Modern attention span is shorter than a goldfish's

[fschmidt]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/you-re-no ... 01209.html
http://advertising.microsoft.com/en/cl/ ... tion-spans

"The average human attention span in 2000 was 12 seconds, but by 2013 it was only 8 seconds (1 second shorter than a goldfish!)."

[Johnny1975]

TL;DR

[Ghost]

.

[Jester]

I'm not sure this is bad. A LOT of useless, garish, vapid "information" washes over us all day long (unless as Ghost says, we are out in nature). I used to read the entire New York Times, or LA Times, cover to cover. Yet these days I am increasingly giving short shrift to news stories, web posts, music videos, phone callers, etc. There is simply more stuff to react to, and the same number of hours in a day. So I would suggest that maybe a shorter attention span, if selectively cultivated, is a good thing nowadays.

Because we have more stuff to do than a goldfish does.

[Moretorque]

I read a article where they said this had been done on purpose, they were talking about the way everything is just smaller and smaller sound bites starting with the political debates how they were designed to create a shorter span.

[Wolfeye]

Holy shit! What does that mean if ever you're in court? Think about it: A jury that isn't paying attention & is possibly just taking cues from the judge. Looking for that "gold star from teacher" is a pretty serious conflict of interest in the first place, but now they're not even paying attention to what you or your lawyer says! Not for nothing, but a lot of legal shit takes some paying attention to just figure out what the f**k they're saying or trying to do & if they're saying something that doesn't add up, that's a point that is important to catch.

The judge would probably just convict you, if nothing else to reward the efforts of law enforcement. Maybe it's a reciprocation thing? Like the cops give the judge an opportunity to try & play puppet-master with other people's lives, so they give them a hook-up in the form of a "scored point." Could just be that they like doing things like that or getting paid under the table for doing so (happened with those judges that were getting paid to send kids to juvie- had something to do with boosting profits for the people that owned those places).

There's also the concept of not having much blowback to worry about. The lack of confrontation reduces awareness (because f***ing up would cause a detriment). Also, there's simply not much incentive to find someone "not guilty."

[Johnny1975]

This is important everybody. Please read!

Scroll up. I cracked the most amazing joke, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, although it may have been too subtle for some of you. But I'm pointing it out now, so there's no excuse.

I demand that you all laugh hysterically, and to help you, here's your cue :

[mattyman]

I think this man has hit on the head what is wrong with the (mis)information age;

I'm not sure this is bad. A LOT of useless, garish, vapid "information" washes over us all day long (unless as Ghost says, we are out in nature). I used to read the entire New York Times, or LA Times, cover to cover. Yet these days I am increasingly giving short shrift to news stories, web posts, music videos, phone callers, etc. There is simply more stuff to react to, and the same number of hours in a day. So I would suggest that maybe a shorter attention span, if selectively cultivated, is a good thing nowadays.

It is quite a skill. Dating sites are on a similar note to what you're talking about. When you first start, you're open to giving every profile the time of day and take each one as you please. Later down the line as you realise certain patterns and how much those patterns are repeated and how much the same many are, you just cannot be bothered, you just don't have the energy, you're bloody knackered before long.

For this reason, online dating can potentially make people a lot more shallow, and the meeting women and courting process a lot more impresonal and business-like/shopping-like than it should be, which I think is wrong.