• Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus?

  • 2025/02/25
  • 再生時間： 29 分
  • ポッドキャスト

Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus?

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

  • サマリー

  • A New York Times bestseller. Big, dramatic stats. And a research scavenger hunt that left me questioning everything (except my ability to focus). This week, we’re breaking down a 2022 book that recently went viral: the viral book Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention--and How to Think Deeply Again—a book that claims to be “beautifully researched” and endorsed by some of the biggest names in media and politics. But when I started looking into the statistics being repeated on TikTok, I ran into a problem: no one seemed to know where they actually came from… other than the book. So, in rare form, I bought the book and set off on a citation scavenger hunt—and let me tell you, things got weird. 🔎 In this episode, we’ll uncover: A bizarrely confusing citation system that makes fact-checking as you read insanely frustrating (and wondering what the author is hiding)How a claim about “23 minutes to refocus after an interruption” leads to a study where… that number isn’t actually there.A controversial stat about teenagers’ attention spans used in marketing the book that is… well definitely different than what you’re thinking.A “5.4 hours on phones vs. 17 minutes reading” claim that falls apart under scrutiny.The absurd research trail behind claims that people speak and walk faster today. More importantly, we’ll ask: Why major publishers let research-based books use cherry-picked, out-of-context studies to push a narrative? Why media outlets repeat these claims without verifying them. And, Why does the burden of fact-checking always fall on us—the readers? This episode is a deep dive into misleading research, bad citations, and how viral misinformation thrives. Listen in, and remember: Just because a stat goes viral doesn’t mean it’s true. Referenced: The Book: Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention--and How to Think Deeply Again23-minute refocus stat (cited in Stolen Focus): Gloria Mark’s 2015 conference paper (This paper cites 23 minutes but does not contain original research for this number.)23-minute refocus stat (earlier source cited in the 2015 paper): Gloria Mark’s 2005 conference paper (This paper does not contain the 23-minute stat at all—stat appears to have drifted.)Teenagers’ 65-second stat source: Journal of Communication study on media multitasking (Focused on college students, not teenagers)5.4 hours on their phone stat: Survey by Provision Living, cited by Zdnet (Limited sample of millennials & baby boomers; no full report available.)17-minute reading stat: American Time Use Survey (Varies by age and reading type; does not necessarily include digital reading.)Speaking faster stat: Study of Norwegian parliamentary stenographers (Measured stenography speed, not natural speech; limited scope.)Walking faster stat: Discussed in this article and also in this blog (Sampled 70 people per city; outdated and narrow scope.)
    続きを読む 一部表示

あらすじ・解説

A New York Times bestseller. Big, dramatic stats. And a research scavenger hunt that left me questioning everything (except my ability to focus). This week, we’re breaking down a 2022 book that recently went viral: the viral book Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention--and How to Think Deeply Again—a book that claims to be “beautifully researched” and endorsed by some of the biggest names in media and politics. But when I started looking into the statistics being repeated on TikTok, I ran into a problem: no one seemed to know where they actually came from… other than the book. So, in rare form, I bought the book and set off on a citation scavenger hunt—and let me tell you, things got weird. 🔎 In this episode, we’ll uncover: A bizarrely confusing citation system that makes fact-checking as you read insanely frustrating (and wondering what the author is hiding)How a claim about “23 minutes to refocus after an interruption” leads to a study where… that number isn’t actually there.A controversial stat about teenagers’ attention spans used in marketing the book that is… well definitely different than what you’re thinking.A “5.4 hours on phones vs. 17 minutes reading” claim that falls apart under scrutiny.The absurd research trail behind claims that people speak and walk faster today. More importantly, we’ll ask: Why major publishers let research-based books use cherry-picked, out-of-context studies to push a narrative? Why media outlets repeat these claims without verifying them. And, Why does the burden of fact-checking always fall on us—the readers? This episode is a deep dive into misleading research, bad citations, and how viral misinformation thrives. Listen in, and remember: Just because a stat goes viral doesn’t mean it’s true. Referenced: The Book: Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention--and How to Think Deeply Again23-minute refocus stat (cited in Stolen Focus): Gloria Mark’s 2015 conference paper (This paper cites 23 minutes but does not contain original research for this number.)23-minute refocus stat (earlier source cited in the 2015 paper): Gloria Mark’s 2005 conference paper (This paper does not contain the 23-minute stat at all—stat appears to have drifted.)Teenagers’ 65-second stat source: Journal of Communication study on media multitasking (Focused on college students, not teenagers)5.4 hours on their phone stat: Survey by Provision Living, cited by Zdnet (Limited sample of millennials & baby boomers; no full report available.)17-minute reading stat: American Time Use Survey (Varies by age and reading type; does not necessarily include digital reading.)Speaking faster stat: Study of Norwegian parliamentary stenographers (Measured stenography speed, not natural speech; limited scope.)Walking faster stat: Discussed in this article and also in this blog (Sampled 70 people per city; outdated and narrow scope.)
続きを読む 一部表示

Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus?に寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー：以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。

Audible.co.jp

Amazon.co.jp
レビューはまだありません。