A Conventional Analysis of "In Defense of Distraction"
- Submitted by: smitty6767
- Views: 865
- Category: English
- Date Submitted: 10/30/2011 11:37 AM
- Pages: 6
- Report this Essay
A CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF “IN DEFENSE OF DISTRACTION”
Sara Smith
Tiffin University
ENG141-02
24 September 2011
Abstract
A Conventional Analysis of “In Defense of Distraction” is an analysis of Western culture’s dependence on electronic devices and how they have grown so out of control. The addiction to Internet and substances to provoke focus are not a good combination, as one feeds the other in an endless cycle. Scientists have tried to legalize the use of neuro-enhancers, or ADHD medications, but they probably didn’t realize is that the brain does not want to focus on one object for an extended period of time, and would rather analyze that subject, which leads to the concept of distraction.
A CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF “IN DEFENSE OF DISTRACTION”
This current generation has an attention problem. New technologies occupy our precious brain cells on tasks less important than school and driving, for example. Prized iPods and cell phones destruct this generation more than drugs and crime. The question is: why have Americans allowed distractions to happen?
Anderson (2009) states “multitasking is a common misconception in Western culture. (p. 506)” Not only is this not true, multitasking is very rarely as we describe it. Writing an essay and watching television does not count because they use similar parts of the brain (the visual areas) at the same time. If one was to truly multitask, he or she would need to be carrying out tasks using different areas of the brain (running would be motor skills, listening to music would be auditory, and watching for cars is visual). With this new idea think about how many areas of the brain conflict when talking on the phone and driving. Those accidents were not as big of a problem ten or twenty years ago.
Anderson (2009) uses Linda Stone’s, a tech theorist, coined phrase “continuous partial attention (p. 506)” to describe Western culture’s attention issue. It describes an elective ADHD American office employees...
Sara Smith
Tiffin University
ENG141-02
24 September 2011
Abstract
A Conventional Analysis of “In Defense of Distraction” is an analysis of Western culture’s dependence on electronic devices and how they have grown so out of control. The addiction to Internet and substances to provoke focus are not a good combination, as one feeds the other in an endless cycle. Scientists have tried to legalize the use of neuro-enhancers, or ADHD medications, but they probably didn’t realize is that the brain does not want to focus on one object for an extended period of time, and would rather analyze that subject, which leads to the concept of distraction.
A CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF “IN DEFENSE OF DISTRACTION”
This current generation has an attention problem. New technologies occupy our precious brain cells on tasks less important than school and driving, for example. Prized iPods and cell phones destruct this generation more than drugs and crime. The question is: why have Americans allowed distractions to happen?
Anderson (2009) states “multitasking is a common misconception in Western culture. (p. 506)” Not only is this not true, multitasking is very rarely as we describe it. Writing an essay and watching television does not count because they use similar parts of the brain (the visual areas) at the same time. If one was to truly multitask, he or she would need to be carrying out tasks using different areas of the brain (running would be motor skills, listening to music would be auditory, and watching for cars is visual). With this new idea think about how many areas of the brain conflict when talking on the phone and driving. Those accidents were not as big of a problem ten or twenty years ago.
Anderson (2009) uses Linda Stone’s, a tech theorist, coined phrase “continuous partial attention (p. 506)” to describe Western culture’s attention issue. It describes an elective ADHD American office employees...