Alex Williams
Emerson
English Composition 110 H6
10/27/17
Split-Brained
Everyone struggles with distraction. It is bound to happen and usually there is no harm done. This is because distraction is not a conscious choice we make; at least, when it happens, people tend to not think about it. Being distracted is more about our surroundings than it is about ourselves. Because people live in a world where distraction is so widely accepted andbecause we have been conditioned to live with it, it is not entirely our fault when we become distracted. It is now the way of life, so the blame can not be put on just that one person. Furthermore, it is not a choice we are making for ourselves when it gets to that point. There are all kinds of distraction; the one that is overwhelming in today’s society is the distraction that comes with and from technology. This type of distraction is unsafe to the individual in question, and it can also become a danger to the people around. It also provides a platform for accepting previously abnormal “disorders,” and it deceives people into longing to be constantly connected to one another. These are the outcomes we would be accepting if society were to welcome a more tech-driven world. Again, this seems to be very harmful and detrimental to the world we live in now. Many arguments are made in favor of a more tech-distracted world, but the benefits do not outweigh their consequences.
Even though ADHD and ADD are more understood and accepted in society, this does not give everybody an excuse to act and be distracted all the time and blame it on a disorder they do not actually have. It is explained in a chapter of Richard Restak’s book, The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewriting Your Mind, that the more “dysfunctional” characteristics that were once made to be isolated in these disorders are actually becoming the “norm” nowadays. Some of the traits mentioned are “hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and easy distractibility” (Restak 377). One should see that more impulsiveness in an already unsure and mysterious world is not necessarily positive; it is the same with the other two attributes. When people become adults, they will have learned to stick a pin in it, so to speak. Restak does not argue in this statement that this is a good or bad thing, but with him being a doctor, he can obviously see the biologically physical problem society is facing. This is what society in turn needs to do as well. Society needs to recognize that something may not be quite right and then it needs to start looking for a solution to the problem instead of taking the easy way out and accept this as the new way of life. It is a disservice to themselves if they do not act on this problem. While the world is becoming more uninhibited and distracted, society can change that course. Instead of passing something off as just a disability, maybe there is something out there that they can do to fix the problem. If we become more accepting and lenient with how we treat people with these tendencies, it would be an irresponsibility on the rest of society’s part.
Sam Anderson, the author of a magazine article titled “In Defense of Distraction,” provides a somewhat shocking piece of information to those who believe they are not distracted when doing multiple things at once. Anderson says
“…when forced to multitask, the overloaded brain shifts its processing from the hippocampus (responsible for memory) to the striatum (responsible for rote tasks), making it hard to learn a task or even recall what you’ve been doing once you’re done”(Anderson 3).
So not only is distraction derived from something as seemingly simple as multitasking, but it also changes the way our brain processes information. One would think that after learning about these implications, they would try to make a difference in how they live their life and try not to be as dependent on technology, but this is not the case. Thomas King, a recent high school graduate in the city of Melbourne, is generally progressive when it comes to technological advancement. But looking back at a statement from King in his TEDx Talk “Adults, We Need To Have The Talk,” he said that the way we live our lives, the way we work has changed so much because of “digital disruption” and “artificial intelligence” and that it has even caused a “shift in [our] mindset” (King 1). This can definitely be backed up by what Anderson said in how people’s literal brains have changed due to the pressures society puts on them. If people put a hold on their minds (due to them not functioning at prime condition), then how is this country supposed to progress and keep up with others?
Of course, these traits can be fine when they are just quirks of a person’s character. It becomes a problem when it is integral and when it is in excess. Everything done in moderation keeps the peace. When it is just an oddity, it is so small that if it affects someone, it is hardly ever negative. When something starts to become a major part of who a person is, it is easier for a problem to arise because it can prevent that individual from living an effective life.
Winifred Gallagher, cancer survivor and author of the book Rapt which talks about the “power of attention,” brought up in Anderson’s article that “… attention is a limited resource…” (Anderson 5-6). If it is indeed true that attention as a resource is limited, then why are people giving up that for a resource that is constant: Technology? Almost everyone is constantly connected to the cyber-world because of the little devices in their pockets, the machines that sit on their laps and desks, and the technology displayed on the walls. Why then, are people wasting what they have very little of? Would the advanced technology even be here if people used their limited resources more often? Probably so. Humans used their limited resources, their knowledge, their focus to invent the technology that will destroy them. Now that technology is not going anywhere, it is time to take a step back and appreciate what is already here.There is no rush for the next iPhone to come out; there is no need for a bigger, better, shinier television. Humanity has gotten to the point where they crave the next big thing and they want to be constantly stimulated by this artificial reality. This is honestly a sad predicament and one would have the right to ask how we all got to this point. Society should just take a moment to look at and appreciate all that it’s accomplished so far.
That all being said, it is definitely not a positive to be connected twenty-four/seven. Our sense of reality has taken a hit. Our physicality has been altered because of technology and it has changed the way we perceive time and space. Something Restak says is “the brain has had to make fundamental adjustments. The demarcation between here and elsewhere has become blurred. Thanks to technology, each of us exists simultaneously in not just one here but in several” (Restak 380). This means that if we do not have a strict sense of “here” and “there,” those two zones lose their meaning. It is easy to imagine this young generation saying something along the lines of “I don’t need to see the Eiffel tower when I can look at it on my phone!” How sad is it that these kids no longer wish to go outside and play and explore but would rather have their face in a screen and watch cartoons? This is also problematic because if people don’t know where they are, where whoever they are talking to is, or where they’re going then they will be completely unaware of their surroundings and be unable to tell if a situation may be dangerous or not. Not only do we give up our physical attention, but our mind will begin to deteriorate and we will be blissfully unaware. The value of location, of where we are and where we want to go, will decrease. However, it is never too late to turn things around; if society works hard enough at a goal, they will achieve it. Society could cut back their dependability on technology, where it is used in excess, and still be fine.
