88% of Americans use a second screen while watching TV

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/12/88-of-americans-use-a-second-screen-while-watching-tv-why/

by elsewhen • 7 years ago

291 218 7 years ago

arstechnica.com

jonplackett• 7 years ago

Because most TV isn't that good?

robbya• 7 years ago

Most TV I watch is shows I've already seen. It's background.

Barrin92• 7 years ago

in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows. I have seen Game of Thrones fans staring at their phone while the newest episode was running, only to ask everyone else in the room what just happened five seconds later.

This is definitely not just boredom or background noise TV. It seems that more and more frequently people are unable to maintain singular uninterrupted focus or attention on something without staring at phones or laptops.

I actually started to pay attention to this because it started to get on my nerves when people in cinemas were doing it, and it even seems to happen more and more in actual in-person conversations. The next time you go to a coffee shop or a bar pay attention to how often people in discussions with each other go for their phone and interrupt each other. It's pretty sobering.

Personally I had an epiphany about this years ago when I started checking mail and Reddit when I was sitting down to read fiction and I was so embarrassed because I was less able to read than my teenage self when I could sit down and read for a whole day, and I just felt like the fat people in Wall-E.

klyrs• 7 years ago

in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows

This. The internet (and thus phones) has matured into a platform for behavioral addiction. Even if we want what's on the main screen, our brains need to interface with the second screen with an alarming degree of regularity.

werber• 7 years ago

I feel like TV now just means Muzak with visuals in the home, tenth time watching an episode of the Simpsons I have my phone out and a movie I’ve never seen, it’s silent and charging.

ncmncm• 7 years ago

Because American TV is deadly dull most of the time, but people like background noise.

shantly4• 7 years ago

Most mass-market TV shows and movies are such that you can tune out a good 25% of the time and still follow them just fine. Some of the worse ones aren't even as demanding as that.

Also, people want to do something with their hands while watching things, and not everyone knits or (especially, these day) smokes, or pops popcorn before every movie they watch at home. Bet a huge percentage does something else while watching TV/movies. Sudoku books, whatever.

ethbro5• 7 years ago

Maybe it's when I was born, or the fact that we lived in a somewhat rural area, but I categorically don't get the "background noise" desire.

I live in the city now, and city background certainly doesn't bother me. But I don't feel a desire to artificially adding more.

Is silence that bad?

shantly4• 7 years ago

It's a cultural/socialization thing. Lots of people grow up with the TV always on in the background at home, going to sleep to the TV, and so on, so they keep doing that when they're on their own. Some who don't do it when they're alone will turn it on when someone's over, as it's just "what you do". I doubt they even think about it, they just do it.

As to why people started doing that to begin with: dunno. Sports being on often, so having the TV on just becomes normal? Not sure.

Like many social behaviors, you could map it pretty well to one or more Fussellian class, in the US at least.

LaikaF• 7 years ago

For me it's not the noise, it's the conversation. Something about TV or YouTube tricks me into feeling like I'm around humans when I'm not.

This probably isn't healthy but it's the easy coping mechanism for the problem of not socializing enough.

falcolas4• 7 years ago

Silence is easier to interrupt unintentionally than constant noise. For example, if my room is quiet, I can be easily distracted by a random noise caused by my cat across the house. If, however, I have the TV on (usually with YouTube build videos), I won’t hear the random but sudden noises that provide no value to me.

This is at least partially related to my own difficulties in directing my attention. What I can’t hear can’t distract me from what I want to be focusing on. Music is also good for this.

hgoel3• 7 years ago

I really enjoy complete pin drop silence, but when that isn't available (like when working at a computer that just can't be completely quiet) it's far more preferable to have some sort of conversation or music blocking out the sound instead of the whirring of fans and hard drives.

nwallin• 7 years ago

The article mentioned installing Wing Commander III in the DOS days- I feel like Wing Commander III was a better TV show than most TV shows out these days.

wlesieutre• 7 years ago

It’s more that I have the TV on while I use my first screen

derekp7• 7 years ago

Is this only for regular (broadcast / commercial) TV, or does it include other things that you would watch in front of the TV (movies, or streaming episodic content)? Because for broadcast, I can see using a phone during commercial breaks.

ummonk• 7 years ago

It's no different from interacting with people while watching tv together. Only now much of that interaction is via electronic devices.

buboard• 7 years ago

for the same reason why you work better at a cafe than alone at home. the tv keeps others occupied but also maintains background noise

haecceity• 7 years ago

Can't get enough of them telescreens.

dajohnson892• 7 years ago

Because TV is absolute trash. low quality, full of filler, 25% commercials (!!)[0].

[0]https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-many-c...

samstave2• 7 years ago

Exactly.

Take late night talk show hosts' shows for example.

Ill watch the monologue of the shows and thats it. Most times - I will just watch the clip on youtube. I dont give a shit about which actor is promoting their crap, or what musician is going to perform a song.

I get the same jokes told in a slightly different angle from Colbert, Kimmel, Meyers, Noah, etc... and I get all their propaganda angles from both sides in short order.

Whats worse is that people like Bill Meyer are so freaking smug about their "unique" perspective....

Its all garbage.

The news is even worse than the "comedy" -- reality is a freaking joke.

moduspol• 7 years ago

I assume you're meaning Bill "Maher," right?

And I'm sure you're probably aware of it, but you're not getting "both sides" from the hosts you've listed.

