Скачать с ютуб Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus? в хорошем качестве

Have We Lost Our Ability to Focus?

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 Again https://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Focus-A... 23-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.) https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net... 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.) https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net... Teenagers’ 65-second stat source: Journal of Communication study on media multitasking (Focused on college students, not teenagers) https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-... 5.4 hours on their phone stat: Survey by Provision Living, cited by Zdnet (Limited sample of millennials & baby boomers; no full report available.) https://www.zdnet.com/article/america... 17-minute reading stat: American Time Use Survey (Varies by age and reading type; does not necessarily include digital reading.) https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-t... Speaking faster stat: Study of Norwegian parliamentary stenographers (Measured stenography speed, not natural speech; limited scope.) https://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2... Walking faster stat: Discussed in this article https://www.reuters.com/article/lifes... and also in this blog (Sampled 70 people per city; outdated and narrow scope.) http://www.richardwiseman.com/quirkol... #misinformation #factcheck #research #data #bookreview #focus #attentionspan