Another excuse people use is unnecessary advancement is the idea of executive functioning. Using “executive functioning” as an out to excuse everybody’s distraction does not work because everyone has a different level they work on. It is said in Anderson’s article that “This attentional self-control, which psychologists call executive function is at the very center of our struggle with attention” (Anderson 5). Part of this struggle has to do with the people that have a low executive function. Those people are separated from the highly functional. The ones that need that extra boost then have to turn to other means to amp their focus which may be harmful.
People are known to use drugs to hone in their attention to get work done. Illegal prescription drugs taken to focus are popular among students, doctors, and teachers. Really, anybody could find an excuse to take them. These people will take drugs meant to help with ADHD (Adderall), Alzheimer’s (Aricept), and narcolepsy (Provigil) (Anderson 8). There is just so much that can go wrong with this path. There is risk of overdose, infection, or even an allergic reaction; furthermore, some if not all of these medications can become addictive. Again, it must be stressed that this is illegal unless the person taking the medication is prescribed it in the first place. Anderson says that “free associative wandering is essential to the creative process,” but is it ethical or moral to allow this even if a person will have to take drugs later on to focus (Anderson 11)?
While it is commendable to advocate for a more creative society, and very few people would genuinely opposed more creativity, it comes off that Anderson condones the behavior of self-medicating to focus so that people can still have their creative edge later on. Because he doesn’t mention the risks of his idea, it seems that he would be okay with people exercising their creative process no matter the consequences.
Lifehacking is another method to help with focus and distraction. Basically, lifehacking is meant to make solutions to problems faster. It is meant for people to use when they have so much to do that cutting down time in doing a task is the only way for things to get done. The problem with lifehacking is that it becomes a distraction of itself. People end up spending so much time looking up these “hacks” that they do not have time to actually put the hacks to use in their everyday lives (Anderson 9). Above all, since the “lifehacking” community has grown and people can add their own pieces of information to the mix, a lot of the tips have become random and useless information that literally nobody would actually use.
Really, the only beneficial (with no consequences) tactic is meditation. Studies have shown that meditating boosts mood and “ positive emotions cause your visual field to expand,” it makes attention less “sticky,” regular meditators’ left prefrontal cortex goes into overdrive, and people who dedicate their life to this lifestyle have produced gamma waves thirty times more powerful than an average meditator (Anderson 6). Nothing mentioned above is negative at all. If there is only one take-away from all of this, remember to meditate!
In all seriousness, though, digital distraction is a serious issue. It has taken lives and it will take many more.Most people probably know someone who was in a car accident where that person got hurt because someone was distracted. This is why so many states have such strict laws on how one can use their phone while they are driving. Illinois for instance has a law where it is illegal to speak on the phone while driving. Missouri on the other hand actually has no law prohibiting that and they have no laws prohibiting adults from texting and driving. Last year, there was a car accident not too far away from Kirksville, Missouri that took the lives of three teenage kids and left one teen seriously injured. The driver was a man in his late twenties. He was drunk and he allowed these kids to ride in the cab of his pickup truck. The man who was driving skidded then proceeded to run off the road where the truck rolled over multiple times. Why did this have to happen? Why is it that when something like this occurs, only then do we spring into action on careless driving? There are car wrecks everyday, and people get distracted all the time. How can someone stand up and advocate for the acceptance of this distraction when people die because of it? It shouldn’t sound right or ethical because it isn’t. No matter how a person is distracted behind the wheel, it is still a very serious issue. While this example was not one of a person who was texting and driving, the point is still made. It does not matter the medium of distraction, be it technology or otherwise, because distraction in many forms can lead to horrible consequences.
Anderson says that our “standards change” (12). When does acceptance of changing standards go too far though? There needs to be a stopping point or a limit. Something thoughtful that Restak says is that “…while some of us may celebrate such experiences and thrive on constantly being connected, others feel the sensation of a giant electronic tentacle that will ensnare us at any moment” (Restak 381). Those people feel that their voices are being taken away and being replaced by atinny and mechanical one. This sort of change happens faster when more people are a part of it, so when enough people are on board with accepting distraction, everybody goes down with them whetherthey like it or not. People no longer have a choice. Given all of these standards society is asked to stoop down to, it’s obvious that doing so is the wrong choice. The problem is, that is where we are headed; how are we supposed to change it then? This is an idea: Be happy with what you have instead of always looking for something “better”; make good habits but don’t go overboard with finding them; trust people who are skeptical of big changes; accept that not everyone will get that being constantly connected is a bad thing and educate those people; and finally, put down the cell phone.
Works Cited
Anderson, Sam. “In Defense of Distraction.” New York Magazine, 17 May 2009.
King, Thomas. “Adults, we need to have the talk.” Youtube. TEDx Melbourne, Nov 2015. Web. October 2017.
Restak, Richard M. “The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewiring Your Mind.” The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewiring Your Mind, Rodale, 2003, pp. 372–386.