Shorel• 7 years ago

We need Craig Ferguson back.

hgoel3• 7 years ago

Add in how their humor generally doesn't amount to much more than bad faith descriptions of real world issues, senseless comparisons accompanied with a bad Photoshop and it's no wonder people use a second screen at the same time! John Oliver especially ran this sort of thing into the ground.

ljm• 7 years ago

US TV is so disappointing when you expect an hour long episode but, because of the ads, it's only 42-43 minutes long. A mid-way intermission would be fine, but instead you get shallow plots driven by the need to shove in ads every 12 minutes. And all the procedurals are built around that, like the lives of those characters in that universe pause so some shitty marketing material can play. Of course, they're also 24 episodes long so they run for most of a year, and 90% of the show is the baddie of the week. The 10% of actual substance is distributed in 3-4 episodes throughout so you have to deal with all of it to get the real plot.

I've been watching the last season of Mr Robot on Amazon (and my god is it a cracker). As soon as I went to reddit to check out the fanbase reaction, so many of the posts were about how the vibe was ruined by ads appearing so often. But for me...it was a solid 50 minutes of TV, completely uninterrupted. I imagine those who enjoyed The Expanse on cable are now delighted about season 4 being a pure continuous stream on Amazon. I was.

Of course, you still get the blatant product placement. Death Stranding is my recent fave example for that, where you get Monster energy cans rubbed in your face. Same as with the old Splinter Cell games you'd be climbing across a massive billboard advertising Axe body spray.

I think the US has a serious problem with its special blend of capitalism, individualism, and consumerism. Everybody is out there to get something from you.

reificator2• 7 years ago

Of course, they're also 24 episodes long so they run for most of a year,

This hasn't been true for shows I'm interested in for a long time, and to be honest I kind of miss it. Especially for shows that used to have longer runs but are now shorter, the pacing seems off. There used to be a season-wide arc alongside individual episodes that may or may not have anything to do with that arc in particular.

You might say that episodes that don't tie into the season are filler, and I get where you're coming from. But in sci-fi specifically, I'm so sick of the trope of "there's a thing that threatens the very fabric of the universe", and literally everything the main characters do between learning about it and resolving it are related. I miss lower stakes episodes that balance out the larger stakes in the overall season.

I'm thinking specifically of Doctor Who in that last paragraph. (which to be fair is not US TV, but I can name some US/Canadian shows that took a similar route) It used to be that the doctor could have a romp around a new planet or an interesting period in history, the doctor or his companions would learn something new, and then they'd move on. Those kinds of one-offs are what the show is built around IMO. But now with fewer episodes every season, the very fabric of the universe is always threatened, and every companion is the most important person ever born, and everything you see on screen reinforces those two ideas. They keep mentioning adventures off-screen, I think because the writers recognize that they're losing something by not having those unrelated adventures happen where the audience can see.

(The latest season of Doctor Who is at least a step back from that, but it had plenty of its own problems, not least of which is a very crowded main cast that ended up underdeveloped as a result. The only character that I felt was interesting in the first episode didn't make it to the main crew, which is probably why they were developed so much better than the rest.)

criddell• 7 years ago

Does watching Netflix, HBO, or Hulu count as watching TV? That's how I usually watch television shows and none has commercials.

If I watch broadcast TV it's through my DVR and I skip commercials.

Pretty much the only live TV I watch is sports and there's a lot of advertising there.

I'd argue that TV isn't trash though. There's an unbelievable amount of stuff being made and it isn't hard to find something great to watch. My to-watch list still has Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mr Robot, Westworld S2, Game of Thrones, and about 20 other series on it.

apatters• 7 years ago

There's certainly a lot of boring, formulaic content out there. I recently watched Easy Rider and season 4 of Rick and Morty and in both cases my phone was left on a shelf and forgotten for hours. Yesterday I tried to watch the first episode of Witcher and it just wasn't my thing, I was fiddling with my phone after 10 minutes. (YMMV obviously)

gaukes• 7 years ago

Sometimes, the TV is just background noise. But, I also catch myself doing this when I watch more serious TV shows for the first time.

I feel like a junkie saying this but maybe TV alone isn’t enough stimulation.

Waterluvian3• 7 years ago

Depends for me. Lossless tv like a hockey game is plenty of stimulation. Lossy tv like a baseball game just isn't.

catalogia• 7 years ago

What do lossy and lossless mean in this context?

dpeck• 7 years ago

many of us, myself included, find silence distracting. I prefer to have something going on around me, whether the buzz of a coffee shop or a tv show I’ve seen lots of times droning on in the background.

Lately since Disney+ launched that’s been episodes of The Simpson’s for me. I’ve seen all the early stuff enough that I don’t need to give it anywhere near my full attention to still enjoy it and occasionally chuckle while I’m writing an email or putting together some low complexity code.

falcolas4• 7 years ago

The pacing of TV shows is, in my opinion, not that great. There’s a lot of story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second screen, I’ll just end up wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the show.

Before we had screens, we had newspapers, magazines and coffee table books. I remember this happening quite a bit when watching TVs prior to second screens even existing.

Pxtl• 7 years ago

I've taken to relentlessly using the 30-second skip if there's a side-plot that doesn't entertain me on a show I otherwise enjoy.

bardan• 7 years ago

There’s a lot of story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second screen, I’ll just end up wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the show.

I think a lot of people feel this way, and not to place too much faith in TV show writers but this seems like a shame as it limits what experiences can be delivered by the medium.

