How Much Control Do We Have Over What We Pay Attention To?
The systems that create salience
I was reading a book last week on our collectively declining attention spans, and there was a chapter on the loss of focus particular in reading. It made me think of the popularity of “Shorts” and “Reels” and how we have become so conditioned to consuming information in digestible bursts. A 700-word post that might only get skimmed on Substack, for example, is easier to read in full if broken into an Instagram carousel of squares squares with ten or less lines of text.
As I was reading, I had a visual in my mind of how declining focus applies relationally, specifically when it comes to empathy: for example, a friend talking to you about something personal while your phone–even if turned face down on the table–vibrates, interrupting your engagement. Another example, though more removed: watching an Instagram reel of a child with an arm missing, wailing for a parent killed—and then swiping to someone’s GRWM or OOTD.
I imagined that in both these instances, there’s no significant time given to the emotional response occurring within ourselves in response to the other person’s distress—even if it's attempted, our attention is quickly diverted by some distraction. And then, the moment is behind us. We part ways, swipe to the next story. We’re not meaningfully affected.
And that interplay—or lack thereof—undermines the relationship, as well as our own and the other person’s humanization.
This connection between attention and empathy ended up resonating with many of you on Substack:
Empathy and other relational skills like compassion require the resources of time and attention.
We collectively are “busier” (I imagine a buzzy bee flitting around) and more distracted than ever before. A reduction in these two resources unequivocally impacts our relational skills.1
We simply can’t be fully engaged as effectively in an embodied world if we have a split-consciousness, with a segment of us wondering about the happenings of the virtual world. And in that virtual world, we may not even feel the need to reach for empathy or compassion when that wailing child is no longer a human being in front of us, but simply content—a clip that was shortened to fifteen seconds in someone’s story or a reel that you can infinitely scroll, scroll, scroll away from (to one that’s more “feel good” or with “positive vibes”).
But there’s another aspect of the digital era that is not just decimating our ability to pay attention, it’s directing our attention.
How do we determine what we pay attention to, and how much of that is conscious?
In the embodied world, it feels like a somewhat conscious choice what we attend to: We pay attention to the people in our lives, to the responsibilities we have, to the items we need. Of course, there’s external influences that shape how much of our attention is directed somewhere: for example, the harder it becomes to earn a living, the more of our attention must be directed toward work and earning a living.
In the virtual world though, who decides? We might take that initial first step in searching for something, but it’s the algorithm which sucks us into a “rabbit hole” from which we may not emerge for hours. And by “suggesting” those reels and videos, it is in fact directing our attention.
This isn’t accidental. It’s intentional. Attention, like time, is a finite resource—dispensed from limited cognitive and emotional capacities. We spend time. We pay attention. In the virtual world, our attention is the currency, and for our existing platforms, it’s the commodity.
In order to be “influenced” by an influencer, for example, we have to pay our attention to him or her to learn what he’s wearing, what she’s buying, how they’re living. Our attention is then directed by them to those things, and we simply have less attention for our embodied world (which houses most of our deepest relationships).
It may seem insignificant at first, but compounded over thousands of reels of thousands of people, the fragmentation makes it jarring to transition to the world of singular, sustained engagement–with one person, one book, one task.
There’s a concept in neuroscience and psychology called “salience”—the function of a mind giving an event or object more greater prominence.
An orange among a row of apples is perceived as more “salient”–the mind’s attention is drawn to it; even though they’re all round fruits, the contrast of the orange’s hue against the apple’s red attracts your brain’s attention. It’s not because of the orange itself; an orange in a row of peaches may not be equally as salient.
Sensationalized news and hardcore pornography operate under similar principles–in order to stand out in the mind, to separate from the pack and compete, they needed contrast to hook your attention. Of course, the problem is that eventually all the competitors reach for that new threshold of “shock” to grab your mind, and eventually what was once shocking and different is just more of the same until a new threshold is reached.
Against the excitement, novelty, and constant stimuli of the virtual world, the humdrum of the embodied world starts to feel monotonous—consciously or not. And if the virtual world is the one our minds perceive as more salient, the world that everyone’s attention becomes drawn to, what remains of the embodied world besides a bunch of disengaged people who feel a listlessness that they can’t explain, who sit next to one another and stare into a portal to escape the ennui, not recognizing that perhaps it’s the cause?
Like recycling to combat climate change, there’s only so much one can do on an individual level:
Set screen limits. Reduce notifications. Lock phones. Cultivate and sustain in-person relationships, read books.
But the effects are systematic. There’s many mental health professionals calling for ethics around technology use and products–just like cigarettes come with an addiction warning, and alcohol has limits on the age of consumption and sale, I wonder if in the future our current technologies and social media platforms may finally be treated as a habit-forming commodity that comes with a warning: this product has been known to decrease and divert attention.
