Doug caught aimbotting on speaknow. Discuss.

[Baker]

the preacher said the average attention span used to be 15 minutes and now it is 2 minutes. i haven't researched that but i believe it. we have TVs everywhere now, even in the car, the airport lounge, and our pockets, so we require everything to stimulate us as much as a TV does. if it doesn't, we're incapable of paying attention.

I think humans require constant stimulation and the perception of reduced attention span probably relates to more options being available in the modern world, not a change in humans.

When I first discovered Wikipedia, for instance, I probably spent hours on end looking up information I always wanted to know (Higgs Boson, Bose–Einstein condensates, biology stuff, superstring theory, etc).

I think humans (and most or all larger animals) have a built-in regulator that tells us whether or not an activity is fulfilling some desire, and rifles through the options available.

As far as this relates to education, I think some of this could be solved by making the process of education more entertaining or explaining the relevance so there is a greater connection between the effort of learning X and how it can be applied.

[foq]

lol I have a shitty attention span but I don't have ADHD either

[Baker]

I'll probably have to wait for Stung to tell us more on this. There may be significant distinctions between the different things non-medical people think of as being under the ADHD/ADD umbrella. My entire post could be worthless if Stung has some medical knowledge on this that sheds light on it.

Case in point, it is my understanding that until very recently (2002?), even in the medical profession, "common perception" was that stomach ulcers were caused by what you ate and then someone in the medical field proposed it was caused by a specific bacteria and later proved it.

The best I was able to do for a link to this:

http://www.gicare.com/pated/ecdgs09.htm

Another example. There is a lot of public misinformation about what causes acne and such. almost without exception, it is caused by bacteria and a simple anti-biotic can eradicate it within days (or sometimes even overnight --- not a joke).

[Stung]

Yes, orphanages in Romania were used to show that kids would die without constant stimulation in many studies, as focused on by Harvard psychiatrists, NYU Professor Tancredi, and many others. Your analogy has validity in terms of a possible false cause fallacy (in ulcers) of stimulation causing problems in attention span to some extent as well...

My long scrolling explanation as to my understanding follows:

It really comes down to the instructionalist vs selectionist argument in the neurobiological world, as to the cause of ADD/ADHD. Environmental instructionalists see more influence by the environment on how the brain works, whereas selectionists stay more along the lines of genetics and natural selection.

As there has been found validity on both sides of the nature vs. nurture argument, there is also validity on both sides of the instructionalism vs. selectionism, making it more of a false dichotomy. In other words, it's not a matter of nature vs. nurture, but nature and nurture, in the same way it is a matter of instructionalism and selectionism. The environment most likely has changed the way our brains develop, but to what degree is debatable. In other words, it's hard to say for sure that humans have changed in such a largely negative manner in terms of attention span when attentional disorders were only first recognized I believe in 1968. What we could be talking about here is a graph where an absolute maximum for attention span resides in an appropriate level of stimulation, and too much or too little could cause ADHD/ADD.

This is precisely why the different "versions" of attention deficits need to be further specified, so we can really conclude whether or not ADD/ADHD has been on the rise or fall historically, and whether or not a form of overstimulation actually contributes to it.

I know I didn't give a concrete answer, but there isn't one to give right now that I'm aware is widely accepted

[Baker]

It really comes down to the instructionalist vs selectionist argument in the neurobiological world, as to the cause of ADD/ADHD. Environmental instructionalists see more influence by the environment on how the brain works, whereas selectionists stay more along the lines of genetics and natural selection.

As there has been found validity on both sides of the nature vs. nurture argument, there is also validity on both sides of the instructionalism vs. selectionism, making it more of a false dichotomy. In other words, it's not a matter of nature vs. nurture, but nature and nurture, in the same way it is a matter of instructionalism and selectionism. The environment most likely has changed the way our brains develop, but to what degree is debatable.

I tend to think that environment is the 90% and biology is the 10%. But I've seen instances that strongly contradict this.

