critical thinker.
I'm not sure this is progress.
Monday, July 07, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Gordon says:
I suppose this may be considered an old saw, but the shift may not be entirely related to the web itself. I think that in the past, people suffered a lot more and were looking for Truth, because it mattered - you wanted something to hold on to when 3 of your 6 children were going to die.
Today, we have it easy and think it will always be that way. We don't need Truth, in fact most don't even believe it exists! What we want is entertainment, a way to get lost so we can avoid the unpleasantries of life.
As a result, we enter a vicious circle of sloppy thinking, and an increasing inability to deal with life as it actually is, which increases our desire to escape.
God please bless us with writers who can capture our attention with the Truth, and interpret it in a way that makes it applicable to the world we are in, so that we are not afraid to think and to really live!
Gordon
Monday, July 07, 2008 at 07:20 PM
Mark Burgin says:
It's a very important observation how technology changes people. However, some problems have solutions. I think that the problem with books also has a solution. It's possible to conjecture that to be still read by an essential part of the population, it would be necessary to publish books in a form of a hypertext and use new technologies.
Sincerely,
Mark Burgin
Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Ellen Weber says:
Research would support that the brain creates new neuron pathways based on what we do daily. Circuitry is changed nightly when we enter the REM stages of sleep - and the brain literally reshapes itself according to the activities we've engaged in.
It's also why we are well served to draw from multiple intelligences on a daily 9or at least weekly) basis.
Great discussion and thanks!
Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Amy says:
I am unable to read non-fiction. Fiction I still read several books a week.
Non-fiction? Why bother I get the same thing on the internet. I do tend to skim academic type language (article) over conversational writing (blog).
I do agree with aspects of this I guess.
Friday, July 25, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Kevin F says:
I read the Atlantic Monthly article (in the actual printed version!). My first reaction was to note the irony that he used a long article to explain why we can't read long articles. I agreed with his conclusions about the internet, but the issue is far greater. It's TV, movies, music videos, music and even newspapers (article highlights in side box.) We're being trained in the art of ADHD.
Friday, July 25, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Pam Kumpe says:
Long article explaining our short attention span? Now, that could explain why my editor said the story I wrote for a feature -- was 'too' long.
We engage, stay a minute and want to wrap it up --
Friday, July 25, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Lizzie Ann says:
I haven't really noticed having a shorter attention span due to internet usage. I've always skimmed things that are only vaguely interesting to me and read every word of the things that fascinate me, regardless of the length. One thing that has changed, however, is finding a bit of relief in reading a printed page rather than a computer screen.
I've always devoured fiction and whatever non-fiction catches my eye. Thanks to my job, I spend a lot of time on the computer reading, editing, and researching. All that computer/internet time has a rushed feel to it. But when I pick up a print book, it's like I can slow down and relax. If the subject matter in the book is interesting to me, I can read for a couple of hours without even realizing that much time has passed. If the book isn't that good or I'm just not that interested in it, it's a lot harder to concentrate on it. But like I said, that's nothing new. Even before I ever used the internet I read the same way.
Friday, July 25, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Jennifer Griffith says:
The Internet has changed so much about people/society--and children. But I love e-mail, the saving a tree-idea and postage, it's "free" (yet is it??) and the instantaneous reply (most of the time). BUT what I love more than e-mail is getting a letter handwritten on paper in an envelope that traveled many miles through the hands of people. I love the personal connection that offers.
Going a little off track here. One commenter said their children are rarely bored because of the computer. I am a person who grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and was NEVER bored. My parents never let us sit around inside. After breakfast when we didn’t have school, it was “Go outside and PLAY.†And we did.
Life without a computer had me on my bike, riding around the neighborhood, building forts, having mud wars, playing hide and seek, building treasure chests and hiding them with friends, swimming in the neighborhood pool, writing stories of my own, swinging, chasing fireflies, helping elderly neighbors, riding horses…and I grew up in low-middle income home in the Deep South. I wouldn’t trade that time for any computer game or text messaging, or whatever else is hidden on the web. Life without a computer offers a chance to LIVE.
Boredom offers a chance to think and create and invent and imagine, and reach out to a needy friend or neighbor. But more importantly, when life’s craziness settles down, and we release our mind from cares or thrills, it’s only then that we can truly seek and hear God’s still, small voice in our busy lives. (Speaking from first hand experience)
I pray that books remain something tangible. I’m not one who always things change is great…I praise God that He remains the same, beyond the Internet. Beyond the busyness of life.
Monday, July 28, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Photo Buffet says:
I, too, have noticed a shift in my concentration level. At any given time while using my web browser, I'll have 3-4 tabs sitting at the top, each a quick entry into a different website. While it's great for speeding up research, I think it has taken multi-tasking to a new low.
I read an article a few years ago about kids and multi-tasking. The writer called it "ADD in action." We no longer spend a block of time focusing on any one task, and it shouldn't surprise us that our neurological pathways are being affected. I wonder, though, how today's young children will fare as adults in a demanding world.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Greg Stielstra says:
Linda Stone coined the term "Continuous Partial Attention to describe our desire to be...pardon me just a minute while I tend to something else...there, I'm back...where was I? Oh, yes, to be a "live node on a network." It's good in small doses and bad in large ones. You can read more here. Don't worry. It's short. GS
http://continuouspartialattention.jot.com/WikiHome
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Joanna says:
I've just finished reading a great book that deals with some of these kind of issues. Its called Habits of the high tech heart and its by Quentin J Schultze. It is very challenging.
Monday, September 22, 2008 at 07:22 AM