Social media is a huge new part of the modern age. The ability to interact
online with a near infinite amount of people this quickly was previously
incomprehensible. Now, we can access that wealth of unlimited social power with
just a tap of a few buttons on the device in our pocket. However, there seems to
be a problem with that. As time goes on, it seems people’s attention spans are
getting smaller and smaller. Could social media be to blame for this? There are
many different views on this idea. A lot of people say social media is the
reason the current generation of children and young people appear to have an
extremely short attention span. However, some say that social media is not
wholly responsible for attention span loss. They say there could be other
reasons for our loss of attention. Perhaps, it is not even a problem, but an
adaptation to the new age and its challenges. Both sides have good points. There
are a lot of nuances to this conversation. Overall, it looks like humanity’s
brains are, in fact, changing. However, it may not be a bad thing. Our brains
are adapting to the massive inflow of information we are constantly receiving.
The human brain originally was made to focus closely on its current task. It
needed to give constant effort to maintain that focus. If the human brain
shifted focus onto something else, such as scrolling on social media, then it
resets the entire process each time. During that process of refocusing, the
brain is working less efficiently and is less productive. Being on social media
puts the brain in a constant state of refocusing, as every scroll brings up a
new and different subject to think about. However, modern life can be hectic,
and social media may simply be reflecting the current time we live in. Our
brains may be adapting to the constant need to refocus, which could be more
useful than constant focus. Traditionally, the human brain worked best when it
locked on to something and worked on it for a long period of time without
interruptions. Social media creates constant interruptions to the brain’s focus.
However, modern times make the ability to shift between many different tasks
valuable, which makes social media’s effect on the brain potentially beneficial.
First perspective: social media is reducing our attention span
The most common opinion is social media is eroding our attention span and
preventing us from focusing. They say it has reduced our ability to focus on
something from about 12 to 8 seconds. Alina Poles’s article “Impact of Social
Media Usage on Attention Spans” covers a study of a sample of young adults who
took part in the experiment. Poles says that the experiment results suggest
social media is in fact reducing our attention span. Supporting her point is
this information: “Participants with heavy social media usage (over 3 hours
daily), particularly on more dynamic websites like TikTok and Snapchat, are
showing signs of having shorter attention spans...” The evidence from the study
directly shows social media usage reduces attention spans. An explanation of
this is found elsewhere in the article, where the author explains the results of
another researcher’s studies: “Asif, a researcher in media studies, and Kazi, a
cognitive psychologist, explains how the nature of snackable videos on social
media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram can erode the ability to
concentrate on longer and more challenging tasks, such as studying.” Poles
analysis of Asif’s study shows the inability to focus is caused by social
media’s “snackable videos”, which is a way of saying the videos are very brief,
providing a short amount of content before jumping to the next subject. Because
of the rapid-fire nature of these videos, the watchers do not have enough time
to think deeply about what is being said before the next subject is brought up.
Poles argues social media is bringing down the brain’s ability to focus due to
the variety of subjects available, while making it impossible to think deeply
about a single subject.
Second Perspective: Social media does not reduce our attention span, instead
it redirects it.
A less common viewpoint is that social media does not reduce our attention span,
instead it redirects our attention to various outlets. Jerry Silfwer’s article,
“Attention spans in the social media age” claims that social media is not quite
reducing attention span. Instead, it changes how focus is being given. He
theorizes social media is designed to use our brain’s desire for rapid action to
make us watch its content. He specifically says, “Social media exploits this
cognitive architecture by delivering information and entertainment in immediate,
gratifying doses.” He then goes on to say, “it does not necessarily diminish our
mental bandwidth but redirects it.” Here, Silfwer directly states what he sees
social media to be doing. To further his point, Silfwer quotes the results of a
previous study where he explains how the teenage brain may look like it is
unable to focus for long periods of time, but they are instead prioritizing
rapidly switching between tasks rather than focusing on single tasks. Silfwer
argues social media is not making the brain incapable of focusing, it is instead
making the brain better at shifting through multiple tasks. He believes this
multi-focusing is not a significant of a problem, and it may even be beneficial.
“We are experiencing an evolution of attentional strategies, not a collapse of
cognitive ability,” says Silfwer.
 |
| Image by Gilles Lambert on Unsplash |
Similarities and differences
The two subjects share some similarities, but they also have differences. For
example, both sides are similar in that they agree social media is altering the
function of our brains. However, the specifics are different. Poles argues
social media affects our brains by reducing our attention span, making it so we
can’t stay focused on something for more than a couple of seconds, stating: “His
research found that regular use of social media disrupted students’ ability to
focus on academic tasks, which is caused by the intense amount of stimuli and
notifications in these social media websites.”. Poles believes that people who
spend too much time on social media will struggle with focus, due to
distraction. Silfwer argues social media is altering our brains to make us more
adept at multitasking, instead of focusing on one single subject. He suggests
our focus is the same, but we are instead less inclined to do tasks that
requires singular concentrated focus. Specifically, he says this: “The
researchers noted that while young people might struggle with uninterrupted,
long-form tasks, their working memory skills were as strong as those of previous
generations. This suggests a shift in how attention is deployed rather than an
outright diminishment.” Silfwer’s argument suggests that social media is not
permanently hurting our ability to focus and we can recover it. Another
difference in the viewpoints is whether this is a bad thing or if it’s just the
next step in how our brains will function in the modern age. Poles argues that
the loss of our focus is unnatural and caused by social media’s influence,
reducing our ability to think deeply and focus on tough tasks, saying this:
“Participants with heavy social media usage (over 3 hours daily), particularly
on more dynamic websites like TikTok and Snapchat, are showing signs of having
shorter attention spans, fragmented memory recall, and feelings of
overstimulation. . .”. Following Poles argument, if social media was not there,
then we would be able to focus better. Silfwer says that social media has not
permanently hurt our ability to focus, but it instead is making our brains more
adept at switching between tasks when needed. He says: “Our brain’s
neuroplasticity allows it to reconfigure, and we get better at what we
repeatedly practice — brief bursts of browsing rather than deep dives.”