This is exactly what has happened with movies, as well. At some point in the 2010's I noticed that in many movies I watched almost every shot was in motion. No moment of stillness or quieter reflection, just constant noise and motion, even in movies I thought were particularly good like the new Mad Max movie.

I think it's essentially a battle being fought between screens: the movie can't let the modern audience's attention waver for even a second, otherwise they might look down at their "second screen", lose track of the plot and consequently believe the movie wasn't that great.

This sucks because restful or reflective moments can give you a sense of sheltering, or the calm before a storm (for example), but you just can't get that feeling without moments where the camera calms down and people stop shouting.

chrisseaton2• 7 years ago

What percentage of Americans use a screen while also listening to the radio? Doesn't seem much different to me. Especially for things like rolling news, political coverage, documentaries.

npo9• 7 years ago

How much of American radio consumption is done in the car?

chrisseaton2• 7 years ago

I don't know? Is that a rhetorical question? I almost always have the radio on while working - music or talk.

standardUser• 7 years ago

I watch new/good things like I'm watching a movie. Dark, silent, uninterrupted. I spend maybe 2-4 hours every week watching shows like this. Things like Game of Thrones or Rick and Morty come to mind.

Then there's background watching, which usually means re-watching something I've already watched. I'm almost always using a second screen during this time. This is probably more like 15-25 hours every week, maybe even more when I work from home. I get a significant amount of my work/chores/tasks done during this time.

jborichevskiy3• 7 years ago

I don't watch much TV but occasionally I'll have the Reddit thread for the current/previous episode up for background information. But I definitely can't multitask if it's an engaging show.

ethbro5• 7 years ago

What does the Reddit thread typically provide?

jborichevskiy3• 7 years ago

Most recent case being Mr Robot it was primarily references and connections that went over my head from seasons back. But it's also fascinating to see people's reactions to the same reveals I'm watching. And of course, the predictions. Similar thoughts on Westworld.

userbinator• 7 years ago

I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the first one is showing adverts.

reaperducer2• 7 years ago

That's kinda old-fashioned thinking. It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV.

Source: A company I used to work for did a metric buttload of research on this subject.

oarabbus_• 7 years ago

It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV.

Then they are only using the handheld (or laptop) screen, and they are not watching the TV

OnlineCourage• 7 years ago

What is the unit fundamental derivative of 1 buttload? Kilogram? Or is it more of an electromagnetic thing?

JoBrad• 7 years ago

I use my cell to queue up videos on the YouTube app, while watching the current one.

parthdesai• 7 years ago

Anecdotal, but I usually have something on TV in the background (a random youtube video/music set) and use a laptop to browser reddit/HN all the time. (Obviously this is when I'm chilling by myself and not when I have friends/people over)

crooked-v2• 7 years ago

Same here. It's basically the same thing as people 100 years ago reading a newspaper while a radio was on. It's nice to just have a bit of background noise.

copperx• 7 years ago

I'm the total opposite: I have no music or TV in the background as I like my environment to be as silent as possible so I can hear my own thoughts. But when people are over, I play music and turn the TV on so they don't figure out right away I'm a boring weirdo (to them; I don't bore myself).

abtinf• 7 years ago

At least for me, that is not the case.

Most television and film content is just unbelievably boring, self-important, and undemanding of the viewer's attention. Frankly, content producers have become more and more disrespectful of the viewer's time.

In very rare cases, I suddenly notice I've lost track of the plot--if that happens a couple times, that's when I know I need to put away my phone/laptop and focus on the show.

It is not obvious which content is actually demanding. For example, the film The Martian was very dense and demanding of attention, while the more recent Ad Astra could be summarized with the single sentence "sad sack mopes around space." Dialog rich comedy is generally the most demanding.

cableshaft2• 7 years ago

Dialog rich comedy is generally the most demanding.

Really? I find that the easiest to just listen to, especially once I know who all the characters are.

Generally it's not important what they're doing, just what they're saying, so I can just listen while doing other things.

Like the shows I relisten to all the time (not watch) while working on the computer are Newsradio, Corner Gas, Larry Sanders, Mr. Show, Red Dwarf, Scrubs, Psych, Arrested Development, Mighty Boosh, Flight of the Conchords, Yes Minister, Mitchell and Webb Look, and a more recent addition, Letterkenny. Pretty much none of that requires my visual attention, except to know that there's a visual gag here or there.

Granted, I usually paid attention the first time I watched it, but not on the rewatch.

hinkley3• 7 years ago

I'm often on IMDB trying to figure out where I've seen some bit part character before.

I was watching a movie the other night and there was an uncredited cameo and it's still bugging me because I can't seem to figure out where I've seen him before.

shrimpx• 7 years ago

Or to put it more generally, the second screen is there for when content on the main screen is rubbish. The implication that if you watch a movie you should watch 100% of it without looking away is preposterous, as let's face it a "good" movie today is 40% rubbish cinematic trope filler.

matheusmoreira• 7 years ago

True. I always mute the TV too.

ubermonkey• 7 years ago

Maybe? Between the DVR and TV from non-ad sources, we rarely see any commercials at all -- and yet my wife and I both routinely have another screen up during SOME shows.

We find there are two kinds of movies/TV: stuff that's kinda just relaxing and during which you can browse twitter or whatever, and stuff that's more serious where you can't really multitask without missing important aspects of the show, either because of the filming style or the density of the material or the pace of events or whatever.

