Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Study Finds Technology Hurting Attention Spans

jones_supa writes: Conducting both surveys and EEG scans, Microsoft has published a study suggesting that the average attention span has fallen precipitously since the start of the century. While people could focus on a task for 12 seconds back in 2000, that figure dropped to 8 seconds in 2013 (about one second less than a goldfish). Reportedly, a lot of that reduction stems from a combination of smartphones and an avalanche of content. The study found also a sunny side: while presence of technology is hurting attention spans overall, it also appears to improve person's abilities to both multitask and concentrate in short bursts.

21 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. what? by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    when?

    1. Re:what? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      when?

      TL;DR

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:what? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Worse than the first posts here on /. ... the full article is about 2 sentences longer than the summary!. Its literally 2 poorly formed paragraphs. Thats it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  2. Impossible! by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Impossible! by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

      'Cleaver proof', is that like Occams Razor?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Impossible! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a really cleaver proof that this is not possible, which regrettably does not fit within this 8 seconds to typ

      'Cleaver proof', is that like Occams Razor?

      No, Occam's Cleaver: Given a choice between two theories, pick the shortest.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  3. Ability to multitask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As in "the ability to do 5 things in parallel with crappier results than doing 5 things sequentially."

    Multitasking efficiently and effectively is a myth.

    1. Re:Ability to multitask by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      While reading your proclamation I could help but notice that you

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Ability to multitask by zkiwi34 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Zheng Wang, Illinois University is but one of a throng of people that have debunked the bollocks that is multi-tasking.

      Multitasking is only possible if at least one of the tasks is so well learned that it is almost automatic, like walking or eating but it's epic fail for the most part when we try to both walk and eat). The general case where it appears that we can multitask are when two activities involve different types of brain processing, such as auditory and visual, like driving and listening to the radio although it's pretty bloody obvious that one has to focus far far more on the driving to not be a complete and utter disaster.

      At best all we are doing is task switching, and that pretty bloody inefficiently.

      Attention span of a gnat is what passes as a "true multi-tasker."

    3. Re:Ability to multitask by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ever notice how, when you're driving and need to find your way, so you're peering at all the street signs, you turn the radio down? Most people can't do it with a high radio volume.

      Multitasking is a myth.

  4. Goldfish? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Funny

    What kind of goldfish? An African one, or a European? Or a demented goldfish living in a bowl of cheap tequila?

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Goldfish? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Goldfish do not have particularly short attention spans. That is a myth. They can pay attention long enough to learn behavior and remember it for months.

  5. Are you happy now, Sinofsky and Larson-Green? by AFCArchvile · · Score: 2

    I like how this study is coming from the perpetrator of Metro tiles being foisted on anything and everything Microsoft (the non-touchscreen Windows OS, XBox, even Microsoft support websites, to a certain extent).

    Oh, but the upside is that we're better multitaskers... very slightly, since we're so accustomed to seeing about 55 different tiles with two-word captions and stock image tile backgrounds. Unfortunately, that counts very little, as it doesn't make up for the depth one can reach with dedicated concentration on a single topic at a time.

    --
    "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
  6. Re:And What Technology Would That Be? by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Heh. You know, IE was the first browser that was supplied with the dominant desktop operating system integrated right into the UI, dating back to Windows 95 OSR2. Before that you had to rely on an OEM or other systems integrator if a browser was to be preinstalled. Otherwise you had to get one on disk or download one via FTP.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  7. Re:Averages by chipschap · · Score: 2

    I need to read the article, but it seems like 12 seconds is really, really short, let alone 8 seconds.

    Seriously? People can't concentrate for more than 12 seconds?

  8. Re:Averages by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Makes me wonder how I managed a 16 hour surgery the other day without ever getting bored or distracted (kind of hard to do when the patient is trying so hard to die on your table). I guess that sort of thing is not accounted for in terms of length of attention span, or if it is, then god help us because between the anesthesiologist, my colleague, myself and the instrument nurse I think we skewed the average for the year and the "real" value is on the order of a second or so...

    Seriously this kind of study is just BS, a make believe study designed to prove some particular point or other the marketing department wants to make. I'll wait for the peer reviewed version (and even then I'll reserve judgement).

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. They must be right. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    I can't even remember the last time it was discussed here

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. Dupe? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2
    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  11. Re:And What Technology Would That Be? by linebackn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Otherwise you had to get one on disk.

    Which is exactly how normal people obtained software back then. Most cheap computers didn't come with that much useful software pre-installed.

