[tekacs]

The article doesn't appear to /make/ an argument - it just mentions the author's concerns about a problem which may or not exist, citing no evidence for anything mentioned.

At best it may be considered a rather poor call to ponder this (tired) issue?

(It mentions a book by an author with neither credentials not evidence and neuroscientists... backing up a point almost but not quite opposite to the book and the post itself)

[alicelthwaite]

Ironic that an article criticising streams of consciousness, is in fact, another stream of consciousness...

[FungalRaincloud]

I wouldn't say it was criticizing streams of consciousness. I would say it was criticizing how our streams of consciousness are becoming more prone to jumping from topic to topic. I think the exact intention of the article is to show, by jumping from topic to topic, how jumping from topic to topic is so common. We are meant to read the article like we are reading a description of a morning ritual not quite exactly the same as our own, but similar enough that it feels like our own.

The author seems to be trying to make two points in this: The internet is impacting how much we jump around, and that's not a good thing. I don't buy either of those. I think we have always been prone to jumping around. I think the internet is just making us more aware of it. We lament the loss of long-reading, but the reality is that reading is a relatively modern thing, for the common man, and even in the years leading up to the invention of the internet, being a 'reader' was not the default. I don't at all think that our attention spans are getting shorter.

I think the author's much stronger (but unmade) point is that we are rewarded by the internet for our short attention spans. If we jump from article to article, changing topics and thoughts all the time, we find more content we like. In addition, something just feels right about being able to get bored with an article or topic and immediately jump to the next thing. I think the thing to be cautious (or at least self-critical of) is this apparent fear of boredom that the internet rewards. For one thing, if you cannot embrace being bored with a topic, you're not likely to ever develop a deep understanding of it. When something is new, we do not feel boredom, but new does not last long enough for deep learning. But for another thing, it encourages us to create sounding boards, where we only expose ourselves to things we find to be in line with our personal preferences and beliefs, or things we find to be entertaining. I don't think that's healthy. For my own sake, I find that when I am not exposed to things I might not choose to expose myself to, I have to make an effort to think like someone else might. When I am able to see things I disagree with, I can often very clearly see how someone might come to disagree with me. I also feel like it stifles my creativity, if I am only exposing myself to content that I find entertaining.