We were promised an internet that would give us access to all the information in the world. We were all going to be so well-informed! We didn't realise how hard it is to drink from a fire hose.
As always another wonderful essay. I am sorry that I am coming to it so late, but better late than never. Two main thoughts jump out to me in reading your essay.
First, I wonder if you have spent any time reading Simone Weil. If not, I highly encourage you to give her a look--she is really wonderful. I think of her because attention is an important theme for her, especially in her religious writings. Put very briefly, for Weil attention is not so much an activity or something we 'do', but rather a receptive comportment. It is how we let things appear to us undistorted by our own projects and intentions. Attention, she argues, is in fact the ultimate goal of all education: education's ultimate benefit is that we can allow others appear to us as they are (and not as objects to be manipulated or exploited) and even make ourselves receptive to God so that he may come to us unbidden. It is a powerful account of attention and I think it may be worth your time to read. If you're interested, try looking up an essay entitled "Reflections on the Right Use of School Studies with a View to the Love of God." I think she is getting at something different than you in your essay, but there may nevertheless be some overlap and you may find it of interest anyway.
Second--and I don't think this is central to your thesis but I feel compelled to say it anyway--I was struck by your quotation from Sacasas: "you and I have exactly as much attention as we need at any given moment provided that at that moment we also know what it would be good for us to do." You argue that the scarcity of attention is a product of the attention economy and the over-abundance of information, rather than the precondition of the attention economy. I am not convinced this is correct. I think Sacasas' practical advice--that we should not try to figure out how to get 'more attention' (whatever that could even be) and rather that we need to figure out how to best use the attention that we do have--is basically correct and I wouldn't dispute it. But that doesn't mean that attention isn't in some sense scarce or that we don't have as much as we need. The obvious fact is that we only have so many waking, potentially attentive hours in a lifetime and we need to figure out how best to spend that attention. The imperative to figure out how best to spend our intention is, at least in part, a function of our finitude -- we can't give attention to everything, because there simply isn't enough time in our lives. At every moment of our lives, we are forced to give attention to one thing and not another. It seems entirely plausible to me that, even in an ideal world, we would not have enough time to pay attention to all the things it would be good for us to attend to.
That we have exactly as much attention as we need assumes something like a kind of divine beneficence: that humans have been created in such a way that a complete good life is available to us, that we can in fact give as much attention to things as we need to and as would be good for us. The capacity for human attention is part of a broader cosmic order which makes the perfect life available to us, provided that we do in fact spend our time wisely and direct our attention as we should. It may be supremely difficult, but it is in principle possible. I think this is implied in Sacasas' statement that "you and I have exactly as much attention as we need."
Yet unless we are willing to make some kind of religious affirmation about a cosmic order (and I wouldn't argue with those who do), I think we need to open to a cosmic disorder -- namely that humans don't have enough attention to give to all the things that deserve our attention. There are better and worse ways to direct our attention, but that is not the same thing as saying that "we have as much as we need." I think it is entirely plausible that we don't have as much as we need, and perhaps that makes it all the more egregious that we squander and have commodified the limited attention that we do have.
Hi Bryan, thanks for reading. Yes, that’s a great Weil essay. I can’t say I’ve read it recently, so I should return to it again sometime.
Interesting take on cosmic disorder. For a more complete picture, I’d encourage you to read the L. M. Sacasas essay, which is from a few years ago. It’s certainly rooted in Christian virtue ethics, but you might not depart from it as much as you might expect. Check it out and see what you think.
I came across https://huhmagazine.substack.com/p/economically-doomed-to-doomscroll which talks about attention as a resource and uses Markov decision processes to show why doomscrolling is the rational equilibrium for users and platforms alike. It's an interesting piece - would be great to get your thoughts on it given that you're pushing back on defining attention as a resource in the first place!
Thanks for sharing - will check it out. Just one preliminary thought, though: I don't mean to suggest that attention can't be treated as a resource, like in the economic framing used in the article you've linked to. And there are real reasons we might want to do this. My point, to put it simply, is that this isn't what attention IS in any original sense; attention becomes a resource only when we've chosen to think about it in a certain way, but this occurs only later, after the phenomenon of attention has already appeared in the world.
I love this essay. Thank you for articulating so well the unnamable thing sticking in my craw whenever someone used the phrase “attention economy”, and yes LM Sacasas is spot on too about how we must grow more discernment with our attention. It reminds me of what people say when they say “I don’t have enough time.” I’ve come to realize that we always do since the deepest kind of time cannot be measured much like attention cannot.
Thank you for reading! Yes, the LM Sacasas essay is a few years old now, but that was the first place I came across a really clear and compelling discussion of what exactly is wrong with talking about attention as a ‘resource.’ That one was very influential in shaping my thinking here.
Brilliantly argued! The Polanyi framework clicks here becasue it shows how treating attention as scarce already surrenders to extraction logic. When my company started measuring engagement metrics, the whole team unconciously shifted from deep work to performative busyness. The fictitous commodity lens helps explain why optimizing for attention economy metrics feels so alienating.
Exactly. It's already inherently satisfying to get good work done. The measurement and extraction of productivity undermines that by transforming it into something that no longer really belongs to you.
Nicely said - I’ve been reading Ong recently, and it has occurred to me the form of attention which Ambrose displays in that scene is unique to literacy. Literate though he was, the young Augustine had come to expect reading to share in orality to the extent that the text would be read aloud and shared outwardly by a group, rather than inwardly by an individual.
We were promised an internet that would give us access to all the information in the world. We were all going to be so well-informed! We didn't realise how hard it is to drink from a fire hose.
