I didn’t get it at the time, but I’ve never forgotten it. Now I know he was right.

I find there is a wonderful paradox around focus. By defnition, to focus on one thing is to lose sight of another and so the more time we spend focusing at one level, the less focus we have one level higher.

Focus, as you use it, implies attention to detail at a given level of granularity. The challenge nowadays is that we are provided with floods of information at every level - and the question we must perpetually ask is ‘what’s the best level to focus at’.

I was particularly struck by your idea that we could be devaluing the notion of focus. Here I think the threat might be especially prevalent among the young, who by becoming too used to a pop culture stream that is specially prepared for their own easy consumption are never even led to suspect the existence of such a thing as “the big picture.” Perhaps for some of them “the big picture” will never be anything more than a vague suspicion resting in the back of their minds while they spend their lives getting angry with a world that keeps banging up against them.

Look at popular film. BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER: a 100-hour, densely metaphorical film about growing up, filmed over 7 years and intended to be viewed over the same period. BABYLON 5, also almost 100 hours in length, conceived and executed as a single story. These aren’t lightweight, and they aren’t short, and they do require attention.

Look at the novel. Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin books are best viewed as a 20-volume adventure novel. The most popular genre fiction of our era is the mystery serial, closely followed by the serial thriller. Downmarket, you’ve got entertainments like W.E.B. Griffin’s THE CORPS, currently clocking in at seven or eight volumes and pushing 3000 pages. From children’s literature (HARRY POTTER, or HIS DARK MATERIALS) to pop fiction to mainstream lit (ON BEAUTY, or the new Tom Wolfe), we’ve got thick books — often appearing over a span of years, some appearing over decades.

Yes, a lot of contemporary fiction begins in media res. So does The Iliad. Homer had to get people to sit down and shut up so he could be heard, and so he gets right down to it. SING! O Muse!

But I believe that both of these series are exceptions. Even the genre of science fiction, one that appeals so much (statistically, at least) to quite intelligent people, is quite riddled with sub-par but high budget shows that an eight-year-old could digest while playing his Gameboy. The other night, while searching through the listings of the Space channel for the season premiere of BG, I saw episode after episode of rapid-fire, depressingly childish shows with no regard for either the attention span or intelligence of their viewers.

True, one will see the occasional Harry Potter or Narnia or Tom Wolfe or Grafton or what-have-you, but let’s face it: these have the power of popularity, media and distribution behind them (and yes, quality, too). And what’s the statistic for the average number of books read from cover-to-cover in the US? I think it’s one book per person per 20 months? How many hours of fast-paced or mindless television are watched per person per week? 43, isn’t it? (Someone please correct my memory if it’s wrong.)

Most of this boils down to a simple point: given a choice, how would most people, statistically-speaking, rather spend an evening — watching some light, fast-paced fare on television, or jumping into a thick novel that may take a few weeks to read?

When I was working with a marketing/communications company about six or seven years ago, I did some pretty extensive reading about psychological studies conducted to determine a person’s attention span, and was behind the glass at more than one focus group study. Studies conducted by advertisers and psychologists from the 1940’s to today show that our attention span has been getting progessively shorter over the decades. Nowadays, as a rule of thumb, younger and more technologically-adept city-dwellers possess three to five seconds’ span, on average, unless there is another motivator (such as sexual attraction). Older, less technological, rural folks have over 30 seconds. The latter is also far more inclined to read: over 40% said they would rather read than watch television, as opposed to just 10% of the former. The main reason given by the 90% for not reading? It’s hard to unwind when you have to think.

And that’s a wonderful point about Homer. I do have to wonder, though: if he had to compete with modern entertainment for his audience, would he have changed his story and pacing? I shudder to think….

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/53977.html

I have a sense that as I get older (early forties now), that it is more difficult to concentrate. Perhaps there are more things to balance in life. But I have also noticed that when I am motivated and need to concentrate, that I can do so for many, many hours, but that it is only possible if I hide - get away from home, the office desk, internet, phone, etc.

Ten years ago I had a colleague (an IT professional) who predicted that we would see fewer and fewer older technical professionals as we get advanced in our careers. I believe he meant technical whizzes, not mid- or senior-level managers. I asked why, and he said “because older people lose the ability to concentrate.” The comment seemed curious then, and here it is again.

I like it how you express this idea as ‘Filters’.
In my current study, we are refering to the difference between ‘Work’ and ‘Text’ - enter Roland Barthes, ‘From Work to Text”

Check out my video/text tertiary blog http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~s3110161