I was told by someone who was in some sort of child development field that unbelievably most of a child's personality is formed within the first 5 years.

Somewhere, someday, they will get to the bottom of all of this.

Anthropologists say that humans have a great degree plasticity in that they can adapt very well to a very broad set of circumstances, both biologically and mentally.

I personally do not believe a gene shift could have occurred in the last 50 years. An environmental or nutritional shift is a little plausible, and so is general health.

But the thing is, supposedly humans have not genetically changed significantly much in the last 10,000 years according to analysis of blood type distribution and the study of related things.

So that tends to indicate the environment.

And I do find both the source of behavior/learning and issues like ADHD to be very interesting issues, and it really pisses me off when I hear of kids being medicated for what appears to be just a case that they get bored easily, learn quickly and only use their concentration on things they like.

In other words, it's hard to say for sure that humans have changed in such a largely negative manner in terms of attention span when attentional disorders were only first recognized I believe in 1968.

Well, I do have to say I take issue with the issue of the word negative in there.

From a scientific point of view, we don't know if something is positive or negative, we can only observe that a change has occurred.

I think that the change that is occurring means that children learn faster than before and I think they are outgrowing the curriculum. Just as children today learn faster than, say, children in the 1950's, I believe this process is rapidly accelerating.

Culture/Civilization - I separated this for clarity.

What I believe is occurring is a super-spike of human learning activity. There is a substantial body of observational evidence that this is occurring.

You can roughly gauge a civilization by 3 factors:

1. The size of the population
2. The body of knowledge available
3. The speed of information dissemination and evaluation

What we see in the modern world is

1. An increase of the population.
1b. A rapid increase of the informal education level via the internet

2. An increase of the body of knowledge available via the internet. And things are getting cheaper (public accessibility to research, things like Google books, free websites, free blogs, free file uploads, free source code aka Open Source, half.com/ebay, etc.)

3. The speed of transmission is ever increasing. Cell phones are ubiquitous and now on the internet, very few people use email as their primary means of communication because it is too slow.

The above is leading to an exponential spike in the growth of knowledge related activity.

Case in point, you see political stories like in the primaries become old news within 3 or 4 hours. Maybe 5 years ago it was 24 hours. Maybe 10 years ago (newspapers) it was a day or 2 and maybe 20 years ago it was a week (time magazine and other periodicals).

Maybe this decrease of attention span is a positive and normal thing to adapt to this more educated and more entertaining/interesting world.

Consider this:

It has been scientifically proven by economic theory that the proper way to adapt to an information rich environment (where competition is not based on exclusive access to knowledge) is by diversification. Otherwise you have several parties (businesses or individuals) focusing on the same area of research; instead the proper action is to nichify (yeah that isn't a word).

This is sort of the equivalent to adaptive radiation where a single species diverges to focus on several different little niche environments.

Except that with humans where maybe this is part of our psyche that wants us to all be important and special in our little way so we unconsciously seek out interests us in a way that also makes us unique.

We see this in ever more specialized fields of medicine, ever more specialized fields of physics, etc.

/Yeah long post, end of book :d

[Stung]

More recent authorities suggest genetic to be at most 50% of the equation. This includes I believe Joseph Ledoux, Tancredi of NYU, and some others whom I can't name since I'm tired.

The use of the term negative meaning creating a disorder, as ADD would be, as it is Attention Deficit Disorder. It certainly is not a practical advantage when it comes to academia or the world of employment, which is the primary criteria for the issue (its practicality). Your point may be that our general curriculum and society needs to change or catch up, which is something to consider, but my high school gpa and prior vocational experience (unmedicated) vs. my ACT scores and UW GPA while medicated & properly diagnosed, anecdotally leads me to agree with the DSM-IV that it is a disorder.

Also, many anthropological studies suggest our evolution has been accelerated in the last 2000 years, because of a lack of genetic flow between humans that populate our origins (Tanzania, Somalia) and the allopatric radiation we've experienced. I've seen several articles from journals summarized on ScienceDaily.com that deal with this.