The canonical example of the latter is The Wire. More recently, I'd put The Crown or Watchmen in this category. For the former, well, pretty much any traditional network show counts.

However, even in high-attention programming, it's pretty common for one of us to pause the show and check a screen to verify where we saw a given actor before, or look up a related bit of information (e.g., during the Crown, we often check on historical context).

EA• 7 years ago

Because our friends aren’t on TV.

Just wait until AI puts likenesses of ourselves and our social circles into the stories.

commandlinefan• 7 years ago

I do when my wife picks the show (most of the time).

wayanon• 7 years ago

I use my phone to find out more about a place, person or topic mentioned in a tv show. Maybe a coffee shop where Larry David’s is in Curb - or it could be something a bit more cerebral.

mensetmanusman• 7 years ago

For the same reason 50% of Americans will be obese within 10 years and why similar numbers also use a second screen while someone is trying to talk to them.

New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=fe...

yellow_lead• 7 years ago

I think our brains have gotten so dopamine-wired that our attention span has suffered. I am reading Digital Minimalism which touches on this a bit, but I'd be interested to know if there are any rigorous studies relating to this topic.

kilroy123• 7 years ago

Oh absolutely. IMO - If you're _not_ like this that's a clear advantage at work.

Aaronstotle• 7 years ago

I can feel my brain being caught in a fog as my attention span has dropped drastically due to the over-stimulation. I'm going to start leaving my phone at home a few days a week and meditate in the mornings to improve on myself.

LinuxBender• 7 years ago

If I can manage to find something on netflix (this is rare), I will watch it on my old TV using xbox360. I don't subscribe to cable TV.

My primary focus is on several other computer screens.

dfee• 7 years ago

I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the first one is showing adverts.

Inverted: excessively slow software builds. :)

avelis• 7 years ago

I definitely agree with the comments here. For me, TVs have the screen size I want but not the software/hardware or content I prefer. Smartphones have great access to software and content but at a screen-size that is limited. Casting works but needs dedicated hardware or else it feels slow and clunky.

oneeyedpigeon2• 7 years ago

Noone seems to have mentioned the potential for a second screen to augment what's being watched on TV. I'm frequently reaching for phone or tablet to look up details about actors, or references I don't get, or just other related info.

mandelbrotwurst• 7 years ago

The author of the article did!

oh_sigh• 7 years ago

This is what amazon x-ray does, but it would be nice if you could connect a phone app with the streaming app so you could look up xray data on the second screen.

angott• 7 years ago

I love the Amazon X-Ray feature. I wonder if they patented it, because I’m surprised other players like Netflix or cable providers are not offering something similar. I personally find it adds a lot to my viewing experience without being too intrusive.

cc23• 7 years ago

You can actually cast Amazon video to a chromecast from a smart phone, and then use the smart phone for X Ray. Works pretty seamlessly.

Eyght• 7 years ago

People watching a twitch.tv stream on their tv would have the livechat on their phone/tablet. Seeing the people in the chat react can make even the dullest stream fun.

paganel• 7 years ago

I’m often times checking the live match thread of the game I’m currently watching on /r/soccer (or on /r/baseball if I’m watching a baseball game). It definitely adds up to the basic “watch TV” experience, for better or worst. I’m also actively checking for live scores of other matches playing at the same time.

BelleOfTheBall• 7 years ago

Honestly, while I'm one of the people who does this a lot, I don't think it always benefits me. I don't watch 'TV', just streamed stuff but I rarely bother to pause it when I look up these details. And that absolutely impacts my viewing experience because if a movie is plot-heavy enough, I can miss chunks of it easily why I try to figure out why that actress in a minor part seems familiar or what the song playing in the background is. Would love to kick the habit but it's surprisingly tough!

oneeyedpigeon2• 7 years ago

I strongly agree! I'd actually quite like a sort of end-notes equivalent for TV shows, but it would have to be tailored to me. Maybe an app that I can tell what I'm watching, that will let me just click a button to store a 'point of interest'. Then, when the show is over (or maybe during the next ad break), I can review the list; each point would tell me actors in the scene, last 10 seconds of dialogue, maybe geographical location - those sort of details.

reaperducer2• 7 years ago

Noone seems to have mentioned the potential for a second screen to augment what's being watched on TV. I'm frequently reaching for phone or tablet to look up details about actors, or references I don't get, or just other related info.

A number of apps developed to do just this have come and gone, but none seem to have succeeded.

cortesoft• 7 years ago

But that might not be because the use case doesn't exist; it could be just that google search does a better job than an app

cshimmin2• 7 years ago

TFA shows a slide w/ data from Nielson. Apparently 71% of people do.

judge20202• 7 years ago

the show "Beat Shazam" does this where you play alongside the contestants.

zeta0134• 7 years ago

What else am I supposed to do when 30% of the content is ads? The second screen is for me to look at while the ads are muted and I'm waiting for them to go away.

Once I caught myself doing this enough times, of course I just canceled the cable subscription, but a lot of my family members still seem to do this. At my parent's house, Law and Order marathons are essentially their choice of background noise. They rarely seem to sit down to watch a show on purpose.

is0tope• 7 years ago

I've caught myself doing this as well and also questioned why this was happening. My initial guess is that it is just manifestation of phone addiction, but perhaps it is also selective boredom. For instance the majority of the time when I look at my phone is when the show I am watching switches to a scene that is showing some plot line I don't care about. As an example, when I am watching a Sci fi show, and there is some romantic sub plot. I simply don't care, and will look at hacker news while it plays out.

shantly4• 7 years ago

My mom used to record all her soap operas (on VHS) so she could FF through the ~1/2 of storylines she didn't care about at all. I think this is, or at least used to be, fairly common.

benibela• 7 years ago

I watch boring parts at 1.5x speed, especially speeches.

