
The age of stream of consciousness and insanity - hellbanTHIS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-age-of-stream-of-consciousness--and-insanity/2016/08/12/9388be82-60b4-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html?utm_term=.1452093c4570
======
jclulow
Day in, day out: Internet

Articles lament the fall

in attention -- Inattention!

Hang it, let's go to the mall.

~~~
JulianMorrison
This newfangled tool

writing, makes the youth forget

their epic poems!

------
aethos
It seems this article ends before it gets to the main argument.

~~~
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.

------
Aelinsaar
Where is the editor when you need them?

~~~
madaxe_again
Reading buzzfeed.

~~~
Aelinsaar
Two words, so accurate and so painful. :(