[Baker]

my high school gpa and prior vocational experience (unmedicated) vs. my ACT scores and UW GPA while medicated & properly diagnosed, anecdotally leads me to agree with the DSM-IV that it is a disorder.

Hehe, ok I'll admit it. I'm ADHD too, haha. I was thinking about saying it and then backed off.

Well, damn. I might have to ask what medications are available if you say they work better.

In 2003, after taking several double-full-time quarters at Ohio State back-to-back-to-back, to finish up I decided to make it interesting and took a quadruple-full-time quarter in Summer '03 just to see if I could do it. (Yes, Ohio State uses quarters instead of semesters).

I had to get special permission and then proceeded to sign up for 10 classes. A couple of times during that summer, I faced situations where I was staring at the clock at 2am with 4 papers I had to write, but I put on my game face and toughed it out knowing that I'd be able to sleep the next day I almost laughed at the absurdity of what I was doing and found it incredibly amusing.

But in reality, I often find my concentration lacking but fear that some sort of medication would take away my determination.

[spooker]

don't go down the road of medication unless you absolutely have to. i also am medicated for something psychological (wont say what), and my dependence on the pills is the thing that i hate most about myself. it really disturbs me that contemporary people need so many more things than our ancestors needed, even 50 years ago. the multiplication of needs and desires..... this is called progress?

back to attention span. we all know the world is getting faster, employers demand more hours than was normal even 20 years ago, gadgets are everywhere; soon we will be electronically stimulated from when we wake up till when we go to bed, 365 days a year. since so many things demand attention so much quicker, it's natural that one will develop a habit of constantly shifting attention from one thing to another; in time, one's ability to focus on any one thing for a long period of time is eroded.
I was at a restaurant the other night and i saw this big family eating, and there was a baby, 1-2 years old, strapped down in a chair with a dvd playing inches from his face so he would be distracted and wouldn't be a nuisance. it really bothered me. does this kid have dvds playing all day? what will he do if, by some odd chance, there comes a minute when he can't be stimulated? when it comes time to pay attention to something that doesn't pop and whistle every millisecond, like for example a teacher or a book, is he going to fall asleep?
with this kind of stuff going on, i think something is lost; ie a sense of being centered and feeling peaceful

[Stung]

Quite an interesting tale Baker. I hadn't realized you attended a Big Ten school.

Spooker is right in general though. Medication should be used conservatively.

Unfortunately I've nothing more to add other than this nifty link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0226213448.htm

Parental Instinctual Area "Found", aka corroborated enough to accept as a fact. It has been known for a while that the medial ofPFC plays a role in emotional modulation, and that biochemicals like oxytocin (females), beta-endorphins (mainly females), and vasopressin (males), augment attachments, and that the "maternal instinct" is reliant on these. This is why, pretty much universally, mothers will not abandon their kids unless addicts (and won't neglect unless biochemically depressed). Nifty trick of nature eh? Utilizing the good ole biochemistry to keep us in line.

[=peg=]

Thumbs up to baker for transforming this pointless thread into an interesting one

I bet omi is gonna jump in now and start bashing on doug all over again, just to revert all the attention back to him.. but .. ah well it was good while it lasted

[Baker]

Thumbs up to baker for transforming this pointless thread into an interesting one

Was Stung, not me.

[Phenom]

Was Stung, not me.

Hail to the king baby

[=peg=]

actually i think baker deliberately tried to derail the thread by drawing stung's attention away from the bullsit

/Yeah, off topic from the thread

[Baker]

actually i think baker deliberately tried to derail the thread by drawing stung's attention away from the bullsit

Nope, I like Stung's deep thought and empirical evidence for what he thinks and like talking to him.

The world seems to be infinitely complicated and I like trying to understand some the inner mysteries out there of how and why the world is the way it is.

[Stung]

Likewise, sir.

Anyway back to being at Ohio State..what was your major and any other interesting courses you took along the way worth noting?