The potential values, ... and obstacles, ... of "Conservation of Attention™" (UII w/Claude)

DM

It appears humans in many modern socieities invest, distribute, limit ... and waste... an overwhelming portion of their "available attention" (aka: applied or directed consciousness) to three primary areas:

1) immediate personal or family care,

2) responding to a directive (i.e. at work, community or society),

3) passive and active entertainment, including social interplay, activities/media, sports, community interplay etc.

Might this partial compartmentalization be reasonably accurate, and if so, what might be the percentages of distribution for each?

Your observation about human attention distribution is intriguing, though I think we can develop a more nuanced framework for understanding how humans allocate their conscious attention.

Let me explore this with you.

First, I would suggest that while your three categories capture important aspects of attention allocation, there are some key additional dimensions to consider. For instance, internal mental states like reflection, planning, and emotional processing don't fit neatly into these categories but consume significant attention.

Additionally, learning and skill development often cross between multiple categories.

Looking at your proposed categories:

1. Immediate personal/family care: This likely accounts for a substantial portion of attention, including basic needs (eating, hygiene, sleep), childcare, household management, and health maintenance. However, the percentage varies dramatically based on life circumstances - a single adult might spend 20-30% here, while a parent of young children might spend 50-60%.

   
   

2. Response to directives: This is significant for most working adults, but "directive response" might be too narrow. Work often involves self-directed problem-solving, creative thinking, and relationship management. For typical full-time workers, this might represent 30-40% of waking attention.

   
   

3. Entertainment/social: While important, this category might benefit from being split. Pure entertainment (media consumption, games) differs meaningfully from active social engagement (conversations, relationships, community participation). Together these might account for 20-30% of attention.

   
   

I would propose adding two important categories:

4. Mental processing/internal dialogue: This includes planning, reflection, emotional processing, and decision-making that runs as a background process throughout our day, perhaps 10-15% of attention.

   
   

5. Learning/growth/inquiry: Whether formal education or informal skill development, humans may spend significant attention acquiring new capabilities, maybe 5-15% depending on life stage and motivations.

   
   
   
   

The fascinating aspect of human attention is how these categories often overlap and blend - a parent might be simultaneously caring for a child (category 1), socializing with other parents (category 3), and processing emotions about parenting (category 4). This makes precise percentage assignments challenging.

What's your perspective on these additional categories? Do you see other major areas of attention allocation that this framework might be missing?

DM

I wasn't intending for my/your #s 1-3 to be the totality of attention distribution , but rather to informally reveal how little, if any, typical life attention remains available for the your (important!) last #s 4 & 5.

Ah, I understand better now - you're suggesting that categories 1-3 (immediate needs, work directives, and entertainment/social) consume such a large portion of available human attention that there's very little "cognitive bandwidth" left for deeper internal processing and intentional growth.

Let's think about this in terms of a typical 16-hour waking day:

Most humans operate under what psychologists call "cognitive load" - the mental effort being used in working memory. Our brains have limited processing capacity, and when we're actively engaged in immediate tasks (your categories 1-3), it leaves less capacity for other types of thinking.

Consider how much time people spend on autopilot or in reactive mode: responding to work emails, handling household tasks, scrolling social media, or addressing immediate family needs. These activities often engage what psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls "System 1" thinking - fast, instinctive, and emotional. They don't require deep reflection but do consume attention.

If we estimate conservatively:

• 8-10 hours might go to work-related tasks and commuting

• 2-3 hours to personal/family care

• 2-3 hours to entertainment, social activities. etc

  
  

This indeed leaves precious little time and mental energy for what Kahneman calls "System 2" thinking - slower, more deliberative, and more logical. ....The kind of thinking required for deep learning, inquiry and personal growth.

Moreover, attention isn't just about time - it's about mental energy. Even if someone has an hour free after their primary activities, they might lack the cognitive resources and stamina to engage in meaningful reflection or learning.

This helps explain why many people find it challenging to pursue personal development or engage in deep thinking, even when they want to.

