Love me for my left prefrontal cortex

If, as the recently concluded ETech conference suggested, attention is the normal respiration of the digital economy, then Scott Berkun has some concerns. Attention, he says in his blog, is a 100 percent human resource. We've developed -- and often respond to -- methods for gaining attention (I hope I'm doing that right now), but haven't made the same commitment to intimacy, those moments, Berkun says, that "refuse division."

Instead of "attention," Doc Searls, according to this Stowe Boyd post, substitutes "intention." It's what we "have in our hearts and minds that matters," which is another way of saying more meaning, please.

The clicks and whistles of digital life divert attention from the human connections that add depth and meaning to our lives. So I've got something to say to those future neurobusinesses that might be interested in tickling - not that there's anything wrong with that - the reptilian part of my brain: let's get to know one another first, mkay? Love me for my left prefrontal cortex.

Wayne

Technorati: attention economy, Doc Searls, Stowe Boyd, Scott Berkun, ETech

Comments

[Scott Berkun]

Nice write-up and collection of links.

My biggest gripe with the attention meme is the assumption of goals - much of the tech sector (and the neuroscientists) have a narrow idea of what they think the future should be like, and get upset when someone with a different set of goals tries to join the party.

My primary goal is fullfilment, or at least some kind of happiness, and I frame all the technology / design / innovation stuff in that context. How does this stuff help? (Does it?)

But much of the debate is on non emotional, non-personal terms. There's more noise about fear of misuse of people's attention, or the brave new world of powers attention-minded tools can give us, than there is about whether those powers mean anything to the deepest needs people have. Yes, they're powerful, but is it the right kind of power? Does any technology, on its own, move people towards meaning? I think not.

Which is what makes the exclusion of the Dali Lama from that conference so comical - he should be invited precisely because he's not qualified in their formal, traditional sense. He might just say something from another context, ask important questions that wouldn't be considered otherwise, that might just trigger the neuroscience community to shift their thinking and see their work in a new, and possibly better, way. It's an obvious way to plant a seed for change, and the dissent over it should reinfornce the need to do it.

Anyway, don't mean to rant all over your blog. Thanks for the nice post. And best wishes for ideafestival - looks great.

[Wayne]

Scot, I, too, come at these questions from a different place. People really are the point, something that is too easily forgotten among tech enthusiasts/utopians.

One of the reasons I really like this gig is that cross discipline dialog is where the action is and where the Festival lives. There is so much to find there as opposed to diving deeper into any single discipline. The Dali Lama is a great example - questions of meaning are human questions, not simply those for believers.

Many thanks for the kind words, and please stay in touch.

Wayne