Principal investigator Edward K. Vogel, a UO professor of psychology, compares working memory to a computer’s random-access memory (RAM) rather than the hard drive’s size — the higher the RAM, the better processing abilities. With more RAM, he said, students were better able to ignore distractions
people who hold their focus more intensely tend to have higher fluid intelligence; they score higher on achievement tests, do better in math and learn second languages easier than peers who are captured by interruptions. Vogel currently is working with other UO researchers to explore if the easily distracted indeed have a positive side, such as in artistic creativity and imagination.
“Our attention is the continual interplay between what our goals are and what the environment is trying to dictate to us,” Vogel said. “Often, to be able to complete complex and important goal-directed behavior, we need to be able to ignore salient but irrelevant things, such as advertisements flashing around an article you are trying to read on a computer screen. We found that some people are really good at overriding attention capture, and other people have a difficult time unhooking from it and are really susceptible to irrelevant stimuli.”
Vogel theorizes that people who are good at staying on focus have a good gatekeeper, much like a bouncer or ticket-taker hired to allow only approved people into a nightclub or concert. Understanding how to improve the gatekeeper component, he said, could lead to therapies that help easily distracted people better process what information is allowed in initially, rather than attempting to teach people how to force more information into their memory banks.
I wonder what findings like these mean for the changing nature of the brain in the age of distraction we’re entering wherein the proliferation of media (and increasingly shorter-form media) has our minds bouncing around more frequently. Will this increase our tendency to be distracted and thereby weaken our intelligence or will the intelligent still exercise this excellent ability to screen out irrelevant information even as they are sifting a greater number of sources at a time and switching sources more quickly. In other words, is the problem with distraction that we do not stick with longer format material because we’re easily bored or is it rather that regardless of whether we’re engaging one long format source or 20 shorter format sources that what really matters is our skill at concentrating and sifting at each of those 20 stops we make in the same time that we would have spent on one long-form piece?
And then the question becomes, can we reformat how the most important information arrives to us so that it fits with our minds’ expectations for constant flow of smaller bits of information from a variety of sources? Can philosophical arguments that in the past may have been developed over several hundred page tomes be offered in daily interactive chunks instead if people decreasingly have the brains for reading hundreds of pages at a time.
While the loss of that long-form reading ability might mean the loss of an intrinsically excellent skill, can all the concrete benefits of those longer form books be achieved through shorter formats anyway? Dickens wrote his novels in serial form, analytic philosophy has largely shifted its concentration from monographs to articles, what’s to stop the blog from being the regular medium for fiction and philosophy in the future? As long as our minds become better at sifting and assimilating the daily variety of input sources, why not get more ideas and information but in smaller bites? Is anything lost except a particular admirable skill?
Sam Anderson is an optimist that these changes in our brains are indeed for the best.