Are attention spans actually shortening?
Are attention spans actually shortening?
So a view I see a lot nowadays is that attention spans are getting shorter, especially when it comes to younger generations. And the growing success of short form content on Tiktok, Youtube and Twitter for example seems to support this claim. I have a friend in their early 20s who regularly checks their phone (sometimes scrolling Tiktok content) as we're watching a film. And an older colleague recently was pleased to see me reading a book, because he felt that anyone my age and younger was less likely to want to invest the time in reading.
But is this actually true on the whole? Does social media like Tiktok really mould our interests and alter our attention? In some respects I can see how it could change our expectations. If we've come to expect a webpage to load in seconds, it can be frustrating when we have to wait minutes. But to someone that was raised with dial-up, perhaps that wouldn't be as much of an issue. In the same way, if a piece of media doesn't capture someone in the first few minutes they may be more inclined to lose focus because they're so used to quick dopamine hits from short form content. Alternatively, maybe this whole argument is just a 'kids these days' fallacy. Obviously there are plenty of young adults that buck this trend.
You're viewing a single thread.
Just my two cents from personal observation, but I find that a lot of it is just evolving technology. For instance, checking your phone and browsing content if a movie isn't actually all that interesting literally just wasn't a possibility all that long ago. You just sat there and waited for it to be interesting again, or left. It's not particularly bad to decide to do something else if what you're doing isn't really of interest, nor does it mean you don't have an attention span long enough for a movie
Or expecting things to load quickly. Since it's possible, why would anyone want to spend more time watching a loading screen? Nobody woke up on Christmas 2006 and was excited that their jew sonic game spent more time loading than playing. The idea of delayed gratification is only relevant if the delay actually offers some benefit. 2 marshmallows later or one now is an entirely different question from one marshmallow now, or one in a couple minutes when something loads.
And an older colleague recently was pleased to see me reading a book, because he felt that anyone my age and younger was less likely to want to invest the time in reading.
Tbh that's really just a "kids these days" moment. The overwhelming majority of what people read for personal enjoyment is no more an 'investment' of time than any other media of equal interest.
same way, if a piece of media doesn't capture someone in the first few minutes they may be more inclined to lose focus because they're so used to quick dopamine hits from short form content.
That's just called valuing my time. Unless I have some reason to believe it gets good later, I'm not going to keep going on a piece of media that isn't interesting. "it gets good in season 4, just make sure you also watch the specials and read a summary of the mobile game that got shut down, you'll love it", like, I'll take your word bro, it ain't worth my time for all that. And this has been a thing for ages. Perhaps you've heard the term in medias res in an English class at some point? Hooking the audience is a crucial part of successful media.
Point after point after point, this is it exactly. The supposed "lowering" attention span is just a natural response to the greater amount of options available in most aspects of modern life, and making the most efficient use of them.
People were already channel surfing their TV in the 90s with a remote flick every other minute, the current situation is just a natural evolution of that when we go from 100 available channels to literally every conceivable content past and present known to man at a press of a button. Extrapolate that to a similar degree of evolution in most aspects.
People were already channel surfing their TV in the 90s with a remote flick every other minute
This is the perfect comparison really. People have always looked for interesting content over uninteresting content. It just isn't always as easy
Fully agree with this. People just have a lower tolerance for mediocre content. YouTube is a great example for that. Long form content is as popular as ever, it's just the demand of quality has risen. A few years ago Let's Plays still did very well. Today Let's Plays are generally falling in viewership. But that's because Let's Plays are mediocre quality at best. Many content creators shifted away from Let's Plays and provide different content. But the actual video length hasn't changed.
Ppeople always found stuff to distract themselves with if a task is boring. As kids we would just play with pens, erasers, or anything else in our reach while studying. Today, kids just look on their smartphone instead. Re-reading the same passage over and over in boring book happens just as much today as it did 20 years ago. But today I am more likely to just not continue reading.
Meanwhile me, watching a high-quality entertaining and informative let's play 😶
jew sonic game
I don't know about you, but I loved that game. The Green Hava Nagila Zone was the best.
Lmao epic typo.
I do agree with your points for the most part. But I wonder - do films need to be constantly grabbing our attention? Sometimes a bit of downtime can enhance the subsequent action.
And boredom isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can push us to try new things and be creative, to consider our thoughts. If we have short form content available to fill every last second of our free time, it begins to feel like we have to fill those moments, otherwise we're wasting our time.
I think delayed gratification is a good thing, regardless of whether the delay conveys any benefit. Constant reward feels less meaningful. But yes it's a cost/benefit analysis - I wouldn't watch three seasons of a show in order to get to the good bit.
But I wonder - do films need to be constantly grabbing our attention? Sometimes a bit of downtime can enhance the subsequent action.
Of course not. But not all downtime has payoff. Maybe the pacing just isn't very good. Maybe you've seen it before and the exposition that was necessary for the good parts just doesn't serve a purpose for you anymore. Maybe it just wasn't your turn to pick the movie for family movie night and you don't actually like the selection very much.
And boredom isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can push us to try new things and be creative, to consider our thoughts.
Yeah, boredom results in seeking something engaging. If you're just sitting around bored, you almost certainly are wasting time, excepting situations like waiting rooms or airplanes. Once you've found something engaging to do, you are no longer bored.
I think delayed gratification is a good thing, regardless of whether the delay conveys any benefit
I mean that is, literally, just wasting time, in it's purest form.
Boredom promotes creativity and deep thought.