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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
There is no question that mass media and the internet have caused people's attentions spans to shorten. What the implication of this finding has on the overall effect for individuals is the important question. On one hand, people may say we have the ability to sort through large quantities of information and find what is important quicker is worthwhile. On the other, more pragmatic side, people may claim that the overall effect is negative and large amounts of information do not improve our abilities to process information at all. Not only are mass media and the internet resulting in the dangers of chronic multitasking, but also it is using a poor frame of reference to judge important information.
Technology and mass media have channged our world. It gives individuals an unprecedented level of information that can be revolutionary when used correctly. However, having access to information does not equate to using that information effectively, as assummed in this argument. At the end of the day, how we use information is far more important than the amount of information we have at our disposal.
Firstly, it is imperative to bring up that fact that it has been scientifically proven that multitasking reduces productivity. Cognive neuroscience refute the existence of multitasking in the first place, because they don't think it truly exists. They instead call this pattern of behavior, "task-switching". This is so critical to realize because technology enables, even encourages, users to have multiple screens, working on different projects, with background music and other distractions galore. This has been proved many times to reduce quality preformance. For example, if we are given one article to use as reference for a paper, we would be far more attentive and focused on the details of that article than if we had access to a whole online database. The more information we have, the less we value each source.
Secondly, we must consider how we judge important information. If the supposed benefit of technology is that we can quickly search through large quantities of information and select what is important, than shouldn't we be able to operationally define what is "important"? To put simply, what is salient to the human eye is not necessarily important, and that is a huge problem we must address before we defend technology so fiercly. For example, if we are researching a topic we have just listened to a lecture over, the key terms addressed by the professor will unconciously affect our ability to impartially scan through the information. If a certain key term catches our eye, we are more likely to assert that article is more important than others.
It is clear that techology helps people. It revolutionized our world and it is likely that as we progress as a society we will only interact with technology more and more. This, however, does not improve our ability to process information. Not only does this excess information reduce our preformance on specific tasks, but it also sways our understanding of what is important. The more people are aware of the dangers and pitfalls of technology, the more we will be able to address these problems and use information as effectively as possible in the future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 219, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...asking in the first place, because they dont think it truly exists. They instead cal...
^^^^
Line 7, column 202, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
...formation and select what is important, than shouldnt we be able to operationally de...
^^^^
Line 7, column 207, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...tion and select what is important, than shouldnt we be able to operationally define what...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, for example, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 33.0505617978 182% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2743.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 536.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11753731343 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21170862003 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470149253731 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 890.1 704.065955056 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8884526723 60.3974514979 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.5 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6153846154 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.03846153846 5.21951772744 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226169222041 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703642464741 0.0831039109588 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0610804641457 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136896279848 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716501002514 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.