Hello Patrick,
As always another wonderful essay. I am sorry that I am coming to it so late, but better late than never. Two main thoughts jump out to me in reading your essay.
First, I wonder if you have spent any time reading Simone Weil. If not, I highly encourage you to give her a look--she is really wonderful. I think of her because attention is an important theme for her, especially in her religious writings. Put very briefly, for Weil attention is not so much an activity or something we 'do', but rather a receptive comportment. It is how we let things appear to us undistorted by our own projects and intentions. Attention, she argues, is in fact the ultimate goal of all education: education's ultimate benefit is that we can allow others appear to us as they are (and not as objects to be manipulated or exploited) and even make ourselves receptive to God so that he may come to us unbidden. It is a powerful account of attention and I think it may be worth your time to read. If you're interested, try looking up an essay entitled "Reflections on the Right Use of School Studies with a View to the Love of God." I think she is getting at something different than you in your essay, but there may nevertheless be some overlap and you may find it of interest anyway.
Second--and I don't think this is central to your thesis but I feel compelled to say it anyway--I was struck by your quotation from Sacasas: "you and I have exactly as much attention as we need at any given moment provided that at that moment we also know what it would be good for us to do." You argue that the scarcity of attention is a product of the attention economy and the over-abundance of information, rather than the precondition of the attention economy. I am not convinced this is correct. I think Sacasas' practical advice--that we should not try to figure out how to get 'more attention' (whatever that could even be) and rather that we need to figure out how to best use the attention that we do have--is basically correct and I wouldn't dispute it. But that doesn't mean that attention isn't in some sense scarce or that we don't have as much as we need. The obvious fact is that we only have so many waking, potentially attentive hours in a lifetime and we need to figure out how best to spend that attention. The imperative to figure out how best to spend our intention is, at least in part, a function of our finitude -- we can't give attention to everything, because there simply isn't enough time in our lives. At every moment of our lives, we are forced to give attention to one thing and not another. It seems entirely plausible to me that, even in an ideal world, we would not have enough time to pay attention to all the things it would be good for us to attend to.
That we have exactly as much attention as we need assumes something like a kind of divine beneficence: that humans have been created in such a way that a complete good life is available to us, that we can in fact give as much attention to things as we need to and as would be good for us. The capacity for human attention is part of a broader cosmic order which makes the perfect life available to us, provided that we do in fact spend our time wisely and direct our attention as we should. It may be supremely difficult, but it is in principle possible. I think this is implied in Sacasas' statement that "you and I have exactly as much attention as we need."
Yet unless we are willing to make some kind of religious affirmation about a cosmic order (and I wouldn't argue with those who do), I think we need to open to a cosmic disorder -- namely that humans don't have enough attention to give to all the things that deserve our attention. There are better and worse ways to direct our attention, but that is not the same thing as saying that "we have as much as we need." I think it is entirely plausible that we don't have as much as we need, and perhaps that makes it all the more egregious that we squander and have commodified the limited attention that we do have.
Hi Bryan, thanks for reading. Yes, that’s a great Weil essay. I can’t say I’ve read it recently, so I should return to it again sometime.
Interesting take on cosmic disorder. For a more complete picture, I’d encourage you to read the L. M. Sacasas essay, which is from a few years ago. It’s certainly rooted in Christian virtue ethics, but you might not depart from it as much as you might expect. Check it out and see what you think.
I came across https://huhmagazine.substack.com/p/economically-doomed-to-doomscroll which talks about attention as a resource and uses Markov decision processes to show why doomscrolling is the rational equilibrium for users and platforms alike. It's an interesting piece - would be great to get your thoughts on it given that you're pushing back on defining attention as a resource in the first place!
Thanks for sharing - will check it out. Just one preliminary thought, though: I don't mean to suggest that attention can't be treated as a resource, like in the economic framing used in the article you've linked to. And there are real reasons we might want to do this. My point, to put it simply, is that this isn't what attention IS in any original sense; attention becomes a resource only when we've chosen to think about it in a certain way, but this occurs only later, after the phenomenon of attention has already appeared in the world.
I love this essay. Thank you for articulating so well the unnamable thing sticking in my craw whenever someone used the phrase “attention economy”, and yes LM Sacasas is spot on too about how we must grow more discernment with our attention. It reminds me of what people say when they say “I don’t have enough time.” I’ve come to realize that we always do since the deepest kind of time cannot be measured much like attention cannot.
Thank you for reading! Yes, the LM Sacasas essay is a few years old now, but that was the first place I came across a really clear and compelling discussion of what exactly is wrong with talking about attention as a ‘resource.’ That one was very influential in shaping my thinking here.
Thanks, Patrick! "Attention fracking" - great concept that pretty much captures the reality.
Indeed, it's quite an evocative image!
Excellent thinking -- an important reminder that commodification is a lens that warps our perception on the very nature of attention.
Brilliantly argued! The Polanyi framework clicks here becasue it shows how treating attention as scarce already surrenders to extraction logic. When my company started measuring engagement metrics, the whole team unconciously shifted from deep work to performative busyness. The fictitous commodity lens helps explain why optimizing for attention economy metrics feels so alienating.
Exactly. It's already inherently satisfying to get good work done. The measurement and extraction of productivity undermines that by transforming it into something that no longer really belongs to you.
Nicely said - I’ve been reading Ong recently, and it has occurred to me the form of attention which Ambrose displays in that scene is unique to literacy. Literate though he was, the young Augustine had come to expect reading to share in orality to the extent that the text would be read aloud and shared outwardly by a group, rather than inwardly by an individual.