Shank 1
Jonathan Shank
Professor Brian Ballentine
English 303
19 January 2011
Direction of Our Minds
As an individual growing up and evolving in the digital age, it is genuinely
fascinating to read about the speculative future of the human brain, and how it is being
gradually rewired as a result of perpetual exposure to technology. Interestingly enough,
I am doing research and reading about this topic while checking my two email accounts,
writing this paper, text messaging, and using notation software to write music for a
drumline. I would have normally added Facebook to the list if I had not asked my
girlfriend to change my password to prevent that distraction for a while. As an extremely
susceptible individual to brain reformation in this technological age, I am inclined to
research deeper into the debated categories of hyper and deep attention, cognition,
multi-tasking, and also the idea that brains of current generations are being slowly
rewired from technology use. Additionally, I will discuss a psychological process that
could play a significant role in this change. Because I am submerged in this
technological era, it is difficult to objectively side with either stance in the deep attention
versus hyper attention controversy; however, I intend to shed some light on both issues
in order to gain a deeper understanding of the matter. Hopefully I can do this without
being too distracted or tempted by other available electronic activities.
First, there are two terms that label and describe two different kinds of cognitive
styles dealing with attention. One of these cognitive techniques is deep attention, and
Shank 2
that is the style that that allows for clear focus and concentration upon single situations
for extended periods of time. Conversely, hyper attention involves quickly changing
focus from task to task, usually including various methods of obtaining information and
stimulation (Hayles 187).
The issue that arises, however, is the controversy regarding the shift from
individuals possessing suitable deep attention spans, to developing more of a hyper
attention span. This means that the brain is learning and adapting over time to work
under such conditions that involve multi-tasking and divided attention (Hayles 187).
Multi-tasking, which is defined by Rosen as “…the human attempt to do simultaneously
as many things as possible, as quickly as possible...” (105) could perhaps over time result
in the aforementioned rewiring of the human brain.
Hayles mentions that from an evolutionary standpoint, hyper attention may have
developed first. Primitive humans were probably not always in safe environments and
attention needed to be distributed between many concerns like staying warm, remaining
alert in case of danger, and tending to young ones. However, over time humans have
been able to create living conditions that allow for long and interrupted focus on tasks or
activities (188). As a proponent of evolution by natural selection, it is easy for me to
understand that our brains can be, and are being rewired as a result of increased
exposure to technology and the experiences paired with hyper attention, and could also
help try to explain why we so often utilize technology.
I find myself often simultaneously occupied with various applications on the
computer, especially when work needs to be done. When I have a paper to complete, or
a reading assignment, it is very difficult to allot all of my attention to a single medium.
As I said before, I will usually have several application windows or browser tabs open
Shank 3
while attempting to complete any work. My work always gets completed, and I am
usually satisfied with the quality, but it usually takes a long time from start to finish
because I tend to get bored or distracted when only focusing on a single thing. So I
cannot say with certainty that it would be more efficient to complete each task one at a
time. Speaking of, Parke and Gauvain mention that a primary characteristic of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the inability to remain focused on a particular
task for long periods of time, especially a task requiring concentration (565). One could
say that we are inadvertently putting ourselves in environments that promote behaviors
that are associated with symptoms of ADHD.
According to Nicholas Carr, part of what keeps us using technology is the instant
social or informational reinforcement or reward that follows a simple response, such as
a click of a mouse, or sending a text message. These little rewards often occur
immediately after the response (117). Therefore, it may be easy to understand why
people use computers and the internet so frequently, and for such long periods of time.
During the moments we are interacting with technology, our senses are being occupied
with substantial amounts information.
This may also provide concern for some educators regarding whether or not to
employ heavy use of technology in the classroom environment. This could relate to a
psychological process known as instrumental or operant conditioning which, in simple
terms, means if you do something and are either rewarded punished for it, then you will
be more, or less likely to do it again in the future, respectively. (Cooper, Heron and
Heward 41-42). This process of conditioning involves what is known as a three term
contingency. The first of the three is called a discriminative stimulus. All that means is
that the presence of this object or thing – the stimulus- evokes a specific type of
Shank 4
response, or reaction (Cooper, Heron and Heward 41-42). For example, if you tell your
friend a joke and he laughs, the presence of your friend will most likely encourage you to
tell other jokes in order to be rewarded with laughter again. In this case, a computer will
act as our discriminative stimulus. By clicking an icon with a mouse, typing words into
search engines, and checking Facebook, one is acting or responding in a way to get the
desired outcome. In this situation, the response is the second term in the three-term
contingency. Finally, the third is the reason one would do things like typing and clicking
– for the immediate reinforcer, or the reward of instantly finding information or
confirming a purchase from a website among other things. So we have the computer
that evokes the response of clicking and typing, thus resulting in the reward of
information (Cooper, Heron and Heward 41-42).
Repeated pairings of computer use with the rewards obtained from performing
leisure activities could very well condition an individual to associate that machine with
mostly pleasurable experiences. A comparable situation could relate to insomnia. Doing
things in bed other than sleeping or sex can cause an individual to associate being in bed
with the rewards or pleasures of those other activities, making it more difficult to fall
asleep due to those other repeated associations (Mazur 248). In the case of
incorporating technology into the learning environment, it allows for the probability
that deep attention would be difficult to accomplish when, for example, substituting
physical paper books with documents on the computer. This is because of all the other
activities requiring hyper attention that have over time been associated with the use of
computers and other technology.
It seems to me this is where those who favor deep attention and media like books,
and those who favor hyper attention and technology must, at least temporarily, reach an
Shank 5
impasse. Deep attention has its advantages of being able to focus on specific tasks for
long periods of time, but technology is becoming such an essential cog in the inner
workings of society that removing it would cause more problems than it would solve.
Although I am a part of this generation of technology, I cannot completely side with one
or the other. There may certainly be solutions to this dilemma that we have not yet
conceived or researched enough to solve this situation. Perhaps it is the exponentially
improving technology itself that will allow us to discover and invent the new processes
and procedures we must take to put an end to this societal concern.
Shank 6
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas G. The shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains. New York:
W.W. Norton, 2010. 117. Print.
Cooper, John O., Timothy E. Heron, and William L. Heward. Applied Behavior
Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall, 2007. 41-42.
Print.
Hayles, N. K. "Hyper and Deep Attention: the Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes."
Profession (2007). 187-188. Print.
Mazur, James E. Learning and Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice
Hall, 2006. 132+. Print.
Parke, Ross D., and Mary Gauvain. Child Psychology: a Contemporary Viewpoint.
Boston: McGraw Hill, 2009. 565-66. Print.
Rosen, Christine. "The Myth of Multitasking." The New Atlantis (2008): 1. Print.