Then you still get all plot information, but do not become bored

Actually, now I have trouble listening to speeches or tutorials at normal speeds.

falcolas4• 7 years ago

I think it’s even simpler than selective boredom - it’s that the things that interest you in TV shows are highly unlikely to be constant throughout. So as the interesting bits ebb and flow, instead of drifting off into an internal daydream, we drift off into interesting things on our second screens.

ggregoire• 7 years ago

Probably unpopular idea on HN, but my company synchronize digital ads with TV commercials for this exact reason.

When we detect a commercial on the TV for a brand, we run instantly ads on Facebook for the same brand.

TeMPOraL• 7 years ago

Definitely going to be unpopular. But good to finally have a confirmation that this is actually being done, and done automatically. I guess there's no escape now (at least for those who don't use ad blockers).

Myself, I'm going to add this to my ever-growing article about negative impacts of advertising.

klingonopera• 7 years ago

When we detect a commercial on the TV

How exactly? Is the app always listening?

tinus_hn2• 7 years ago

You could do this without targeting that narrowly using the ads that are broadcast on popular channels.

kevinconaway• 7 years ago

Because I have allowed my phone to absolutely ruin my attention span. If a show isn’t immediately engaging enough, I find myself reflexively reaching for my phone to fritter away time.

In the same vein, I have to consciously avoid taking my phone out while sitting at a stop light or going to the bathroom

It didn’t used to be this way and I hate it

shantly4• 7 years ago

I can't wait until I can get rid of home Internet. And just have a dumbphone as the only way to contact me. Or mail. I'll just hit up a coffee shop or the library every week or two to pay bills and see family photos or whatever. Savings on Internet and related bills would let me buy more physical media than I'd have time to consume anyway, while still saving money, even if I just threw away everything after reading/watching/listening once.

foxfired2• 7 years ago

We have redefined boredom [1].

The more I consume, the more I need to consume, the more bored I feel. I often turn to video games to release the tension. I can spend two solid hours shooting at virtual objects until I start to feel less entertained. I then find myself pulling up my phone closer to consume more scrollable content while still playing the game. Only when all my sense are stimulated at the same time, I feel relieved.
This becomes the new norm. Anything less will result in that acute sense of boredom. Have a conversation with a friend, you'll feel bored. They can't possibly compete with a video game, a political rant and a funny video at the same time. Right in the middle of a conversation you hear that familiar beep from your phone and you have to pick it up. It's not that you ignore your friends, or the dinner conversation, it's that you need to have them all occur at the same time to feel normal.

[1] https://idiallo.com/blog/im-bored-what-do-i-do

sergiotapia• 7 years ago

I used to play a lot of Team Fortress 2 on half my wide screen with Seinfeld playing on Plex on the other half.

It was very zen and relaxing, to the point where I did it with other shows and games. For example, Dynasty Warriors 4 on a PS2 emulator, with NewsRadio reruns playing on the other half.

For some people it's just relaxing, not really about boredom.

CoolGuySteve2• 7 years ago

Yeah, there's nothing more relaxing for me than putting on a comedy podcast and working through a 2D metroidvania game on DS or my hacked Switch. For some reason the two parts of my brain that process audio and that style of game are completely independent.

It's no different than knitting or solving a crossword while listening to the radio 100 years ago.

The only problem is that I only have one more DS and GBA Castlevania game before I've beaten all of them. I've already worked through every Metroid and 2D Zelda game as well as Hollow Knight.

The pickings are getting slim.

cableshaft2• 7 years ago

I did nearly the same thing for a long while, except it was Dynasty Warriors 3 on the TV and Mr. Show reruns on my computer. Although Newsradio is a show I rewatch and use as a background show often.

I felt very similar, like it was a zen feeling. I didn't get a similar feeling with another game until Minecraft, where I could just carve out giant holes in the land while watching TV shows.

throwlaplace• 7 years ago

https://youtu.be/4Z5_uHOONNE?t=120

foxfired2• 7 years ago

You tricked me! I thought it was a comedy. Slavoj Žižek is pretty interesting.

mpd3• 7 years ago

I think boredom has been redefined many times over human history. That's where leisure activities are borne from.

There was a point in our collective history when "where will my next meal come from?" is the overarching concern of every member of the species. Becoming a producer in such an environment would be nearly unthinkable, yet it's not a second thought today.

goatlover2• 7 years ago

Tribal societies had time for stories, music, dance, art and ritual. Kids still had time to play. You’d have to go pretty far back or during extreme times to find a period when our ancestors had no time foe leisure.

solotronics• 7 years ago

We live way better than a king did about 500 years ago.

asdfasgasdgasdg2• 7 years ago

That quote presents a good story, but I don't think it is true. I could hardly be more engaged than I was this evening sitting at my brother's kitchen table, drinking wine while he cooked and talking about the endeavor of providing food for the family. That I watch two screens sometimes when the TV is on has hardly changed that. If anything it has made my enjoyment of in person conversation more acute.

stevenhuang• 7 years ago

That's fair but it also doesn't mean much to be able to provide an exception to his general statement, since we still don't know if it's not the case for the majority.

gtirloni• 7 years ago

That I watch two screens sometimes when the TV is on has hardly changed that. If anything it has made my enjoyment of in person conversation more acute.

