
The Right to Attention in an Age of Distraction - dredmorbius
http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-right-to-attention-in-age-of.html
======
gnicholas
Interesting idea, but even if there were a protectable right to attention, how
would we accommodate differences in distractability? That is, some people are
very easily distracted by banner ads, and other people do not find them
troublesome (though their behavior may still be influenced by having seen ads
they did not focus on).

In the American legal system, we have a concept known as the "eggshell
plaintiff rule", which addresses heterogeneity among tort victims (i.e.,
victims of car accidents or other negligent acts) This rule says that if you
injure someone and it turns out that they have some peculiar bodily weakness
(like a skull as thin as an eggshell, hence the name), you are responsible for
whatever injuries result. It doesn't matter that the magnitude of the injuries
was totally unforeseeable.

Although this rule offers one way to handle heterogeneity among people, it
only kicks in after a recognizable tort has occurred. In the case of
attentional heterogeneity, the threshold question of what type of distraction
is too distracting is at issue. So it seems like it would be very difficult to
figure out a workable standard here.

That said, I'm very interested in the topic, and actually recently released a
new feature in my Chrome extension [1] that visually dims distracting elements
on the page. I do hope that we can find a way to cut down on distractions —
I'm just not sure a new legal right is the most likely path.

1: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beeline-
reader/ifj...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beeline-
reader/ifjafammaookpiajfbedmacfldaiamgg/)

~~~
anigbrowl
Excellent arguments, and an interesting extension too. I already use a CSS
customizer to clean up the pages I visit most frequently but I'll give this a
try as an alternative.

My very first impression was that I'd rather have the color text as an
available option rather than the default; I've got so much effort invested in
navigating blocks of text over the years that this feels like driving over
rumble strips. But it's easy to adjust and I appreciate the depth to which
you've thought into this problem.

~~~
gnicholas
Thanks for the feedback! You can turn off autocolor, which will flip the
default as you suggest. But you might find that after reading with it for a
little while, your eyes/brain acclimate to it.

------
SubuSS
Whenever we talk about protection, I always harken back to the study that said
kids who learnt martial arts with body armor actually ended up getting hurt
more than the kids who don't use em. We see a similar effect in case of body
immunity etc: Third world countries just live through so many environmental
effects that they build a natural immunity.

IOW, I wonder if it is sane to restrict these or just let people figure it
out: I remember a time when everything on facebook was about zynga games and
then they just went away.

I mean the ability to focus on a given task persistently has produced so many
good results: Why wouldn't we want to hone and develop that by providing as
many distractions as possible?

~~~
guelo
The zynga stuff went away because facebook cut them off, not because of some
collective decision or somesuch.

------
tdaltonc
I'm a professional attention engineer. After getting my PhD in NeuroEconomic I
built two tools that I think are going to be really important in the coming
attention wars.

I strongly agree with the author about the importance of an individual
autonomy over attention. I also agree with the author that these tools create
an opportunity to empower individual autonomy to a degree never seen before.
And I get out of bed everyday to make sure that these tools are used that way.

My tools:

[http://usedopamine.com/](http://usedopamine.com/)

[http://youjustneedspace.com/](http://youjustneedspace.com/)

~~~
2845197541
I wish there was a tool that would turn my smartphone into a dumbphone (only
capable of texting and calling) for a period of time and the only way to
unlock it would be a factory reset. I would like this for my PC as well. That
would be some deep space.

~~~
Terr_
I'd rather be able to lock myself out from distracting apps for a relatively
short span (e.g. 30-60m) and the mechanism to unlock it somehow requires
either meditation or -- since calm is hard to detect -- a certain kind of
novelty-less focus.

Brainstorming: Suppose you must enter a random 3 digit code for an early
"unlock" of no-distraction mode. The only way to get the code is to watch a
blank screen for 2-3 minutes, where each digit is briefly visible at an
unpredictable time spread out through the duration.

The task would be relatively easy, yet also force the user to have a bit of
"uncomfortable alone with their thoughts" time while waiting for the next
digit to appear.

~~~
HashHishBang
Excuse my language but what the hell? You talk about meditation to unlock a
phone but you don't have the self control to put it in a drawer for half an
hour? You want novelty-less focus from the damn app store? What kind of app
stores do you frequent?

> Brainstorming: Suppose you must enter a random 3 digit code for an early
> "unlock" of no-distraction mode. The only way to get the code is to watch a
> blank screen for 2-3 minutes, where each digit is briefly visible at an
> unpredictable time spread out through the duration.

