I am currently reading it, and love it. It looks carefully at what attention IS rather than just bemoaning a narrowing "attention span." There are three different kinds. To put his "cocktail party" analogy into primitive terms: voluntary (our focus on gathering the edible berries and not the poison ones); involuntary (our sudden awareness of the bear crashing through nearby bushes) and social, which is two way: the the attention we pay to our social group, as a whole, and our own need to be paid attention to BY others. (doling out the berries to the kids, and our need to be recognized for doing so.) All can be and are now being manipulated.
It is very readable and, if you pay attention, nicely woke.
Thanks. What he DOES with this approach is even more interesting. It stems from the realization that “information” is (and has always been) from copious to almost infinite. Long before the “information age” we couldn’t (without extreme if not impossible effort) take in the different ways light reflects on each leaf of a tree. We “see” a general foliage and if paying “attention” to it, conclude something about beauty, or the seasons, or whatever.
LOTS of anything makes its individual parts lose value. If our streets were paved with gold we’d have slippery, easily dented streets and need to wear sunglasses more often. We each have, however, only a limited amount of attention to give. THAT makes it worth commodifying.
He also distinguishes between the effort to attract attention (fairly easy) and to HOLD it (fairly hard.). If you want to maximize value of the attention being given to you, you go for the easy.
And I’m only part way through the book!!
Basically, I LOVE it when people “pay attention” to distinguishing aspects of any broad assertion. As a society we have really lost that ability. The recent put down by Judge Reyes of the trans ban in the military makes that point very well—this ban is policy based on utter generalizations that apply derogatory traits to every member of a group. That is pretty much the definition of prejudice, and she calls it out as “animus.”
One can argue with the distinctions he makes (I don’t) but at least he makes distinctions.
I am currently reading it, and love it. It looks carefully at what attention IS rather than just bemoaning a narrowing "attention span." There are three different kinds. To put his "cocktail party" analogy into primitive terms: voluntary (our focus on gathering the edible berries and not the poison ones); involuntary (our sudden awareness of the bear crashing through nearby bushes) and social, which is two way: the the attention we pay to our social group, as a whole, and our own need to be paid attention to BY others. (doling out the berries to the kids, and our need to be recognized for doing so.) All can be and are now being manipulated.
It is very readable and, if you pay attention, nicely woke.
Thank you for this succinct analysis. I've always found Chris Hayes very smart and personable in his presentations as host.
Thanks. What he DOES with this approach is even more interesting. It stems from the realization that “information” is (and has always been) from copious to almost infinite. Long before the “information age” we couldn’t (without extreme if not impossible effort) take in the different ways light reflects on each leaf of a tree. We “see” a general foliage and if paying “attention” to it, conclude something about beauty, or the seasons, or whatever.
LOTS of anything makes its individual parts lose value. If our streets were paved with gold we’d have slippery, easily dented streets and need to wear sunglasses more often. We each have, however, only a limited amount of attention to give. THAT makes it worth commodifying.
He also distinguishes between the effort to attract attention (fairly easy) and to HOLD it (fairly hard.). If you want to maximize value of the attention being given to you, you go for the easy.
And I’m only part way through the book!!
Basically, I LOVE it when people “pay attention” to distinguishing aspects of any broad assertion. As a society we have really lost that ability. The recent put down by Judge Reyes of the trans ban in the military makes that point very well—this ban is policy based on utter generalizations that apply derogatory traits to every member of a group. That is pretty much the definition of prejudice, and she calls it out as “animus.”
One can argue with the distinctions he makes (I don’t) but at least he makes distinctions.