Have thoughts about this post? Share a comment to start a discussion:
In my note,
had commented from a perspective of someone with ADHD and how inattention functions differently in neurodivergence. For the purposes of this essay, I’m writing about attention within a neurotypical framework, but in a future essay I’ll be describing more about the relationship between attention and mental health conditions more broadly, including ADHD as well as other conditions.
Spot on!
I would add in that unless you ditch the term neurotypical you are implying that there is such a thing. I don't think there is any possibility that an "average" brain exists. We are all neuorminorities with fairly well known variables. If any brain type is close to "neurotypical," it would be the brainset that has proven itself by still existing as the one with the best threat responses (survival capabilities). I don't think anyone would argue against natural selection as favoring those humans who had the best threat responses.
Thus, there are very few humans left that can actually NOT get addicted to anything, even if they try. They also happen to be the brain type with the best working memory operations. They can actually resist the distraction. Research shows that they are also a population that "needs cognition." They also happen to be the worst at threat response.
Some really significant studies have been done to try to figure out what group, if any, might be more easily influenced by their environment when it comes to "self-regulation." And, what group, if any, would be significantly immune to environment. The most significant study revealed a clear population that was called "straight arrow." Several other studies have looked at certain populations of similar dopamine gene profiles. Groups of kids and their family styles were followed for years and data was collected regarding "self-regulation" and family styles and if there was a vulnerability to family self-regulation styles.
I don't have those right in front of me at the moment, but they are easy enough to find by searching for "the 2010 Guo straight arrow study" and the other study "Posner drd4 7/r self-regulation study." I could go into much more detail, but, I suspect that could be very boring for most folks. If you are curious-driven, you might want to look at those studies and any newer ones which, so far, have supported the earlier findings.
The Posner study clearly showed that one population of kids with drd4 7r were heavily influenced by their family styles. If the family was "chaotic" (my word), that is, did not show or teach "self-regulation" the drd4 7r types showed significant impaired self-regulation. If the family style was "self-regulation" the drd4 7/r kid could self-regulate. Thus, that Posner study, plus others since then have shown a "vulnerability to environment" (read, can't easily stay on a planned course).
The kids with the drd4 4/r or 4/7 could self regulate whether the family style was self-regulation or not. (not easily influenced, good at staying on course, etc.)
There has not been enough work to look at does the "teaching and modeling and pressure of a family style of self-regulation (including empathy) stick after the child becomes an adult and subject to many other influences. It depends on how "programmed" the child is in the scenarios of self-regulation. Think LDS upbringing, for instance.
It just so happens that the worldwide prevalence of the drd4 7/r is something like 50% in the Americas (the Western Hemisphere) and around 2% in East and Southeast Asia, and variable throughout Europe with an average of 20% to 45%. Worldwide it is around 21%.
For me, after 20 years of clinical work with folks who fit the criteria for the diagnosis of ADHD and over 30,000 pages of primary literature review, I concluded that the major brain type in the West is the ADHD brain type. It is now becoming clear that the culture fits the criteria for ADHD. It didn't just come out of nowhere. Unless the elephant in the room is cleary noted and dealt with, good luck on anything that doesn't carry huge peer pressure value. Toxic commercialism (monetizing everything, my god) will not be resisted due to the peer pressure it creates.
With an easy to influence population that does not recognize its widely embedded vulnerabilities to being influenced and overwhelmed with data, there is not much of a chance of changing that unless the vulnerability is clearly discussed and appreciated. It is, in my opinion, this scenario presents the West with its most unrecognized and understood public health problem.
Empathy, in my world, cannot really take place automatically unless you possess good working memory. It is one thing to feel something, and another thing to follow-through (empathy). "Out of sight out of mind" is the opposite of auto-empathy. Thus, given the widely embedded poor working memory in the West, there is not much chance of empathic styles to gain a foothold, unless you know what the constitutes the major variable in what controls it – what makes it "automatic" and what makes it "non-automatic."
If you look at Posner's work and others, you could come to the conclusion that given the West's vulnerabilities, the only way to increase "self-regulation," including empathy, is to create a self-regulating society. In the West, good luck on that. As Posner's and others have shown us, our West population might be able to do self-regulation, but if self-regulation is not even an acceptable goal, and is actively pursued, not a chance.
Toxic commerce uses that widespread vulnerability to being influenced, distracted, entertained, and imbibers of all things dopamine enhancing, *against* us.
I wrote a book published in 2013 that discusses much of this vulnerability and also the upside to dopamine processes that create the characteristics of ADHD and the best brain for survival (threat response). Good threat response, poor academics. NonADHD, good academics, poor threat response.
Thank you for your post on empathy. It is not going to be easy to get there, but that doesn't mean we can't figure it out and move in the right direction. Take care, Ron
It really has become a skill, a tool that needs to be sharpened, to have attention. Not including that most news, major events, and other information is mostly consumed through numerous social media platforms. It’s a cycle that deemed the great human brain to nothing more than an empty vessel that struggles to keep much in.