Hold on a second here. You want people to stare at a blank screen as a form of
introspection. Additionally you want them to pay attention to that blank
screen to see if a number briefly appears then remember that number while
staring and being introspective. Good lord you think that task is relatively
easy?

Also what is this "uncomfortable alone with their thoughts time"? Do people
shower with their devices, are people literally never without these things?
More importantly are you uncomfortable in your own head? I'm seriously
confused by this to the point of being indignant and I'm only 25.

~~~
Terr_
You're barking up the wrong tree. This has nothing to do with meditation aids.

This is about a user who _already_ enabled a "distraction free" time on their
phone, and how you might design a bypassing process which (A) deters a user
who was really just looking for a quick dopamine hit and (B) tries to let them
through in a way which is less-likely to lead to immediate backsliding.

I only mentioned meditation because it would be nice if a hypothetical psychic
mind-reading phone could tell that you were about to use it mindfully.

> You want people to stare at a blank screen as a form of introspection.

No, the real point is that it is boring and imposes a delay before
gratification. Any kind of boredom-driven introspection is a side-benefit.

> Good lord you think that task is relatively easy?

Remembering three digits while having no other demands on your decision-making
nor on your memory? Yes, you ought to succeed at that.

> Also what is this "uncomfortable alone with their thoughts time"?

"Hey, I've been staring at this goddamn thing for what feels like ten minutes
already... did I _really_ need to bypass this lockout _just_ to check if I got
another e-mail or tweetstagram?"

------
stonesixone
One thing that intrudes on attention that has been around even before
computers is noise pollution. Living in a city, loud motorcyclists and fire
(and police) sirens are constant irritations. Unlike visual intrusions, you
can't look away or close your eyes. Even plugging your ears only muffles loud
sounds.

And in cafe settings where you might be working, there's the problem of people
who talk on their phones, as well as not silencing their phone, so you hear a
"ding" every time they get a text, etc.

~~~
k-mcgrady
This is a problem for some people, not all. Particularly noise pollution. I'm
easily distracted and live in London and noise just doesn't bother me anymore.
I used to need complete silence to sleep and now (in summer) I have my windows
fully open, there are loud cars, sirens, people etc. going by all night, and I
sleep soundly.

I take issue with the point about working in cafés as I see it a lot with tech
people (so this isn't specifically directed at you). A café is a place for
people to eat/drink and socialise and it has been for at least over 100 years.
The rest of the world shouldn't have to redefine the social constraints of an
established venue because people cheap out on an office and choose to work
there.

~~~
stonesixone
I actually don't mind people talking and socializing, etc, in cafes. It's when
people talk on phones in cafes like it's their personal office space that I
find it annoying (at least for me).

------
rwieruch
Amazing article, thanks for sharing it. I am highly interested in this topic,
even though I have no professional connection to it. Thanks for your deep dive
into it!

It quickly reminded me of Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Deep Work by Cal
Newport. It was no surprised to find these people again in your article. In
one article of mine, I have reflected on this topic as well and concluded how
important attention (for instance created through deep work) can lead to a
satisfied life (because of flow). [0]

Can you recommend further reading material on this topic?

[0] [https://www.robinwieruch.de/lessons-learned-deep-work-
flow/](https://www.robinwieruch.de/lessons-learned-deep-work-flow/)

~~~
dredmorbius
Submitter here.

John Danaher (the author) posts to Google+ (where I'd first sighted this), and
addresses similar questions at times. Csikszentmihalyi is one of the better
Western authors on the topic. And good material (accessible, insightful, not
facile) is difficult to find. Robert Sopolsky is another favourite. Daniel
Kahneman has some useful insights.

I'm finding myself going through much of the background and history of
philosophy, media studies, advertising, distraction, and more, over the past
year or so, increasingly over the 2016 US election cycle and aftermath. I've
also found my own ability to tolerate distraction, and/or response to removing
distractions, is profound. Jerry Mander, Niel Postman, and Noam Chomsky have
some commentary on this.

I'm particularly interested in the limits and properties of attention. There's
some literature here -- David Simon, Alvin Toffler, and via their references,
some earlier work.

There's also much in the mindfulness and meditation literature, some good,
much not, going back through several thousand years of Japanese, Chinese, and
Indian traditions, though you'll also find some of this within Judeo-Christian
and Islamic texts, as well as others.

I'm coming to view the state of attention and mindfulness as the necessary
quiet in which to detect subtle distinctions -- a cleanroom or highly-
calibrated state, if you will. It's not for all purposes, but is essential to
some.

