4 ms·

Another commenter mentioned that modern humans are exposed to more content, and necessarily we must apply filters. I would go further to suggest that not only

Another commenter mentioned that modern humans are exposed to more content, and necessarily we must apply filters. I would go further to suggest that not only is there more content, but that content is expressed in a manner intended to only consume a brief amount of attention. Typically, such content is also presented in a way that encourages the user to continue providing their attention, except that their attention is directed to new content. And so while it may be argued that the person "is still paying attention", the rules of attention are simply different when engaging with such content. To be clear, I find such touch-and-go content to be generally reprehensible. It lacks nuance, and leaves little room for intelligent discourse. I am simply pointing out that it's very possible that humans are just as capable as they've always been, and it is simply the medium that has changed.

janalsncm 3y ago
I find a lot of content online (videos and blogs) as well as offline (various books) are too long to the point of being disrespectful of my time. If you’re writing a blog and incentivized to stuff in as many SEO terms as possible, you will do so at the expense of my time and irritation. If you need to make a 10 minute video but really only have 2 minutes of content, you value those 8 minutes of my life at zero and unless I do to, I’m skipping through the filler. Same thing with books. If your book contains one central argument, respect your reader enough to cut out the fat. I don’t need a comprehensive history of the subject if your argument can boil down to a few paragraphs.
- jesterson 3y ago
  > Same thing with books. If your book contains one central argument, respect your reader enough to cut out the fat. I don’t need a comprehensive history of the subject if your argument can boil down to a few paragraphs. I tend to politely disagree with that. In most cases "comprehensive history of the subject" is important to understand the subject fully and, most importantly, reasons for the argument. Currently we have endemic of people who suggest doing thing in particular way, but when you question reasoning, there will be no answer. It's picking up ideas here and there without understanding of premises, and it's very dangerous because idea without premises is likely inapplicable to slightly changed premises.

janalsncm 3y ago

I find a lot of content online (videos and blogs) as well as offline (various books) are too long to the point of being disrespectful of my time. If you’re writing a blog and incentivized to stuff in as many SEO terms as possible, you will do so at the expense of my time and irritation. If you need to make a 10 minute video but really only have 2 minutes of content, you value those 8 minutes of my life at zero and unless I do to, I’m skipping through the filler. Same thing with books. If your book contains one central argument, respect your reader enough to cut out the fat. I don’t need a comprehensive history of the subject if your argument can boil down to a few paragraphs.

jesterson 3y ago
> Same thing with books. If your book contains one central argument, respect your reader enough to cut out the fat. I don’t need a comprehensive history of the subject if your argument can boil down to a few paragraphs. I tend to politely disagree with that. In most cases "comprehensive history of the subject" is important to understand the subject fully and, most importantly, reasons for the argument. Currently we have endemic of people who suggest doing thing in particular way, but when you question reasoning, there will be no answer. It's picking up ideas here and there without understanding of premises, and it's very dangerous because idea without premises is likely inapplicable to slightly changed premises.