#6: “In Defense of Distraction” – Sam Anderson

Reading this article for English Comp class couldn’t have come at a better time. With the new release of the iPhone XS MAX and the Series 4 Apple Watch, many people have been crazed with the new and upcoming gadgets that they can get their hands on. In today’s world, having technology at our finger tips is something many people have grown accustomed to. Technology, whether on a computer, phone, or another device, continuously provides us with the newest information that we are desperate to hear and know. It also strips us of all our attention, though, which can prohibit productivity and focus. Our lack of attention continues to take over the way we function and forces us to “multitask”, despite our real incapability to do so.

Writer, Sam Anderson, also believes that our lack of attention to doing productive things is hindering our improvement as a society. In his article “In Defense of Distraction”, Anderson supports ideas of David Meyer, a world expert on multitasking. He writes, “… our distraction as a full-blown epidemic – a cognitive plague that has the potential to wipe out an entire generation of focused and productive thought” (4). As more and more people at younger ages have access to technology, the epidemic of distraction continues to spread. What could be a “productive generation” is now growing up with a smart phone in their hands. However, later in the article, Anderson begins to complicate his claims by showing support for distraction. He describes how focusing on a specific thing actually requires distraction because our minds cannot remain focused on a particular aspect of what we are examining. We must constantly change our focus to various parts of the topic. Anderson explains, “Focus is a paradox – it has distraction built into it,” and goes on to explain that it is “…possible that we’re all evolving toward a new techno-cognitive nomadism, a rapidly shifting environment in which restlessness will be an advantage again” (12). Anderson’s argument changes when he suggests that it may be possible that distraction will become advantageous and or a necessity as society lives on.

Before reading this article, I instantly agreed with Anderson about how technology was affecting our lives and that it might not be positive. However, as I continued to read, Anderson’s complicated argument opened my eyes to a new perspective. Many young teens are constantly told to “get off our phones” or to “live in the moment” because we are glued to our video games, phones or laptops. Teens are even criticized for being “obsessed” to the internet and social media. After reading Anderson’s arguments, though, I began to develop a sense of defensiveness about our Snapchat and Instagram loving generation. As Anderson said in his last paragraph, “Kids growing up now might have an associative genius we don’t – a sense of the way ten projects all dovetail into something totally new” (13). I think this quote helps defend teens who are constantly trying to multitask or those who get distracted. We are developing skills that are different from those that our parents and older generations developed. But is that really such a bad thing? Or are we just told it is because those raising us did not have some of the resources that we currently have and cannot see the benefit of them?