Could you elaborate?

Jwarder• 7 years ago

I found that I have changed my ideas on "enjoyment" per-activity, but not overall. For example: I've developed the habit of watching a movie while exercising in the evenings and listening to discussions on YouTube while gaming. As a result the idea of sitting down for a couple of hours to just watch TV or a movie is almost painfully boring.

But I don't (seem to) have that need for sensory saturation with other activities. I have no problem just sitting down to read for hours.

sildur• 7 years ago

As if nobody ever read the newspaper while the radio is on. Or watched the tv and listened to the radio. Or talked to other people while scanning the newspaper. All of that is old as dirt. Come on...

riffraff2• 7 years ago

watched the tv and listened to the radio

I am fine with your other examples but do people really do this?

I always had the tv OR radio on while doing other things, but the idea of having both on at the same time seems incredibly strange to me.

McDev• 7 years ago

This is why I love the cinema. I'm forced to watch the actual movie. Even if it's not great, it's 2 hours where I will be focused on something and not mindlessly scrolling. Sometimes I even enjoy the movie!

scarface743• 7 years ago

I agree. My wife and I have the AMC A+ movie subscription service as a “commitment device”. It forces us to get out of the house, away from our screens. We go to a movie at least once a week if there is anything remotely interesting playing.

rakejake• 7 years ago

Agreed.

Recently I watched The Irishman (3.5 hours) at the theatre. Since the reviews mentioned the sombre mood of the film (unlike Scorcese's other gangter films), I was fully expecting to fidget around after some time.

I had no trouble with my attention span throughout the film so full credits to Scorcese and Thelma Schoonmaker for superb pacing. The audience was quite sparse and mostly film fans so I was able to watch it in a quiet atmosphere with occasional applause. In other words, the perfect movie watching experience.

If not at the theatre, I would have caught this at home. I would have taken more than 5 hours to complete the film. Numerous pauses throughout the film for bathroom breaks, googling names and trivia, simply getting distracted etc.

Now sometimes, you watch a movie that has a mind blowing twist, or something happens in the film that makes you go WTF and pause. Even then, you have to admit that watching the same film in the theatre (where you cannot just pause and take it in), with an audience who are going through the same thing, will probably be a better experience.

deevolution• 7 years ago

Who wants to watch commercials? With your phone or tablet you can have an uninterrupted dopamine flow.

r00fus• 7 years ago

I've gone so far I don't even watch the TV anymore. Just the 2nd screen (only screen?).

donatj• 7 years ago

I feel like this is the death of tightly written television. Getting my wife to pay attention to things well enough to pick up clever nuances has proven nearly impossible. Kids these days.

lotsofpulp• 7 years ago

It's the opposite for me. I can't watch anything but tightly written media. The second I pickup an inconsistent plot point made to fill time or product placement, I zone out.

hgoel3• 7 years ago

I agree with the other response, well written entertainment would retain the viewer's attention consistently. I can binge 24 episodes of a well written show without looking at my phone at all, but something that doesn't require much attention will have me immediately reaching for the phone to catch up on other things.

einpoklum• 7 years ago

What is it you were saying? Sorry, I wasn't listening, I was glancing at my smartphone.

nitwit005• 7 years ago

Aside from being about a quarter commercials, TV shows often feature quite a bit of filler/padding content. It'd be odd if people didn't pick up on some of it and play with their phone when they have the option.

I always think to this Mitchell and Webb gift shop sketch that parodies the worst of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc

sandworm101• 7 years ago

>According to data from Nielsen, the TV metrics company, 88 percent of Americans "use a second digital device while watching TV." Seventy-one percent of Americans "look up content related to content they are watching," while 41 percent of Americans are busy messaging "friends/family about content they are watching."

Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney. The commercials are INSANE. I stopped watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A third of primetime content is now ads. For reruns, thanks to compression tech/editing, ads are on the screen almost half the time. And those ads are ALL for old people. Diabetic testing supplies. Laxatives. Investment consulting. Erectile dysfunction. Medicare part B. Incontinence products. That's what the second screen is for: To distract one's self until the animated colon commercial goes away.

CoolGuySteve2• 7 years ago

The content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too. It feels like 2/3 of broadcast television these days is some kind of low effort singing/dancing contest.

Considering it's basically a live music video, there's no reason why you wouldn't browse the internet at the same time.

wishinghand• 7 years ago

The content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too

I find this a weird take because we're in a renaissance of quality story telling TV right now. Keeping in mind Sturgeon's Law, only 66% of tv being crap is a win.

mrfusion• 7 years ago

And what happened with the ending of game of thrones? Shouldn’t professional writers be smarter than the average viewer? I didn’t seem like that was the case.

celticmusic5• 7 years ago

I feel this way about everything.

GoT took a nose dive when they stopped having source material to work off of. It became stupid, mindless drama. People talk about the ending as if that's where the problems started. No, the writing was crap for the last several seasons.

The latest season of The Expanse was disappointing. It went from a slow burning, character driven series to an action packed run-of-the-mill drama laden mess, like most of the television shows you see nowadays. I'm happy Amazon picked it up, but they basically butchered the show, it will never live up to its potential.

