No, this is not some new medical finding.
The point is this. With feed readers passing hundreds or thousands of blog posts by us a day, with Twitter and Facebook updates flowing like water, with email screaming for attention every few minutes, we have no more attention to give.
We can't pay attention to anything because we really give our full attention to very little any more. Apparently when we read a web page, we only look at around 28% of the words. I bet the same is true for reading print too.
This is why most advertising on the Internet is, on an impression basis, far less effective than advertising used to be. We know this mathematically because CPMs are so so so much lower than they used to be. It is also intuitively obvious if you are old enough to remember your interaction with advertising before the Internet. Advertising was very effective in penetrating our psyche and it no longer is.
Today it is almost impossible to get an ad message into my head. It is slightly easier, but just slightly easier in tech. But think about how hard it is for the typical consumer product ad to reach you today. Where could such a product be advertised and reach the average 18-40 year old person. They could try advertising on the Internet, but we know the click thrus are low and we know the clickers aren't predominantly in the 18-40 demographic. There is research, which I can't put my fingers on this second (the link is here - thanks Peter Christensen), which reflects that the people clicking on ads are older, and less Internet savvy. This should not be a shock.
The point is that we are parceling out our attention, not in bites, not in nibbles, and barely even in licks.
But the failure of non-search based internet advertising is really just the canary in the coal mine regarding our attention deficit. And while this is critically important to the future of our economic system, it is really, in the grand scheme of things, not nearly as important as what it suggests about our long term capacity for focus.
What does it mean that we have so little time and mental energy? How much time do we really think deeply about much of anything? Or perhaps we really are just using our brains more effectively today than we did twenty years ago? Could it be that we never really *needed* to focus so much and so now we are really just being more efficient and therefore effective with our time and our brain function?
That may be to some extent, but I am skeptical and a bit worried. I am not saying I have a well thought out reason to be worried, but I am. I just have this sinking feeling that we are losing something important when we pick up the pace of our activity, but reduce the depth of our focus.
Clearly the net has incredible benefits, but is this one of it's weaknesses? And if so what are the specific repercussions? I obviously don't have the answer here, but it seems to me that understanding the impact of this attention deficit is perhaps one of the most important philosophical questions of our time. What do you think?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Hey,
your article is about the same thing I am thinking already for a long time. Read my facebook profile - I am web developer and designer for 8 years. My interest are:
1. The amount of worldwide Knowledge is growing in exponential way, the Human Brain does not. My interest is developing Methods to Simplify Access to Knowledge and Minimizing interaction with technical interfaces.
2. Free Access to Education for All
The only way to deepen your focus is to be selective with content:
1. I use a good Feed Reader and Google Blog Search Feeds to get the articles I am really interested in.
2. I never really read or click on ads.
3. I am not online (ICQ and Skype) while I am working.
4. There is an intuition in me that tells me what to read and what not to read. It is constantly growing in the right direction if you know that there is much intersting content but not much time.
Thank you for the article, it enlights an important problem of many many people out there who lose their focus on important things more and more.
I think these are the links you're looking for:
Who clicks on ads? And what might this mean?
and
Outing The Heavy Clickers
The Money Quote:
"Ninety-nine percent of Web users do not click on ads on a monthly basis. Of the 1% that do, most only click once a month. Less than two tenths of one percent click more often. That tiny percentage makes up the vast majority of banner ad clicks."
"Who are these "heavy clickers"? They are predominantly female, indexing at a rate almost double the male population. They are older. They are predominantly Midwesterners, with some concentrations in Mid-Atlantic States and in New England. What kinds of content do they like to view when they are on the Web? Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers."
Peter,
Thanks very much. I added the link and a link to your blog.
Hank
"And if so what are the specific repercussions?"
I'm 24 year old student of economics. And to pass next session I'm forced to unplug my internet and go offline. I really can't focus on anything, even things in real world, when I'm near computer i'm in constant hurry. Browser, 17 tabs, RSS, IM, mail, something happened there and there... aaaaaa
I really have a problem with it. In fact when I want to do something important, like reading book, i am forced to go to library. It is quite sad, furthermore I'm not able to 'fix it" for years now.
A.D.D Is really bad for me, and it is caused by internet IMO :(
First time posting a comment, but I love reading your blog. Something nice and chewy and unusually well thought out to think about every weekday. Thanks for writing!
This is a psychology problem not a philosophy problem. The reason our brains are tuned to let these distractions in is that in the wild, we needed to be alert to small things we would want to avoid or eat. These same mechanisms start going haywire when overstimulated by the internet. Each interesting fark article or cool twitter you find is almost indistinguishable from a hit of cocaine, seeing a mountain lion if you are on a walk, or a pulse of electricity up the vargas nerve.
The best way for otherwise healthy people (who exercise) to solve attention problems is by practicing meditation. I don't have the mental energy to list all the details right here (got 87 tabs and 14 emails to get too!) but all the brain research shows heavy meditators have sizable differences to controls in the areas of their brains that control attention. These areas are measurably thicker in meditating people. This same area is responsible for focusing attention when a distraction is present.
Only by recognizing the specific neurological mechanisms underlying the phenomenon, which are known, can we accurately discuss this problem and offer people suffering from it a solution.
You could say, justified by the science: the internet as it appears today causes ADD like symptoms because it overstimulates the areas of our brain that our ancestors used to select threats and rewards from the environment. Meditation will counteract the pseudo-ADD effects of the internet by permanently strengthening and thickening the areas of the brain that inhibit the overstimulated parts of the brain.