------
bradfordarner
There seems to be a basic problem in this argument: a lack of definition of
distraction or any discussion of its value.

For example, lets assume the consciousness is an illusion, a sort of
biological trick of evolution. In that case, I'm not sure why we couldn't say
that all the stimuli from advertisements, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are equal in
value to "focused conscious awareness". They are stimuli of a different sort
but qualitatively no different than the stimuli of "focused conscious
awareness". I'm not sure why we would inherently assume that "focused
conscious awareness" is of greater value. There are tons of people now who are
living in a permanently distracted state and they seem to have a conscious
experience that is not qualitatively different than other people's. They don't
slip into a coma or get concussions or die.

Heck, maybe distraction is a better state than attention. After all, don't
people complain of headaches when they focus on a problem for too long?

~~~
alanbernstein
Some people have long-term goals, and the distractions _distract_ from
accomplishing them. The qualitative difference is that people who can avoid
the distractions are better able to make progress toward their goals.

Nobody wants to look back on their life and think "yep, I sure am glad I got
all that facebooking in before I died."

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
That seems a bit reductive. Im sure plenty of people are going to look back
and say "Im sure glad I reconnected with that college flame" or "Im sure glad
I shared those pictures with my extended family".

For sure there is a whole host of negative effects that can spiral out of
social media addiction. But the shear existence of the distraction is more
neutral. I feel like we are hesitant to admit that many of our modern
distractions aren't particularly "new"; it's just a lot easier to collect
evidence and stats. Considering reading a tabloid and gossiping offline vs
reading fake news and commenting on FB, etc.

~~~
alanbernstein
Sure. "connected with college flame" != mindlessly scrolling through facebook
feed for 4 hours a day

------
anigbrowl
_He was surprised to find that he was shown advertisements while he waited for
the prompt. Somebody had decided that this moment — the moment between swiping
your card and inputting your details — was a moment when they had a captive
audience and that they could capitalise on it._

This is precisely what is wrong with capitalism right here - the extraction of
value from an _unwilling_ participant. (Please note that this is not
equivalent to saying capitalism is completely invalid.)

It's no good to argue people agreed to this when signing up for a bank account
of whatever. People need banking facilities and other services; few have the
time, inclination, or education to read the absurdly long contractual terms
foisted upon them by most service providers, and in any case such contracts
are _contracts of adhesion_ rather than negotiations, and it's very difficult
for participants in the market to make direct comparisons between competing
offerings right now. What's happening here is a form of legal theft of a
person's time and attention.

As someone who suffers from severe ADHD, I particularly resent this. It's hard
to explain the interior experience to someone who doesn't have an executive
function disorder, but think of the magazine rack in a convenience store, with
all the photographs, fonts, colors and baity headlines. You see a bunch of
magazines, I see a crowd of people screaming at me and causing me to
temporarily forget why I walked into the store. Over the years I've had to
evolve strategies to deal with this sort of thing, like choosing my route
through stores I visit regularly and pre-emptively controlling the direction
of my gaze to minimize unwelcome distractions.

Now, I don't blame the store owners or the magazine publishers for this - it's
very annoying, but a marketplace is a busy environment where sellers (or
brands) compete for buyers' attention, and it's not their fault that I suffer
from a disability. But when I'm dealing with a bank or whoever, their
underlying business model is the cake and the extra money they make from
advertising to a captive audience is icing on top - icing that is basically
purchased at the cost of my convenience and train of thought. And even with ad
blockers and so on, I'm sure you can easily think of many ways that
distractions are imposed on unwilling information consumers, and how those
distractions are _engineered_ to be as unpredictable and disruptive as
possible so as to capture people's attention.

Now, all of us have the experience of being distracted by things when we're
trying to concentrate. But when you have an executive function disorder, the
problem is twofold; not only is your attention distracted, but it's a lot of
extra work to control your own reaction to the distraction. I _have_ to do
that work in public or in a shared workplace, unless I have very tolerant
colleagues indeed. But maintaining that control costs effort; when I'm alone
or feeling relaxed at home, those control mechanisms are not fully
operational, and so an unexpected distraction can trigger an outsize response,
which is itself distracting and stressful. Say you're reading an article on
screen and you're a couple of hundred words in when a pop-up fades in to
invite you to purchase a subscription or somesuch (note, please, the
engineering of attention here; hook the reader with the content of that
article in order to leverage that focused attention to the advert that is
slipped in without warning). You may find this irritating enough that it makes
you roll you eyes or frown while you click it away. If it happens to me at the
wrong time or too frequently, I'm likely to find myself suddenly screaming
FUCK OFF!!! at the screen, which is itself distracting, and now my focus has
not merely been interrupted but shattered, and I have a surge of adrenaline
with the pounding heartbeat, upset stomach, cold sweats and so on.