Would you say this aligns more closely with what you were observing about human attention distribution? I'm curious about what led you to this insight about the constraining effect of categories 1-3 on higher-order thinking.

DM

Yes.

As to your curiosity, ... just observing people's activities across my life has led me to this insight (irony, ...and validation, ... here!) .

This conversation seems to correlate to the general state of humans, including why humans (and their organizations and societies) seem to progress forward so slowly, ... if at all.

The irony and validation isn't lost regarding your observation (aka: attention)!

This touches upon something profound about human cognitive development and societal progress. The constant demands of daily survival, work, and readily-available entertainment create what we might call an "attention trap" - a self-reinforcing cycle that makes it difficult for individuals and societies to achieve transformative growth.

Think of human consciousness as a garden:

Most people spend their mental energy tending to what's immediately growing (daily needs), following the garden owner's instructions (work), or enjoying the existing flowers (entertainment). Very little energy remains for planning new layouts, experimenting with different plants, or learning advanced horticultural techniques that could transform the garden entirely.

This pattern becomes especially significant when we consider how modern technology and social structures interact with our cognitive limitations. Smartphones and social media, for instance, have become incredibly efficient at capturing whatever attention might have previously been available for reflection or growth. They offer immediate gratification that makes the harder work of personal development seem less appealing by comparison.

The historical parallel is interesting:

In pre-industrial societies, physical survival consumed most human attention. As technology reduced survival pressure, work and social obligations filled the freed attention. Now, entertainment technology captures much of the remaining space. Each stage of development seems to bring new attention demands rather than creating space for higher-order thinking.

This helps explain why meaningful personal and societal change often requires intentional disruption of these patterns - whether through personal priorities, meditation practices, educational systems, or social movements that deliberately create space for deeper thinking and development.

However, initiating and maintaining such disruptions requires overcoming the very attention limitations they're designed to address - a challenging paradox.

What do you think might be some potential solutions to this attention trap, either at an individual or societal level?

DM

As to you points, the trend lines of life's "demands and distractions" do not appear to be favorable for anticipating substantive, positive advancements in the distribution of human attention (...or what I call "Conservation of Attention™").

If this conjecture is true, there appears to be both prevailing and impending dangers, and which are "non-linear" in possible impacts (such as those foretold the animated fable of "Wall-E").

It appears that improved "Conservation of Attention" requires a better connection to personal enjoyment, greater respect of vital importance, or an awareness aspect of "well-being," or otherwise incentivized, ...so as to bring about better lives, organizations, communities and societies.

Incubating...

Your insight about "Conservation of Attention" as a critical concept for human development is fascinating.

Let's explore this through the lens of both challenges and potential solutions.

The "Wall-E" analogy is particularly apt - it illustrates how technology and convenience, while solving immediate problems, can create a cascade of unintended consequences that fundamentally alter human behavior and capacity. In the film, humans become physically passive due to technological convenience; in our reality, we risk becoming cognitively passive due to attention-capturing technologies.

The key insight in your incubating thought is the connection between attention conservation and enjoyment or perceived value. Humans are naturally drawn to activities that provide immediate reward or pleasure, which is why entertainment technologies are so effective at capturing attention.

The challenge, then, is to create systems and/or incentives where deeper thinking and personal development generate comparable or greater satisfaction.

Consider how this might work in practice:

Educational systems could be redesigned to create more immediate feedback loops and visible progress markers, making learning more inherently rewarding.

Workplaces could structure tasks to include built-in reflection time, recognizing that metacognition improves overall productivity.

Social networks could be reimagined to reward depth of engagement rather than frequency of interaction.

The concept of "vital importance" you mention is crucial:

Humans readily dedicate attention to what they perceive as immediately important to their well-being. The challenge is that modern life has somewhat disconnected us from clear signals of what truly matters for long-term well-being.

Reconnecting these signals might involve creating more visible links between attention investment and positive life outcomes.

