successful home working
Is reading this blog making you stupid?
Carr’s theory is that we are able to take in less when bombarded with endless possibilities of more information, and that our brains may become less able to absorb and deal with complex thoughts and problems.
Which has got me thinking about how my posts are constructed. Wherever possible I put links to previous posts and other pages in this working from home blog. On a personal basis I want to provide the information you’ve come here for, and technically I’ve been told it’s good online practice to hook in readers and keep their attention for as long as possible.
But as a reader I’m aware of the semi-conscious conflict this creates and how distracting it can be – should I click each link as I go through or save them all till the end? Do I think each link is worth clicking on? If not, which ones do I ignore, and if I do, what am I missing?
I’ve noticed a marked decline in the number of clicks made on links in tweets since I joined Twitter a year ago and I wonder whether we are becoming equally link-blind or clicked-out when looking at other information online too. I know I’m very aware of time and mental constraints and choose my clicks more carefully than I used to.
What do you make of Carr’s argument? Does he have a point or are our brains simply adapting to our new environment with its attendant information overload?
-
-
Thanks, Michael, for your in-depth reply. You are far more qualified than most of us to comment! Your point about concentrated addictions is a really interesting one and I think it can sneak up on us.
As discussed previously on FreelanceAdvisor, the site you edit, (which is definitely worth a visit from freelancing home workers) taking regular breaks from the screen is beneficial in all kinds of ways. It gives our eyes a rest, helps productivity and apparently aids our thinking power.
By the way, there’ll be a post very soon on slicing up tasks into short chunks of time, salami, Pomodoro, whatever you want to call it!
-
-
- Comment Feed for this Post
I’ve been interested in this debate for years (and I’m in the middle of an MA in the Philosophy of Cognitive Science). I remember reading Douglas Rushkoff’s ‘Children of Chaos’ in 1997 and the debate hasn’t changed all that much. The players are different (Google not AOL, Facebook not Usenet, Twitter not MTV) but the themes are the same.
The best round-up I’ve read recently was in the Guardian tech section where they interviewed a range of people… lots of diverse views to ponder over…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/15/internet-brain-neuroscience-debate
For me the key is to have a rich, balanced diet. Short attention spans, skimming etc. are a coping strategy for the 21st Century, and divergent thinking is good, but we also need focus and convergent thinking if we’re to make anything of the mass of data and inputs. In other words play on the internet and enjoy the free form information gathering but, also, turn it off, read a book for a couple of hours, train in focus, meditate, go for a walk without your iPhone, etc. etc.
As always technology is neutral in itself and it is it’s *application* that really matters. But, as [Paul Graham noted recently](http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html) we’re getting good at refining our addictions and creating concentrated forms of things we’re naturally attracted too. I used to be laissez-faire about all this but Graham’s warning is a persuasive counter view, better than any of Nicholas Carr’s arguments I’d say.
Just my £0.02