Lest this seem like an extended complaint about the world just being too damn
complex, one of the odd things about ADHD is that in some contexts it lets me
function _better_ than neurotypical people. In a quiet environment like a
library or when I'm painting, I can focus in total concentration for hours on
end, because I've built up those mental muscles for dealing with a noisy
distracting world. Equally, in what are very high-stress environments for
other people I feel quite at home - I am that calm and clear-thinking person
that you want to show up at the scene of a car accident or other dangerous
situation, because those situations are not really any worse to me than having
to stand in line at a 7-11 counter. In fact, they're better(!) because I don't
have to act as if nothing is happening, something actually is happening and
the external world is matched up well with my internal world. In those
situations I can assess risk, tell people what to do, get people out of cars
without injuring them further, move them to safety, call emergency services,
and basically manage everything with no more anxiety than making coffee. Had I
had this insight and resources when I was younger I'd probably have gone into
photojournalism or something; I've been in several riots, and though I don't
participate in them I have to say that I _enjoy_ such chaotic situations
rather than finding them frightening or confusing.

Getting back to the captive attention situation which launched this thought,
I'd like to conclude with one of my tediously frequent ethical pleas:
developers, please consider the implications of what you are being asked to
work on. When the business/marketing people ask you to help them leverage the
user's attention away from service delivery and toward advertising, _you_ are
the only person in the room with the opportunity to speak up for the consumer,
and to query whether interrupting them is actually an effective and
sustainable strategy, or more likely to drive people away. If you are being
asked to do something that you know is going to make the user experience
_worse_ , consider asking or encouraging the business people to quantify the
aggregated time cost to the user vs the hoped-for profit to your employer,
even if you're a solo developer and you are your own boss.

At the very least, ask them how much revenue this strategy is expected to
generate, and demand that they furnish you with that information rather than
just being a passive agent of their desires. You may be able to suggest more
effective and less intrusive ways to create value for both seller and buyer,
which is the good, ethical kind of business that makes the world a better
place. On the other hand, if you are down with extracting as much value for
the consumer as quickly as possible and then moving on (unlikely if you've
bothered to read this far, but possible), then you are a Bad Person and you
should feel bad about yourself, if only because your selfish tendencies are
likely to painfully rebound on you at some point, and changing your outlook
may well prove to be more sustainable than making a quick buck.

Thanks for reading.

------
namuol
If you find this sort of discussion interesting, I strongly recommend checking
out Time Well Spent:
[http://www.timewellspent.io/](http://www.timewellspent.io/)

------
pixl97
[https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-technology-
do...](https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-technology-doing-to-us)

Sam Harris and Tristan Harris recently had a (pretty long) podcast related to
this subject. Well worth listening to if you have the time.

~~~
colmvp
I also recommend listening to Ezra Klein's interview with Cal Newport, author
of "Deep Work", a great book about the importance of focused attention on hard
problems mentioned in another HN comment -
[http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-
show/e/ca...](http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/cal-
newport-on-doing-deep-work-and-escaping-social-media-49878016).

I've always been a huge proponent of technology, but not unlike hard drugs or
alcohol, I've noticed my addiction to news (and previously, social media) has
absolutely affected my productivity and attention span to the point where I've
had to make some rather drastic changes to regain my ability to focus.

------
djjeoefndijf
Well I'm glad HN can put an article with 58 points and 4 hours on the front
page while BS like the FBI violating surveillance law gets pushed to the
second page.

Right to attention indeed...

~~~
dredmorbius
What HN chooses to reward/promote, or not, is exceedingly idiosyncratic. I
honestly didn't expect much out of this piece, though I did think it addressed
a useful and important question. I was surprised to find it had attracted this
much attention (and all due irony noted). My experience on submissions is all
over the map.

There are important questions and matters out there. That's what I've been
focused on for some time now, with an increasing awareness that the focus
_itself_ is a significant issue -- it's hard to make assessments of
significance with a cluttered mind.

If you feel that surveillance and intelligence agency or law-enforcement
issues are significant (and I believe they are, very much), then find and
submit good stories on same. Do it frequently. Realise that you'll be lucky (
_very_ lucky) to see one in ten submissions go anywhere.

Part of the skill is in recognising the moods of the beast. Even then, it'll
do what it'll do.

