Comparison to goldfish attention span seems like a . . .

It's been several years since Microsoft famously quoted a study that said the attention span of humans had dropped to nine seconds, less than the attention span of a goldfish.

(Side point: I'm not sure how they determined the attention span of a goldfish. And even if they did, what is competing for the attention of a goldfish? They don't even use social media and they don't have Netflix. Back to the column . . .)

That famed data point . . . that our attention span is nine seconds, shorter than a goldfish, has been updated. Unfortunately, it's bad news: Our attention span is now reportedly 8.25 seconds. It's dropping fast.

(Side point: The world record for the 100-meter dash is 9.58 seconds, set by Usain Bolt in 2009. That record has stood for 13 years, the longest period without a new record since it stood at 9.95 seconds from 1968 to 1983. So our attention span is going down faster than the world record in the 100. Back to the column . . .)

The fact that our attention span is shrinking (and doing so quickly) is a reason for concern. Real concern, because this isn't the first drop. In fact, a 2000 study set the period at 12 seconds, meaning it's dropped by nearly one-third in just 22 years.

(Side point: The greatest athletes to wear No. 22 are Emmitt Smith, Clayton Kershaw and Clyde Drexler. That's a surprisingly short list for a common number, right? Giants fans, of course, will point out Will Clark was No. 22.  Alas, he's not as great as Kershaw. Back to the column . . .)

When you hear that our attention span is getting shorter, there's no shortage of things to blame. For instance, the average American looks at their phone 344 times a day.

(Side point: This is presumably the mean number for Americans. Remember mean, mode and median from math? Mean is what we usually call "average," median is the number with an equal number more and less and mode is the number that occurs most frequently. I think those are correct. If not, take the median of my answers. Get it? Back to the column . . .)

Of course, any study of our attention span comes with some caveats. First of all, skeptics point out flaws in the study. Also, scientists point out that "attention span" isn't something that can be measured with a single figure, since we pay attention differently to different things. We may focus clearly and for a long time on an important conversation and not keep focus while viewing YouTube.

(Side point: Think of how much Google and YouTube have changed our culture. Here's some perspective: Google launched as a search engine in 1998. YouTube launched in 2005. Neither has been around 25 years, but nearly 100% of our population knows what they are. Back to the column . . .)

It turns out that the first "study" about what we'll now call "the goldfish myth" was done by a marketing company. The purpose was to encourage short bursts of information. Bulleted lists. Quick videos. They had a reason to emphasize humans having a short attention span: It was a marketing ploy!

(Side point: Remember when categories of food did marketing campaigns? "The other white meat" and "Got milk?" Do any food types market themselves anymore? Does the squash industry promote itself as "the other yellow vegetable?" Back to the column . . .)

So next time you hear that humans have a shorter attention span than goldfish, correct the person who says it. It was a marketing campaign and what could possibly distract a goldfish?

(Side point: Try to stay focused while doing so).

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.