Everything just kind of becomes samey because they're all learning how to do it from the same sources, and the lessons they're learning is unnecessary drama pulls people in and keeps them there. Except it drives me nuts when an entire season's worth of plot points could literally evaporate if character A articulated why they were angry at character B, who would then explain it was a misunderstanding.

ccajas2• 7 years ago

What's been the biggest factor do you think is the decline of broadcast TV? Writer's strike made a dent to be sure but that should affect all of TV. Television shows in general had underwent a big boom recently, but it's just not happening through the rabbit ear antennas. But there's still some good stuff there if you know where to look (mostly in form of comedy, Brooklyn 99 for example).

Is it that major media conglomerates allocating less budget on their broadcast TV business and more into their movies and subscription based business models?

My other guess is that content restrictions of broadcast TV are now really holding it back.

hinkley3• 7 years ago

It was that way before the writer's strike.

The slow decline that started with The Real World had picked up pace, and the airwaves were slowly filling with reality show after reality show.

Then Lost went on the air, and nobody noticed at first, but by Season 2 it had competition from story-driven shows again. And I dunno who rushed out Lost Season 1 on DVD a few months before the second season aired, but that was an inspired decision. Tons of new viewers for Season 2, and probably for the first time ever people were binge-watching a TV show.

It ended with a whimper, but boy did it start with a bang.

driverdan• 7 years ago

I stopped watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A third of primetime content is now ads.

That is not a new thing. 21 min has been the norm for decades.

ggggtez3• 7 years ago

I'm getting the feeling people in this thread have actually forgotten what video content was like before the internet.

21-23 minute shows is the standard run time for a half hour block.

specialist• 7 years ago

"Ads have become a tax on the technically illiterate." -- Scott Galloway

BRAlNlAC• 7 years ago

Unrelated to this comment, thread or OP in any way, you mentioned to me the concept of Complexity Catastrophe ~4 months ago from the book Design Rules by Baldwin and Clark. I’ve finally gotten around to reading it and I feel compelled to thank you. I haven’t yet finished, but it’s an absolutely fascinating read that is providing me with a lot of food for thought. I find it both well written and easy to understand. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was so fascinated by the contents of a book. I’m trying to find a new career right now, and this book may single handedly have changed the direction of that journey. So again, thank you.

celticmusic5• 7 years ago

I'm not sure of the exact year, but sometime in the early 2000's I stopped paying for cable and went 100% online or purchased DVD's (netflix was just starting to stream).

Every once in a while I experience regular television at someone's house and it always blows me away that people are ok watching something and being interrupted constantly while doing it.

I've been told cable now has commercials, which cracks me up since the advantage of cable used to be not having commercials because you paid for it.

OrgNet• 7 years ago

I feel the same way when I browse the web with ads...

ggggtez3• 7 years ago

now has commercials

Commercials had invaded Cable TV thoroughly, well before the 2000s. I know it was 20 years ago, but I'd be surprised for someone to forget about the existence of commercials.

Today's are much more intrusive, however.

EncryptEntropy3• 7 years ago

Cable always had commercials, not sure what special cable you recall having, but Comcast was full of commercials 20 years ago.

dragonwriter• 7 years ago

Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney.

Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV, and Amazon Prime are all tracked by Nielsen, which deployed tracking of streaming platforms starting in 2017.

tim333• 7 years ago

Not watched that stuff for years. There's always youtube if you want sitcoms.

SkyBelow• 7 years ago

I haven't paid for cable or similar in a decade. Every time I visit friends or family and they have a TV playing ads 50% of the time at 200% the volume of the show (exaggerated, but not by much), I start to get restless and agitated. TV ads have gotten to the point where they have become mentally painful to tolerate and are so bad that even with a phone I can't escape them.

EncryptEntropy3• 7 years ago

I’ve gotten to the point with ads where I absolutely refuse to be subjected to a single ad. I don’t care whatsoever about any websites or companies making a single cent on forcing advertising on my precious mental resources. I will block all ads and steal all content and torrent everything. It’s amazing never having seen a television commercial the past 5+ years. Plus, I make strong efforts to even avoid buying anything at all from an ad once I’ve been subjected to their marketing. I hope it continues to spiral this way.

tinus_hn2• 7 years ago

Be sure to keep complaining about quality content not being targeted to you!

marcosdumay• 7 years ago

So, the habit of sleeping or reading a book got replaced?

zw1234562• 7 years ago

I work from home generally 4 / 5 days per week for a lot of reasons (commute, environment etc.). I am one of those people who cannot code in absolute silence, whatever, maybe from years of coding in a loud environment... who knows. But I am most productive with mindless yammering in the background. Which generally is things like, NPR, TV News, CSPAN etc. Music is no good, it has to be just blabbing in the background. So I generally have the TV on in the background on some dumb channel, I am not listening but just talking in the background that I am not interested in at all, in some weird way helps me concentrate. I dunno if I am weird but I am guessing a lot of people have it on in the background as just sort of comfort while they do other things.

pier252• 7 years ago

My father does this too. He codes with the radio on and has been doing it for decades.

zw1234562• 7 years ago

Ha, good to know I am not the only one. Most guys I know need either total silence, noise cancelling headphones and/or music.

scarface743• 7 years ago

It’s a thing in our social circle that during an awards show, we all get on Facebook for live commentary.

