Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

Does this factor in the impact of constant instant-gratification of whatever is done on that screen?

Because (subjectively) I can see how children with lots of screen-time have a harder time with activities which do not lead to immediate dopamine release, like reading, listening to a story, drawing, etc., while children with low/no screen-time can derive satisfaction already from the process of doing something.

Edit: I'd say none of this impacts "brain function or well-being" directly, as both CAN do tasks without instant gratification, it's just that children with lots of screen-time perceive them vastly different from my personal observation.

View on HN

Children and everyone else … I can’t watch a movie anymore without either reading something or playing chess at the same time just to up the frequency of those hits.

Indeed. I guess measurement of your "brain function or well-being" might not show any difference, but the way you perceive those activities might have changed completely.

I have a similar observation regarding Movies. Funny how this can be improved by watching a movie in cinema, a purpose of cinema which silently grows while the original purpose of "better audio/video experience" is fading...

there is James Cameron quote, something to the effect of "a movie ticket is a contract between you and the director that you're going to give this uninterrupted attention"

Brilliant. When I buy I physical book, I make a contract between myself and author. But without the third party intermediary (in Cameron’s case, the cinema) screen time sneaks in and invalidates my contractual obligations.

But why is that so bad? Movies retell the same story with the same beats over and over again. I think we should be more concerned about people who can focus on something repetitive for extended periods. What's wrong with them?

Maybe you should try expanding your cinematic repertoire, if that's the impression you have of movies?

I'm saying this genuinely, not to make a snide point or anything. There are some really good movies out there that aren't just "the same beats over and over again." If, say, you're only watching big studio blockbusters, try branching out into smaller dramas, that kind of thing.

I think what the person you are replying to might be alluding to is "The Seven Basic Plots" theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots

"Beat for beat" might be a bit unfair but even then there are traditional structures such as "The Hero's Journey" that are commonly used by writer's both in and out of Hollywood.

That said, even if structure and a finite number of plots is true, there is still a wide variety of artistic potential from characterization to setting to art style.

I will say, however, that the older I get the more "familiar" things feel. Even when I'm watching non-blockbuster stuff. I'm pretty sure this is just the result of having watched more movies throughout my life. My standards are getting higher and my pattern recognition toolset is widening. And since I have dabbled in writing myself, I tend to recognize formulas when they are being applied ... even if the movie is not a cookie-cutter Hollywood factory-produced summer blockbuster.

The last movie I thoroughly enjoyed was (you're going to laugh and I'm OK with that):

Hardcore Henry

Frenetic, insane, indulgent, madness. Loved it. Can stand most blockbusters, can't stand most dramas.

I agree. It had serious flaws, and yet joyfully held my attention. Not because of the action, but because it had novelty. It wasn't a bland reshuffling of the same 12 approved characters in the 6 approved plots in the same 3 styles that most movies and shows seem to be permutations of.

A lot of rough edges can be forgiven for just a little bit of mad creativity.

Not being able to focus on 'boring' tasks is bad.

When I had an addiction to social media, I could not enjoy 'slow' things. I also felt anxiety and depression. After detoxing I am again able to enjoy the 'slow' things, like taking time to learn and resisting instant gratification hits.

Watching a movie sometimes requires 'getting into it' before you can really appreciate it.

Most of our jobs are repetitive tasks. Even something like being a race car driver is repetitive and 'boring'. In order to be fast you have to practice the same track layout hundreds of times to find the optimal racing line and braking points. Without boring there is no glory.

If everyone found joy in boring tasks, wed never advance as a society. All progress is through laziness.

Your statement is not logical as all progress definitely is not through laziness.

We didn't go to the moon due to laziness. We don't build planes, trains, and skyscrapers due to laziness. We didn't invent vaccines or nuclear physics due to laziness. We don't write standards or encyclopedias or novels due to laziness.

I'd suggest most of our progress was actually made by grinding through boring tasks. Many (most?) lazy people do not drive much progress.

A movie is not just what story beats it contains. If that is all you consider a movie is, then I suppose you might as well just read the wiki summaries of every movie.

But I wouldn't dismiss an entire form of complex expression because of an inability or unwillingness to engage with it at its level.

A movie is the visuals, the acting, the sound, the camera movements/editing, etc and how it all comes together to essentially give you a 2d slice of a person's realized thoughts.

I love many movies. I have a huge collection. But there are also plenty of movies I will not bother giving my full attention because they're not worth it. If people struggle to give full attention to movies they actually find engaging and want to give their full attention, then that is an issue. If people feel they get more value from not giving a movie their full attention, that's a perfectly reasonable choice.

Two thoughts:

- watching a move is screen time

- movies aren’t as captivating anymore

As someone who doesn't abuse the phone, and mostly works on a computer I have this same issue. It is rare for me to be able to enjoy a movie.

Im of the opinion that the quality of content is hot garbage on a good day and actual entertainment is rare now.

I feel this as well (which isn't to say it's true I suppose) about most content, but yes; especially modern movies. It seems like it's nearly all formulaic drivel made to satisfy some algorithm. Of course, it's also possible that's just me getting older - I can imagine some old man making a similar complaint. But I can't help but think there really is something going on.

I recently watched Willem Dafoe in "Inside" and while it's not really a cinematic experience that could be called pleasant, I was actually satisfied at the end of it because it actually felt creative.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. We now have way more content to choose from but the problem now is to be able to select what is worthwhile. They call it attention economy and that's pretty much why. You have limited attention, if you use it on some random crap, you can't use it for something better (that you didn't notice or wasn't as easily accessible).

A friend of mine gets pissed off when I fall asleep in front of half the movies, he asks me to watch, but the reality is that those movies are bargain bin low quality comedies (or worse, documentaries) and its better use of my time to sleep than bother with it. It's actually one of my sleeping strategies, to empty my brain of thoughts, so...

I don't think there is a major problem with attention, neither in children or adults; it's just that it's a lot harder to sort through what is worth your attention and after some willpower is spent to choose something it doesn't get overthrown because of the psychology of commitment. But it is not worth paying attention, so people use whatever is around them to not completely waste time.

In my opinion inattentive children in classrooms has a lot more to do with teachers being bad and lack of physical activities than a problem with the kids. But teachers are politically untouchable nowadays and you can't ask them to actually be competitive or get fired. The pay is also progressive and equal regardless of actual performance, so you get terrible people who cannot keep kids' attention because they suck; but then we blame the kids. Sure.

I don't think this is a problem with you, rather with the content. I'm more likely to not do anything else when I rewatch a movie I like then when I watch a new tv show that's average.

Some shows are just super slow or full of unnecessary stuff and they try to sell those portions as "art"

This may be the major distinction that is missing. We don't talk about what someone is doing on the screen. Some activities are better than others. Me play Path of Exile -- not great. Reading HN -- potentially not a time sink. Watching a documentary on deadly snakes -- mild time waster. Reading Terry Pratchett for 20x time -- endless joy.

edit: I guess my real point is that it is all in the eye of the beholder. I know my parents hated me playing games.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com