Following Silfwer’s logic, society is used to refocusing constantly, meaning
that we are much better at tasks that require switching of focus. Since we are
focusing deeply less and less, we get worse. If we spent more time focusing
deeply on tasks, we would get better.
Strengths and weaknesses of both sides.
Both sides have solid evidence and logic to back up their claims. Silfwer’s
article provides evidence and cites many other studies to back up his claims,
using it to reinforce his argument with logos. For example, he uses his research
here: “Research by Alloway and Alloway (2012) found that working memory
capacity. . .” The evidence that Silfwer uses is made up of several different
other studies and papers, making his paper stronger due to the variety of
sources put into it. He also uses different perspectives to refute counter
arguments, such as in this paragraph: “The Ophir, Nass, and Wagner study
illustrates that heavy media multitasking correlates with diminished attentional
control. However, it doesn’t imply an overall atrophy of attentional abilities;
instead, it suggests that our brains constantly prioritise different types of
engagement.”. Silfwer’s argument is well reinforced overall, which boosts both
his logos and ethos. Poles’s article is based on a reputable study and has
massive amounts of evidence to back up her claims. This is significant because
studies are some of the most closely scrutinized forms of academic work. They
have to consider everything. This results in an argument that has large amounts
of pathos, and quite a bit of logos. However, both sides have some flaws in
their writings. Silfwer’s argument is solid, but it doesn’t properly acknowledge
the negatives of social media forcing us to focus on our ability to switch tasks
quickly, over being able to lock onto a single task. Nor does he explain how
difficult it would be to train yourself to focus deeply. Poles’s article also
has some problems, as she mentions several reasons why the study could be
inaccurate, such as here: “This narrow focus neglects examination of other age
groups and social settings, which may have different patterns of social media
usage as well as cognitive impacts, which limits the generalizability of the
reported findings.”. This is important when making a study, but it hurts the
point she is trying to make with her argument portion of her article. This
erodes the ethos of her argument, by suggesting that she is not confident in her
argument. Additionally, both of them use very little pathos. Their very formal
tone makes the authors feel distant, which makes people less likely to relate to
the argument, and therefore be less inclined to listen to what is being said.
What is my perspective on this?
Due to the negative influence that social media has received, I have tried to
avoid it for most of my life. However, I do sometimes use it for entertainment.
I never post anything or reply to what other people post. Instead, I simply just
scroll, looking for funny or interesting content. Often though, when I do this,
I end up worse off. Not only is the constant temptation to get on and just
scroll for a little bit longer, very difficult to ignore, but if I do end up
doing it, it almost completely breaks my focus. This prevents me from focusing
deeper on homework or even just long reading. It can severely hurt my
productivity, preventing me from finishing work. However, there are other things
that can harm my work that are also potential factors. For example, video games
can have a similar effect, distracting me and reducing productivity. Not only
that, but my inefficiency could also be caused by something as simple as the
time that I work. I am not always productive and sometimes my mind does not work
anyways. The time that I thought was wasted due to social media might not even
be productive anyways, because my mind naturally does not want to work that day.
However, when I am doing assignments that do not require particularly deep
attention, I am not as negatively affected and can complete the work without too
much difficulty. This reinforces the argument which suggests social media is at
least somewhat helping with our ability to refocus.
What is the takeaway from both sources?
Both articles do a good job of explaining what social media does to our focus
and give several examples of how it affects our brains. Poles shows how social
media can hurt our ability to focus deeply on tasks while Silfwer shows how
social media forces our brains to work better at shifting tasks instead of being
able to focus deeply. We can use the knowledge from both sources to gain a
deeper understanding of what social media does to our brains. With that
knowledge, we can protect ourselves from the reduction in focus it causes and
instead use the ability to shift quickly between tasks to our advantage.
Overall, social media does alter our brains and can harm our ability to focus.
However, it is not all bad, and by understanding it, we can take advantage of
its benefits. Works Cited: Silfwer, Jerry. “Attention Spans in the Social Media
Age” Doctor Spin, https://doctorspin.net/attention
spans/#:~:text=Social%20media%20doesn't%20destroy%20our%20attention;%20it%20redirects%20it.&text=tl:dr;,contextually%20and%20meaningfully%2
0with%20audiences. Poles, Poles. “Impact of Social Media Usage on Attention
Spans” SCIRP, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=143508
Comments
Post a Comment