Mass media and the internet have caused people’s attention spans to get shorter. However, the overall effect has been positive: while people are less able to focus on one thing, they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through large quantities of information and find what’s important.
Mass media, particularly the internet, has caused a paradigm shift in the way information is disseminated and absorbed in the modern world. While the impact on the attention span has not been positive, mass media still renders a net benefit to the humans and the society at large. The overall effect of novel media devices has been overwhelmingly sanguine as it enables the user to filter the relevant information from the deluge of data. Shorter attention span is desirable for filtering as the initial screening should be as fast process. It leaves the user with much more time at hand to dive deeper into relevant texts. Furthermore, once the user encounters with the apt set of readings, she can dedicate much more attention without any interruptions from the media technologies.
Firstly, short attention resulting is a necessity for wading through the copious amount of digital data. A quick can through the search results helps us in identifying the relevant links that deserved further investigation. Even searrch engines like Google are aware of this benefit of short span. And hence, they enable is by rendering snippets of information about each search result outputs. Imagine the inefficiency if we had to open each and every link that is thrown by the search engine. One can argue that our initial scanning may end up filtering out something relevant. While this can be theoretically true, but highly unlikely because the snippets would most likely give the correct description of what the link has to offer.
Secondly, initial filtering enabled through short attention span leaves the user with much more time at her disposal that can now be solely dedicated to the screened list of information. It is more efficient to spend 1 hour in filtering and 5 hours in studying the relevent texts vis-a-vis spending 5 hours in filtering (by looking at each and every links with longer attention span) and spending only 1 hour on the relevant texts. At times however, the giving substantial time, with longer attention span, to all the accessible information broadens our knowledge base, but if we acknowledge the cardinal truth that we can not know everything, then 'being focused' is highly desirable trait.
Thirdly, shorter span is a necessity rather than a compulsion in the modern world glut with information. Hence, once the user has identified important texts, she shall now spend more productive and uninterrupted time with them. Now, she does not need to waver as she has found what she was looking for.
In conclusion, mass media engenders short-attention-span as a necessary tool for wading through the deluge of data, eventually aiding the user to accumulate the relevant ones. Further, investigation of these shortlisted relevant information is not marred by the short span. Hence, these novel information technologies have been a resounding boon for the humanity. The step-by-step information precessing requirement necessitates applying short attention span initially, and later on users can deep-dive into the relevant information alone. This enables the optimization of learning output by acknowledging the most scare resource i.e. time.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2662.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 507.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25049309665 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94147322668 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514792899408 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 822.6 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8516568296 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.916666667 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.125 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95833333333 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207202464904 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610864896542 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.041804420268 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116276379517 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0525486443894 0.0667264976115 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.