Quang Anh Tran

Mr. WolIson
RHET 1302.011
12
th
September 2011

The Power oI Distraction

The impacts oI electronic devices a person`s ability to Iocus have been a controversial
topic Ior decades. Since distraction and attention are normally considered two opposite states,
people usually avoid the distractions caused by electronic environment in order to enhance their
power oI attention. However, through his article In Defense of Distraction, Sam Anderson
successIully proves his viewpoint, which encourages us to Iocus on the power oI distraction
rather than that oI attention, by eIIectively addressing a logical counterargument and using a
Iamous author`s experiences in addition to his own.
In Defense of Distraction, which was initially supposed to be a book review, talks about
the attention ability oI people living in the period oI inIormation and technology boom. In the
Iirst two parts ('The Poverty oI Attention and 'The War on the Poverty oI Attention),
Anderson not only draws the picture oI today`s attention ability but also presents and compares
opinions oI two experts in this scientiIic Iield, David Meyer and WiniIred Gallagher. Although
Meyer and Gallagher deIine and explain attention and distraction diIIerently, they both Iocus on
enhancing the power oI attention through the method called mediation. In order to maintain
something, the usual easiest way is to avoid its opposite. Meyer`s and Gallagher`s opinions are
based mostly on that theory.
Tran 2

Interestingly, through these two parts, Anderson solely presents the Iacts and opinions oI
two above experts. He hardly shows his own thought. So, what does Anderson think about his
article`s topic? Is avoiding distraction the most eIIicient way oI keeping attention? Here, in the
Iinal part, we eventually understand the author`s idea. 'Embracing the Poverty oI Attention, the
third and Iinal part oI this article begins with a surprising question: 'Isn`t blowing a couple oI
hours on the Internet, in the end, just another way oI Iollowing your attention? (Anderson 511)
Firstly, he provides work oI two experts, whose opinion is so well-known and widespread.
DeIining attention vertically as the process oI absorbing inIormation Irom many channels or
streams as Meyer did or Gallagher`s dividing attention into two parts, the bottom-up and the top-
down attention, sounds convincing Ior the readers. These two experts also explain how
distraction Iactors distract us, which even convinces more readers. However, by using all oI
these deIinitions and explanations as counterarguments, Anderson expresses to us his seemingly
weird but thoughtIul idea, which goes against the above. 'Blowing a couple oI hours on the
Internet (Anderson 511), which is commonly seen as the result oI distraction, is now a way oI
attention through the author`s view. Not only raising an unusual question, Anderson also oIIers
much evidence to convince readers. First, the idea leads him to Iollow Marcel Proust, a Iamous
French narrator. Proust`s most Iamous work is A la Recherche du Temps Perdu, a 1.5 million
word book. More shocking than the length oI the book is the Iact that the idea oI writing this
giant book came Irom an accidental moment when Proust '|ate| a spoonIul oI tea-soaked
madeleine and |Iound| himselI instantly transported back to the world oI his
childhood.(Anderson 512) According to Anderson, this is the moment oI pure distraction.
Distraction motivated Proust`s association oI senses. When the sense oI taste was excited, the
visual channel reminds him about his images oI the old days. An enormous book started by a
Tran 3

simple moment oI distraction. Anderson`s making use oI this speciIic and Iamous story enables
him to claim that distraction stirs up creating new things. He calls pure distraction 'Iree-
associative wandering (Anderson 512). This new deIinition opens an easier and more eIIective
way oI viewing distraction. Imagining ourselves as wanderers, we go through numerous
jackhammers which may connect with our memory and knowledge and allow us to create
something new based on those connections. As the number oI jackhammers and the number oI
distraction moment is uncountable, the tremendous power oI pure distraction is so obvious.
Some critics may argue that although attention and distraction both have enormous
power, attention seems to be more powerIul. Using his own experience, Anderson enlightens
those people. According to Anderson, his Iavorite Iocusing exercise is to 'draw a dot on a piece
oI paper and pay attention to it Ior as long as you can (512). This should be an easy task.
However, iI you try, you will soon realize how diIIicult it is to Iocus on one single point Ior
couples oI minutes. As William James author oI this exercise explains, 'human mind can`t
actually Iocus on the dot, or any unchanging object, Ior more than a Iew seconds at a time
(Anderson 512). Seeing is believing. A story would be much more convincing when you
experienced it or at least know exactly the person who went through it. Thus, Anderson`s use oI
personal experience clearly proves his point: Distraction is undeniable. Since undeniability is a
property oI the powerIul, pure distraction, insisting on attention and avoiding distraction is a silly
thought. 'The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power oI distraction. (512),
Anderson states. Step by step, the author leads us to his conclusion. Proving something is true;
then, stating that people should Iollow it this simple logic is applied eIIectively and
successIully in this article.
Tran 4

Going Irom a weird, but smart question, to a conclusion about the power oI distraction is
a long journey, but Anderson makes it. He shows us, proves to us, and tells us how to use our
brain correctly through a well-organized article which eIIectively uses rhetorical techniques.




















Tran 5

Work Cited
Anderson, Sam. In Defense of Distraction. Rosenwasser, David, Jill Stephen. Writing
Analytically with Readings Second Edition. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing, 2008. 503-513.
Print