I notice it in my own life for sure. I read more now, but I read a lot fewer books, and I spend less time thinking about what I read: I tend to leap to the next shiny thing.
I know what you mean, and I have the same problem. I think that the big difference between the present and the past is that the monetary value of our attention has increased dramatically, and companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars just to get us to look at them. It takes a lot of discipline to keep yourself from looking at a trillion-dollar lightshow.
I just don't buy the premise of this article, which is that because of all of these distractions, people are no longer grappling with big ideas. To extend your grocery store metaphor, it's as if the author were to argue that because there are so many candy bars, vegetables no longer exist. He mentions Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould as examples of people who would be superstar public intellectuals in an earlier time period, but I think that they are now. This is pure conjecture on my part, but I think that the percentage of the population that knows who Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould are is higher than the percentage of the population that knew who Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes were when they were active. In fact, I would venture a guess that Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes are also more well-known now than they were in their day. It's a lot easier for big ideas to reach the general public through the Internet than through old media and local word-of-mouth. Most of these people will never penetrate beyond the surface level, but at least they're aware that these big discussions exist. For the people who want to go deeper, they still can, will, and are, even if it means taking dramatic measures to focus their attention.
I don't think he means people are no longer grappling with big ideas. He is saying the people that are "thinking big" are not being recognized due to the huge information overload. We are focusing less on whats important and more on what generates buzz.
I know what you mean, and I have the same problem. I think that the big difference between the present and the past is that the monetary value of our attention has increased dramatically, and companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars just to get us to look at them. It takes a lot of discipline to keep yourself from looking at a trillion-dollar lightshow.
I just don't buy the premise of this article, which is that because of all of these distractions, people are no longer grappling with big ideas. To extend your grocery store metaphor, it's as if the author were to argue that because there are so many candy bars, vegetables no longer exist. He mentions Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould as examples of people who would be superstar public intellectuals in an earlier time period, but I think that they are now. This is pure conjecture on my part, but I think that the percentage of the population that knows who Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould are is higher than the percentage of the population that knew who Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes were when they were active. In fact, I would venture a guess that Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes are also more well-known now than they were in their day. It's a lot easier for big ideas to reach the general public through the Internet than through old media and local word-of-mouth. Most of these people will never penetrate beyond the surface level, but at least they're aware that these big discussions exist. For the people who want to go deeper, they still can, will, and are, even if it means taking dramatic measures to focus their attention.