Accepting the narrative that attention spans are shrinking is dangerous. It can lead educators and creators to give up on encouraging deep, focused tasks like reading long novels, thereby causing the very outcome they fear by lowering their expectations and standards.
Related Insights
In an age of infinite content, the most powerful filter for quality is time (the Lindy effect). Prioritizing books, art, and ideas that have remained relevant for centuries ensures you are consuming profound, time-tested wisdom rather than transient trends, optimizing your 'mental diet' for depth.
To create authentic work, creators should ignore social media's immediate feedback loops, which reward outrage. Instead, write as if the only audience is your children 20 years from now. This forces fearlessness and a focus on timeless truths over transient, algorithm-pleasing trends.
Despite competing with short-form content like TikTok, Ken Burns' long documentaries succeed because they are built on compelling storytelling. This challenges the myth of shrinking attention spans, suggesting instead that audiences demand more engaging content, regardless of its length.
The true danger of LLMs in the workplace isn't just sloppy output, but the erosion of deep thinking. The arduous process of writing forces structured, first-principles reasoning. By making it easy to generate plausible text from bullet points, LLMs allow users to bypass this critical thinking process, leading to shallower insights.
Critics lament declining focus, yet popular video games like Baldur's Gate 3 demand 75+ hours of intense concentration. This is over five times longer than Wagner's entire Ring Cycle opera, a historical benchmark for sustained cultural attention, quantitatively refuting the attention decline narrative.
The same technologies accused of shortening attention spans are also creating highly obsessive micro-tribes and fandoms. This contradicts the narrative of a universal decline in focus, suggesting a shift in what we pay attention to, not an inability to focus.
The concept of a universal "attention span" is a myth. How long we focus depends on our motivation for a specific task, not a finite mental capacity that gets depleted. This reframes poor attention from an innate inability to a lack of interest or desire.
While society now worries about distraction (ADHD), the 19th century’s concern was “monomania”—an obsessive, machine-like focus on a single task demanded by industrial capitalism. This shows that anxieties about attention are shaped by the economic structures of the era.
The standard 250-page book is often a relic of a publishing business model that equates physical weight with value, leading to padded content. This reveals an opportunity for concise, high-impact formats like "one-hour books" that respect the reader's time and the idea's natural length.
Long novels, now the gold standard for deep focus, were once considered dangerous “junk food” that distracted people from prayer and duty. This historical pattern suggests our current panic over digital media may be similarly shortsighted and lacking perspective.