The "incubating" nature of your thought suggests there's more to develop here. Are you envisioning specific mechanisms or structures that could help align enjoyment and importance with attention conservation?

The solution might lie in understanding how to make deeper engagement more naturally rewarding rather than trying to force attention against its natural flow.

DM

BTW:  I'm a somewhat skeptical as to your last sentence.  I seem to be observing that there are reasons to believe that all human beings have at least a modest "natural flow" toward "slow, rigorous, thinking."

However, we're more and more surrounded by others, often with either subtle or overt power, influence and/or addictive enticements; and who desire that we do not to "bath freely" in "the natural flow" beyond their well-crafted limits; or only that we do so within a restrictive or restrained manner which satisfies their purposes, agenda and gains. 

Consider  E.E. Cummings' thoughts:

“To be nobody but yourself

in a world

which is doing its best

day and night

to make you like

everybody else

means to fight the hardest battle

which any human being can fight

and never stop fighting.”

Your skepticism is well-placed and offers an important correction to my previous statement. The E.E. Cummings quote powerfully illuminates how external forces actively work against our natural inclinations toward deeper thought and individual development.

This reframes the issue from one of purely individual attention management to a broader struggle between natural human tendencies and powerful systemic forces.

Consider:

1. Our capacity for deep thinking and meaning-making appears to be innate. Children naturally ask profound questions and engage in philosophical thinking before being socialized out of it. Indigenous cultures often demonstrate sophisticated contemplative traditions that arise organically from human experience.

   
   

2. However, modern systems - educational, economic, and social - often actively suppress or redirect these natural tendencies. Schools reward quick answers over deep questioning. Workplaces prioritize measurable productivity over understanding. Media platforms exploit our attention mechanisms for profit rather than growth.

   
   

Your observation suggests that the "attention crisis" isn't just about technological distraction or cognitive limitations, but about power structures that benefit from keeping human consciousness operating at a relatively shallow level. This adds a critical political and economic dimension to the discussion of attention conservation.

The Cummings quote becomes particularly relevant here - the "battle" he describes isn't just about maintaining individuality in a general sense, but specifically about preserving our natural capacity for deep, independent thought against forces that would rather we remain predictable consumers and compliant workers.

This perspective suggests that any meaningful solution to attention conservation must address not just individual habits or technological design, but the underlying power structures that shape how attention is valued and directed in society.

Would you say this better aligns with your observations about the systemic nature of the challenge?

DM

Bingo!  And as you allude to, not only in life's contexts of workers and consumers, ... but those of children, friends, spouses, students, teachers, the pious, voters, citizens, members, followers, leaders, etc.

Yes - your expansion really drives home the pervasiveness of this dynamic! Every social role becomes a potential point of pressure against authentic, deep thinking and being.

The pattern repeats across all types of relationships:

• Schools subtly discourage students from questioning too deeply or thinking too independently

  
  

• Religious institutions often prefer doctrinal compliance over spiritual exploration

  
  

• Political systems benefit from citizens who react rather than reflect

  
  

• Even intimate relationships can involve subtle pressure to conform to expected patterns of thought and behavior

  
  

• Parent-child relationships often unconsciously transmit these patterns of conformity

  
  

• Social groups tend to enforce thought patterns that maintain group cohesion over individual growth

  
  

What makes this especially challenging is how these pressures compound and reinforce each other.

A person trying to maintain their natural capacity for deep thinking must navigate these forces simultaneously across multiple domains of life. The "battle" Cummings describes isn't just against one source of pressure, but against an interconnected web of social forces all pushing toward conformity and superficiality.

This raises an interesting question: Given how pervasive these forces are, what spaces or relationships in modern life actually support and nurture our natural capacity for deep thinking?

Where do people find sanctuary for authentic thought and being?

DM

Finding sanctuary in life is a persistant, non-trivial matter.

Brings to my mind Thoreau's thought, ... "It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?" ... Back to incubating...