I've written on this topic in much more detail before. If you are interested I'll take some time and dig up the details again to share with you.
I wanted to add a little to my comment. You asked what the implications are, and I wanted to tell you.
The implication is going to be that people who overstimulate themselves with the internet will have more impulsive, less focused behaviors outside the internet as well, since the mechanisms for attention don't really care. The internet spins them out of control, and each time they go out of control, it becomes easier to kick them out of control again. This means it's easier for them to get distracted later on. (How much this will effect non internet attention depends on how much these mechanisms are state dependent and how strong that state dependence is, which I don't know.)
Good thoughts and insights.
I would submit that the Internet succeeds so well because we're all ADD to some degree, though. To which we can thank the Boob-tube.
I made a quick post about it and twitter a while back, you might find it interesting:
http://www.chrispalle.com/2008/03/19/twitters-real-appeal/
It's a supply and demand thing. I suspect people with lots of intellectual stimulation and/or content around them are more immune to advertising(less spare time/spare attention to devote to it), which, let's face it, if not relevant is just spurious information. We have so much cool information, so much access to news, that advertising just can't compete for brainspace. That's different to the 5 min enforced ad breaks between TV programs, when there's no other content (at least, there wasn't before we had a zillion TV channels) competing with ad messages.
Great stuff Hank,
Adding to what's already been said, I think it's important to remember that branding is especially powerful in social settings where you're surrounded by, or have the illusion of being surrounded by, your peers. Sociologists point to TV as the best example. Most people watch TV in their living room, usually with another family member in the room or nearby. Part of the experience is reacting to what's on the screen outwardly, to create a reciprocal response from one's peers. Such-and-such a brand is great or such-and-such a commercial is dumb. Studies have suggested that people react to brands to substantiate their social settings among their peers as much as to give their actual opinions on branding.
Contrast that to the web, where most of us are engaged with content outside of a social setting. Our speakers are off, our screens are viewable just to us, we're not remarking on the advertising for the sake of our position in our peer group. Just another log in the fuel to burn. If I were President, my first executive order would be to code and design out display ads from websites all together. More rants on this and other good stuff at my blog www.jakezim.com
Sure it does. I have distinctly noticed the development of ADD, lack of attention to details and 'fast reading' whatever is in front of me - mails, blogs, newspaper, book, anything - there is so much to catch up on and so little time. You read between the lines, skip words in a sentence just to quickly get a grasp of what is written. And it is beginning to happen more often - you are talking to someone, looking at something else and thinking about something totally different :) all attributed to the tons of material available in the front all the time.
And it has come to this- if you don't know what others know, you miss out so you keep going along with everyone else. I am seriously considering what Paul Graham is doing - buying another laptop only for browsing/mails etc that will be in remotest corner of the house.
As always, excellent observations. I always appreciate anyone who calls out *concern* for what is happening rather than just parroting the fodder. I especially appreciate how you call out the carryover of our Web-based ADD behavior to other activities, and the desensitization and lack of permanence that results (good or bad). The effects are best studied via neuroscience, and in particular neuroplasticity. It is undeniable that the persistent practice leads to permanence. As a result, this is not an issue of volition, but rather an issue of brain structure and function, which over time, becomes an evolutionary modification. Whether we extend the practice from one media to another, or one situation to another, is irrelevant, for biology trumps any manner of externalization (please pardon my terms-of-art, etc.).
whoa, hold on there Lamarck - just because it's persistent behaviour does NOT mean it becomes evolutionarily fixed (in your genome), volition, structure or whatever!
Hank, I have a question about monetizing blogs with advertising.
As insightful as this blog is, with as many readers as there are (evidenced by the number of commentors), how much ad revenue do you actually score compared to the amount of effort involved? Is it less than 10% of your income or less than 1%? Or is it 50%
Just curious/nosy and trying to guage the economic value in blogging. I do it primarily for the potential influence on things I care about, as I'm sure you do too. BUt just curious about the other aspects.
Al,
Good question!
I have yet to run an ad so I don't know. On the other hand I guess you could say it is zero percent of income :) I guess I should run some ads if only to pay for some lunch money. But I have to get around to it!
That said, I write it both because I enjoy it and because I do think there is enormous professional value for me.
The idea of the headline is a good "grabber" but like you state.. this is not at all factual.
So what if we're getting more ADD-ish? Do we really know that ADD is a real disorder?
Some of the smartest, richest, happiest people I know are proud to call themselves ADD. They have found what they say is a better way of processing life.
My own experience is that I feel more ADD today, but I still have no problem sitting through a movie, or engaging in a long conversation.
The comments on this post are well written, thoughtful and focused. I'm guessing the writers are not suffering from a brain dysfunctions.
Yes, we have to unplug and get other things done. Do we need to call ourselves victim or just use common sense.
Great post...At least I guess it was. I read about half of it before I lost interest.
What was the question?
> My own experience is that I feel more ADD today, but I still have no problem sitting through a movie, or engaging in a long conversation.
Ah, I know exactly what you are describing -- in fact, all these constant streams of distraction make me *long* for longer movies, more engaging conversations, and so on.
However, I very much doubt that it helps me enjoy these more; I also often find that most people around me prefer quite the opposite -- quick, unpersonal, and detached forms of entertainment.
I just recently came across this article, which touches upon the same issue and I thought was worth sharing:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google/
(It's not very scientific, but I'd be glad to provide more pointers if anybody is interested in discussing the subject more formally.)
-- M
Post a Comment