Comment by tablespoon
3 years ago
> I've noticed this trend following very "busy" 1800s signs/newspapers/etc up to now. People back then weren't addicted to fast and easy dopamine and had the mental space to parse something with detail on it.
I've recently been reading Amusing Ourselves to Death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death), and it noted that in the 1800s America has a "literate" culture: people read a lot and had correspondingly longer attention spans. Apparently attending debates and lectures were a fairly common activity, and those went on for hours, with each side having plenty of time to express complete and complex thoughts, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate...:
> Each debate lasted about three hours; one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, followed by a 90-minute response and a final 30-minute rejoinder by the first candidate. The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates....
> The debates took place between August and October 1858. Newspapers reported 12,000 in attendance at Ottawa,[7] 16,000 to 18,000 in Galesburg,[4] 15,000 in Freeport,[8] 12,000 in Quincy, and at the last one, in Alton, 5,000 to 10,000.[6] The debates near Illinois's borders (Freeport, Quincy, and Alton) drew large numbers of people from neighboring states.[9][full citation needed][10] A number travelled within Illinois to follow the debates.[7]
I have already linked it ( https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790.amp ), but attention span itself didn’t decrease, it’s not even an existing concept. Media producers just got better at maximizing our engagement with their content, and comparatively a plain old book will be boring to our brains. This thought actually did help me in that I can’t fall victim of “learned helplessness” here, just put that phone down and work on the thing you want. Focus modes are also very beneficial.
Nonetheless, interesting historical fact, thanks for sharing!