"Paying attention," a common metaphor, is misleading because there are different sorts of attention, and the relationship among them isn't reducible to numbers.
You're right; attention is not a currency. It is the product, and as you point out there are different qualities of product. There's that superficial ("automatic") kind, the kind that might only last a handful of seconds (I'm remembering the famous Microsoft datapoint from some years ago that said we only pay attention for 8 seconds, which inspired a flurry of short-form TV ad experiments that went nowhere), and the deep and durable ("deliberate"), the kind that keeps us turning 652 pages of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to get to the last page.
In the media ecosystem, attention is a kind of agricultural product, fed and watered and sunned with certain kinds of content. The better the fertilizer, hydration, and sunlight the better the growth (to a point). Water it with Gatorade, you get Idiocracy...
I have some thoughts about this essay. Let me start with noting that Kahneman is a favorite of mine. I got to wondering about your speed/depth graph. You drew it as linear, but perhaps it’s not. Let’s look at some alternative lines and what they indicate about using the two modes.
You drew it as linear. That indicates that the user has a certain amount of effort (I’ll call it) and can divide it any way between the two modes. The line could also be concave, convex, or not a line.
You described it as inverse. In that case the line would be concave, using a picky mathematical definition. A sample graph would be a smooth curve through the points, (1,4), (2,2) and (4,1). If that is the representation, that indicates that there is less effort available when mixing modes. Is that so?
An alternative graph would be convex. That would indicate some kind of synergy if you could combine modes 1 and 2. That would be quite appealing, but is it really possible?
It may be that it is not a line at all. The most useful graph may be just the two endpoints. You hint at this: As we saw with the Shakespeare and Castle examples, we don't use the two modes separately: we switch back-and-forth between them moment-to-moment. If that is the representation, that means that the modes are hard to combine.
One personal experience for believing that the model is involves switching came at a international conference on mathematical education. When discussing understanding and proving math concepts that combine geometry and algebra, several mathematicians mentioned visualizing the concepts geometrically and proving them algebraically. In my experience, that indicates a switching process.
While I can’t claim this to be a carful analysis, I lean towards thinking the two modes as not being connected in a way represented by a line. A good metaphor would be helpful here, but I don’t have one.
You're right; attention is not a currency. It is the product, and as you point out there are different qualities of product. There's that superficial ("automatic") kind, the kind that might only last a handful of seconds (I'm remembering the famous Microsoft datapoint from some years ago that said we only pay attention for 8 seconds, which inspired a flurry of short-form TV ad experiments that went nowhere), and the deep and durable ("deliberate"), the kind that keeps us turning 652 pages of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to get to the last page.
In the media ecosystem, attention is a kind of agricultural product, fed and watered and sunned with certain kinds of content. The better the fertilizer, hydration, and sunlight the better the growth (to a point). Water it with Gatorade, you get Idiocracy...
I have some thoughts about this essay. Let me start with noting that Kahneman is a favorite of mine. I got to wondering about your speed/depth graph. You drew it as linear, but perhaps it’s not. Let’s look at some alternative lines and what they indicate about using the two modes.
You drew it as linear. That indicates that the user has a certain amount of effort (I’ll call it) and can divide it any way between the two modes. The line could also be concave, convex, or not a line.
You described it as inverse. In that case the line would be concave, using a picky mathematical definition. A sample graph would be a smooth curve through the points, (1,4), (2,2) and (4,1). If that is the representation, that indicates that there is less effort available when mixing modes. Is that so?
An alternative graph would be convex. That would indicate some kind of synergy if you could combine modes 1 and 2. That would be quite appealing, but is it really possible?
It may be that it is not a line at all. The most useful graph may be just the two endpoints. You hint at this: As we saw with the Shakespeare and Castle examples, we don't use the two modes separately: we switch back-and-forth between them moment-to-moment. If that is the representation, that means that the modes are hard to combine.
One personal experience for believing that the model is involves switching came at a international conference on mathematical education. When discussing understanding and proving math concepts that combine geometry and algebra, several mathematicians mentioned visualizing the concepts geometrically and proving them algebraically. In my experience, that indicates a switching process.
While I can’t claim this to be a carful analysis, I lean towards thinking the two modes as not being connected in a way represented by a line. A good metaphor would be helpful here, but I don’t have one.