    Don't forget to click the buttons below to share this on facebook and twitter :P

    Already forgot what else I was going to type :P

  12. Yes and No by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2

    Technology has switched the child mind from being content with getting an answer in one day, to getting the answer in one minute, but on the other hand it allows children to focus there interests more in depth at certain areas and focus into them. For instance if a child like to program, then you'll notice they'll have a great attention span well they program. Where as a child into music would have there attention span put towards that. I wouldn't say that technology has shortened the attention span of children, it's merely refocused from a broad horizon down to more narrow sight lines.

  13. Goldfish Attention Log by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 3, Funny

    [swims back and forth] "click." TFA here I come. Don't tell anyone.
    [opens and closes mouth] Oh Gawd, it's Engadget [enables golly gee-whiz filter]
    "...dropped to 8 seconds in 2013 -- about one second less than a goldfish"
    Now that's... Huh? Sorry, I missed that. [eats a bubble]
    "Thankfully, it's not all bad. While tech is hurting attention spans overall, it also..."
    Yeah something good right? Not in the mood for good news. I'll click on something blue.
    Oh it's the actual study! "Click". [swims back and forth] Oops, advertising.microsoft.com? Hello.
    It's about Canadians. [spits out bubble] That's nice. What a nice couple.
    [something something] "and where the true scarce commodity is increasingly human attention"
    Glad I'm a goldfish then. We're still not at the research report yet. "Click." Oops, a dialog.
    "Download the Canadian attention spans research report (2.0M)
    Download the infographic (173K)"

    Now why would I just want to get the infographic...? Oh!
    I get it! THIS IS the attention span test! "Click: the report"
    [plays on bubble Ferris wheel as PDF loads]
    That woman is either taking a picture or is trying to scroll text by moving the computer up and down.
    She had to stand up to scroll to the top of the page. License plate "71"?. Hmmm. [scroll]
    "Think digital is killing attention spans? Think again."
    I read this twice, so my opinion is back to what it originally was.
    [yadda yadda] "Good news! It's not as bad as you think."
    [continuous sirens in the distance] Tornado warning! [rain/branches beat on window]
    Maybe it IS as bad as I think. [wind shrieks] Confound this nuisance. [lightning strikes!]
    [Power goes out] [minutes pass] [sirens stop] [power comes on]
    "AMI BIOS" "Select profile" "Welcome" "starting wlnotify.dll"
    [sleeps with eyes wide open CLICK HERE FOR IMPORTANT INFO ]
    [open browser] [access slashdot] "Welcome to AT&T (The Fucking Modem)" What the fuck.
    [looks at lights] DSL not up. It's NAT-ting my browser traffic to itself. F'king UVERSE.
    "Click to run diagnostics." Okay. Click. "Enter modem access code." FUCK.
    [fortunately fishbowl is next to modem and curvature magnifies tiny sticker] [enters 10 digit number]
    "Ethernet/DSL/PTM: Pass Authentication:Fail" Their computer rebooting after 10 minutes?
    I thought nothing was slower than XP. [5 minutes pass] [reload] "Authentication: Pass"
    [tabs remembered by voodoo magick] First thing that's gone right. [glances up]
    MUSICAL SOUNDTRACK BEGINS FUCK! OH NOOOOOOOOES!
    (every icon next to every browser tab has been replaced by an AT&T DEATHSTAR logo.
    the only reason this is not in all caps is slashdot's lameness filter. shhhh. don't wake up the lameness filter)
    On no, AT&T Is in my mind. I can feel it. Do I have NATty favicon corruption?
    [warily, with nervous dread} "192.168.1.254/favicon.ico" [ENTER] [hideous 32x32 AT&T icon fills screen]
    [exit viewer] NOO! What brain-dead thweep would serve favicon from a NAT-redirected router?
    [slaps Firefox around] It's all your fault! I should downgrade you to 1992! Favicon support!
    [AT&T logo still icon on all tabbed sites] THAT LOGO, it keeps winking and blinking at me! I'm insane!
    [thrashes about, bumps on glass] Do we have a potion for this? Yesss. A potion [rustles about in bubble castle]
    [opens js console]
    var fS = Components.classes["@mozilla.org/browser/favicon-service;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.nsIFaviconService);
    [squeak] (have old js console it always squeaks)
    fS.expireAllFavicons(); [squeak]
    [whoosh!] [all icons missing] Already, an

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>