In Sam Anderson’s article, “In Defense of Distraction”, he discusses how new advancements of technology and how the prevalence of these products are affecting society. He begins the article by claiming that the internet is creating a “poverty of attention”, or limiting what is left of society’s productive attention. Anderson later complicates his claims and explains how we must “embrace” this poverty and the lack of attention we exhibit is paradoxically related to intense focus (12). I agree with Anderson’s ideas and I understand his contrary perspectives on how our attentive skills are lacking, yet still fostering mindfulness.
Anderson supports his negative claims about technology when he quotes a multitasking expert, comparing distraction to a plague. Anderson writes, “…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). Anderson’s comparison of a plague to our distraction due to technology emphasizes how the use of multiple technology products can be detrimental when trying to be productive and remain focused. I ultimately agree with this claim as the information sheds light on how being distracted by the internet can prohibit the concentration on a specific task.
Later in the article, Anderson begins to develop a different stance on distraction when he explains that “harnessing” our distraction can actually lead to a deeper concentration. He insists that, “… free-associative wandering is essential to the creative process; one moment of judicious unmindfulness can inspire thousands of hours of mindfulness” (11). Anderson urges how important distraction is to creativity. If people do not let their minds wander and be distracted, different interpretations and ideas would not be created. As someone removes their focus from a single idea, they are becoming mindful on a different topic or task. This contrary claim to the first presented argument, changed my perspective on the article. Although I can agree with the negatively claims against technology and distraction, I see the validity within Anderson’s complicated argument.
I strongly agree with you on the fact that we need to let our minds wonder and that by Anderson making this claim it made me question if I disagree or agree with his article. I find myself to be more on the agreeing part, because I think we use our phones as a distraction and without them we would let out minds wonder even more, I think you had very good thoughts on his article!