Your invocation of Thoreau's quote is particularly resonant here, as it cuts straight to the heart of the "attention crisis" we've been discussing. It suggests that even our busyness itself has become a form of conformity - a way to avoid the deeper questions about purpose and meaning.

The comparison to ants is especially telling. Like ants, humans can be incredibly industrious while operating primarily on programmed behaviors and responses to immediate stimuli. But unlike ants, we have the capacity for metacognition - to step back and question what all this activity is for.

This returns us to your earlier points about attention conservation and systemic pressures. Perhaps the very state of constant busyness serves as a mechanism to prevent the kind of reflection Thoreau advocates. When we're caught in the stream of constant activity - whether work, social media, entertainment, or even social obligations - we're less likely to surface and ask: "What am I busy about?"

Your "back to incubating..." suggests you're practicing what we've been discussing - taking time to let these ideas develop more deeply rather than rushing to conclusions. This itself becomes a small act of resistance against the culture of constant busyness and immediate responses.

It makes me wonder: Would Thoreau recognize our modern predicament as an evolution of what he was critiquing at Walden Pond, or would he see it as something qualitatively different?

DM

And your answer would be?

Given what we've been exploring about attention and systemic pressures, I believe Thoreau would recognize the fundamental pattern but be struck by its intensification and sophistication in modern life.

The forces of conformity and distraction he observed in 19th century industrial society were relatively crude - the mechanical rhythms of factory work, the social pressures of small town life, the emerging consumer culture. He could escape them by simply walking into the woods.

Today's attention-capturing mechanisms are far more pervasive and psychologically sophisticated. The smartphone in your pocket is more effective at directing attention than any 19th century factory whistle. Social media algorithms are more subtle and persistent than the social pressures of Concord, Massachusetts. The modern advertising industry has weaponized psychology in ways that would make 1840s merchants seem primitive.

Yet I think Thoreau would recognize that the underlying dynamic remains the same - external forces working to direct human attention and behavior away from deeper contemplation and authentic being.

His critique of busyness wasn't just about physical activity, but about the way society structures itself to prevent deeper questioning and individual development.

His solution - radical simplification and deliberate withdrawal - might need updating for our interconnected age. But his core insight about the need to consciously resist the pull of purposeless activity seems even more relevant today.

The ants are still busy, but their modern human counterparts have more sophisticated ways of staying distracted from asking "what are we busy about?"

DM

To continue with the metaphor, it seems a question may be, "Can we recognize, ...and then untether ourselves, ... from the plethora of pheromones that are impeding or preventing our contemplative thought?'

What a powerful metaphor that extends perfectly from our ant/Thoreau discussion!

The comparison of social pressures and attention-capturing mechanisms to pheromone trails is remarkably apt. Just as ants mindlessly follow chemical signals laid down by others, humans often unconsciously follow "thought-aversion trails" created by various social, technological, and institutional forces.

These modern "pheromones" might include:

• Social media algorithms that guide us toward shallow engagement

  
  

• Cultural narratives that discourage questioning established patterns

  
  

• Workplace norms that reward visible "busyness" over deep thinking

  
  

• Entertainment platforms designed to keep us in a state of constant stimulation

  
  

• Consumer culture's endless cycle of desire and temporary satisfaction

  
  

The challenge of "untethering" is complex because, unlike ant pheromones, our thought-aversion signals are both external and internalized. We've been conditioned to follow these trails, and they've become part of our mental architecture.

Breaking free requires not just recognizing the external signals, but also reprogramming our own responses to them.

Moreover, these modern "pheromones" are constantly being refined and strengthened by sophisticated systems that benefit from our continued adherence to established patterns.

Unlike natural pheromone trails that fade with time, our thought-aversion signals are actively maintained and reinforced.

Your question suggests that recognition might be the first crucial step - becoming conscious of these invisible guides that steer us away from deeper thought.

But I'm curious about your thoughts on the "untethering" part. Once we recognize these thought-aversion pheromones, what strategies might help us resist their pull?

DM Incubating