ykevinator• 7 years ago

Only during commercials

dannyw• 7 years ago

Is this just TV? How many of you second screen while watching Netflix? I’m talking about watching a show for the first time, not reruns just as background noise.

throwawaymath2• 7 years ago

How does Nielsen know 88% of Americans are using a second device while watching TV? How is that data gathered, and how is the research conducted?

throwaway555542• 7 years ago

Smart TVs know what you're watching and when. Smartphones know what you're doing on it and when. It's simply connecting the two at this point.

throwawaymath2• 7 years ago

That still seems a little too simple. How are they controlling for multiple people in a household from the same IP address? How are they capable of telling the same person watching TV is performing the activity on the smartphone?

sabujp• 7 years ago

what does "watching tv" mean nowadays? I only watch videos through a phone, laptop, or desktop, and when I watch I'm not fidgeting on a 2nd screen unless it's related to what I'm watching on my first screen. I guess I don't watch things that don't require some form of actual thought (e.g. sports). Don't get me wrong I love soccer, but I only watch highlights!

pier252• 7 years ago

By TV they mean the device or open/cable TV?

droidist2• 7 years ago

How many consider the TV as being the second screen?

ehnto• 7 years ago

I am amazed at how many of my friends watch movies while playing video games. It's like they need to make sure something is ready to stimulate them the moment the game fails to.

A particular friend will have the game, youtube playing, and also be betting on online poker on his phone.

DaveInTucson• 7 years ago

The only time I ever watch broadcast TV anymore is for (NFL) football. And in that case, I'm usually also , participating in chats and discussion forums, following box scores, and the like.

On the other hand, I've also noticed when watching movies on my computer (which is pretty much how I do it anymore), it can be really easy to get distracted.

On the gripping hand, when I watch shows on Amazon Prime, I generally don't have any difficulty watching through an entire episode without getting distracted. Possibly because I usually watch Prime on my tablet, where it's (a little) harder to switch between apps.

alaskamiller• 7 years ago

Multi screens is the same as multi cores.

wmichelin• 7 years ago

TL;DR: "Screens bad"

ggggtez3• 7 years ago

can it possibly be any good for us ?!?!

Oh sorry, let's get back to the "correct" behavior of sitting still watching a screen with no interaction.

The author seems aware that this opinion is elitist. But the idea that putting on a TV as background noise is somehow wasting the planets resources... I mean, but why not compare it to other things you can be doing? Driving a car... Or traveling to a far off country... Using a phone while a TV is on has got to be one of the least pollutant activities a person can spend their time doing.

Consultant324522• 7 years ago

Martin Scorcese recently publicly lamented his excellent Netflix project The Irishman because he didn't like the way people were watching it, on the small screen. I guess he'd be doubly upset that 88% of those small screen viewers had another even smaller screen holding their attention.

I think this is an interesting transition period for the art and artists.

pacomerh2• 7 years ago

In my case, (and I assume this is common) is using the TV as a second screen and my laptop as a first when watching normal entertainment stuff like a comedy, talk shows, etc. And just the TV when I'm watching an interesting movie or tv show.

notadoc• 7 years ago

Well the vast majority of TV is horrible and/or very boring, so I'm not too surprised.

There have never been more terrible shows to watch than there are today.

gandalfian• 7 years ago

Unless subtitles. Then it's hard to even eat to.

vonseel2• 7 years ago

I do sometimes look up details about a show I’m watching, but I’m with the author on this, I can’t fully keep track of what’s going on if I’m not watching.

Moreover, I prefer to watch with subtitles because I feel like I absorb information drastically better if I read it. On that point, I pretty much hate watching YouTube videos to learn anything - I’d rather read the docs and my favorite sources tend to be things like a programming language’s official documentation or the manual for whatever software I’m using (Logic Pro X comes to mind - I’d much rather read factual, authoritative text on a feature than watch some random YouTuber talk for 10 minutes and try to get me to subscribe to his or her channel while I could have easily read the docs in half the time). I think a big part of this “text vs video/audio” learning dilemma is that you can’t easily skim a videos contents and intuitively know what to skip and what parts are interesting. Text will always have its place.

filoleg2• 7 years ago

I feel you so much on this one. Visuals certainly help me, but i would take a purely written source over a purely video one any day of the week (talking only about learning material throughout this whole comment btw). For one, with readable sources i can go at my own pace, set pauses, skip over parts that i already know or find to be fluff, etc. The source and the structure of a written source are one and the same, which allows me to consume the material in the way that is personally the most efficient for me. With videos, i have zero control of the flow and zero knowledge of the structure of the material, let alone being able to traverse the structure and control it. This alone makes videos way less efficient for me.

The only scenario where i would prefer videos for learning something are when the material is very short in length and very single-minded, like “explaining how that one specific formula works and how it is used for that one specific application and why” or when i need to fill a small gap in my knowledge of something. And even then, there is some potential for the creator of such video to misuse the video and pad it with fluff and poor narration, though this is not unique to video as a medium and can be done in a text-based material as well.

vonseel2• 7 years ago

Yep. I wonder if there’s been a bunch of research on the topic and it really boils down to us just being written versus visual learners, or if it has to do with something like age-bias - maybe because YouTube wasn’t really a thing yet when I was a teen I never caught the bug. I’ve noticed it seems like kids these days love watching YouTube videos to learn stuff I would never watch videos on, like programming.

88% of Americans use a second screen while watching TV

Related Stories